"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.
Posted on 03/14/2005 12:36:21 PM PST by Brilliant
SAN FRANCISCO - A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.
In the eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed to the state's highest court, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.
"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.
They all think they're God.
Hey Kansas, this is why you need to vote for that marriage amendment in April.
"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.
Now here is a guy that can properly be called a little "Eichmann".
That is the most IRRATIONAL statement I have heard in quite awhile.
This judge, this modern day Roland Frieseler, should be removed from the bench immediately. He just legalized polygamy and besstiality too with this stupid, leftist, hate-the-family ruling.
This guy is just a county Superior Court judge. What a joke! He thinks that he can tell the whole state what to do?! Who does he think he is, a Supreme Court judge, or God?
Give me a break! There is indeed a rational basis, to say the least - take a biology class! The courts just don't want to see it. I have posted on this before - I can't do it all over again. I am terribly exasperated by all this . . .
Traditional marriage sets the standard of what is best for conceiving and rearing children.
The judge may have missed that little bit.
LOL! But that's an insult to old Cosmo! :)
You should be careful speaking about your betters. Judges can imprison you. Never mind G-d, he's got nothing on the Supremes.
< / judicial sacrelidge>
In my view, the "rational basis" is set forth in the statute. The judge is supposed to apply the law as written. He's not supposed to decide whether the legislature might more appropriately have written it some other way.
Of course, this is California. What am I thinking?
Who is this judge and who appointed him? It's time to short California! They are going down, if this ruling stands.
What next? Will "segregated" bathrooms and locker rooms for men and women be outlawed?
I think once you say there is no rational basis for "traditional marriage" (i.e., man and woman) wou'd be hard pressed to rationalize a marriage with just two partners.
Bestiality I don't even want to think about. I think I even read something once about some favorable ruling in Europe. I tried to block it out of my mind.
Let's suppose he's correct, and that limiting marriage to heterosexual partners is not rational. So what? Why do laws have to be rational? I think it is rational to limit this, but even if it's not, so what.
No one appointed him. He was elected.
These judges must go NOW! The people of California voted to establish law stating what the definition of marriage means in their state.
How dare this judge do this.
What a $%^&ing twit!!!!
outies go to innies...
no outies to outies,
no innies to innines
Is that RATIONAL enough for ya?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.