Posted on 03/15/2005 5:53:44 PM PST by srm913
As we have discussed earlier today, (story) "A San Francisco Superior Court judge declared California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional yesterday, saying it violates the basic human right to marry a person of one's choice. More than a year after..." Does the Constitution say anything about this? It doesn't, right? The Constitution doesn't talk about marriage at all, period, one way or the other, right? So we have this big umbrella here, "basic human rights," and the judge is allowed to determine what a human right is and isn't and whether the Constitution means it or doesn't. That's what has happened here. "More than a year after San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom directed the county clerk to issue licences to gay and lesbian couples at city hall, Judge Richard Kramer gave legal vindication to Newsom's rationale and that is that the state's 28-year-old law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman is arbitrary and unfair." You know, every time I go to California to make a speech, always in the Q&A session people ask, "Rush, what are we going to do out here?" and I say, "You're screwed. At least I get to leave and go home tonight. You leave and go home and you're still here." I mean, these people in California, it doesn't matter what they do, some judge is going to come along and tell them that what they're doing is unconstitutional, be it Prop 187, be it Proposition X, be it this law defining marriage as that between a man and a woman, some judge is going to come along and tell the voters of California you don't know what you're doing.
"'No rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners.' Kramer wrote in a decision relying on rights guaranteed by the California Constitution. He cited as precedent another groundbreaking ruling, the state Supreme Court's 1948 ruling striking down California's law against interracial marriage." So he is comparing racial strife to homosexual strife culturally in the country. Now, his decision is not going to take effect -- during appeals likely to wind up in the state Supreme Court sometime next year. Now, here's one other thing he said: "A discriminatory law cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," become traditional? I mean, we're going to have to go back and rewrite, I mean how long has marriage been what it is? And it didn't start here. Nevertheless, this will go all of the way up the chain, the food chain in the California court system. But, hey, folks, there's no guarantee what's going to happen. "Well, it's okay. We used to be able to rely on the courts, Rush. Why, the judges, they'll sort all this out, sort it all out."
Now, the California papers are making a big deal today that the judge, Richard Kramer, is Catholic and a Republican. The headline in the San Francisco Chronicle today: "Judge is Catholic and Republican -- 'a brilliant guy.'"
"If things get really tough judge Richard Kramer could always break out his old flak jacket. Five years ago, Kramer, who ruled Monday that the state law against same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, sat on the San Francisco superior court bench wearing a bulletproof vest during a gang trial.
"'He's a brilliant guy,' said Joe O'Sullivan, defense attorney in San Francisco. 'I was fighting with him all the time in that gang trial case, and most of the time I think he was wrong, but he was fair. He tried to do the right thing. In fact, if I saw him in a restaurant I'd shake his hand.' The native of Brookline, Massachusetts," Ah-ha. A Republican from Brookline. That's where Michael Dukakis lives, "earned his law degree at USC, practiced civil law in San Francisco before the then-governor Pete Wilson named him to the bench. Over the years the 57-year-old Roman Catholic Kramer and registered Republican has gained a reputation of being compassionate, respectful, and unbiased." Well, that sets him apart, of course, from other Republicans who are not respectful, who have no compassion, and who are totally biased. See, this is how this stuff happens. He's compassionate, respectful, and unbiased. He's an odd Republican, but we'll take him. We'll take him. "In one survey of judges an attorney wrote of Kramer, 'He has a social worker attitude. He's interested in the defendant, where he went to school, how old he is. He wants the whole picture.'" All right, there we go. So we've got a judge out there with a social worker attitude.
I don't need to amplify this. I don't need to explain "a judge with a social worker attitude." That just sums it all up. Now, this business that the judge in a gay marriage case is a Catholic Republican appointee, so what? So is Anthony Kennedy, and he ruled that same-sex sodomy is a constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment which set the stage for holding that same-sex marriage is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. I told you this was going to happen. You know, when this same-sex marriage started is right after the Supreme Court found that sodomy is constitutional, and I predicted it on the program, and so did Scalia. Scalia in his dissent wrote that this is where this is headed and where it ends we can't possibly know. So, is isn't about party affiliation, folks. It's not about ideology as so many critics seem to think. It's really just about the law, constitutional law, jurisprudence and the kind of people we have on the bench and it seems increasingly, we have people that institute and implement their personal policy preferences rather than simply examine the law.
Richard Kramer is a state judge, not a federal judge.
That explains a lot.
All right, the State Circus.
No, I believe it was Gamorah. or was it Sodom... whaterer.. it's San Fran Syphilisco now...
We are sooooooooooooooooo screwed.
Being the blueist of the blue states we are screwed more often than a Thai hooker on nickle nicht.
Last thing I remember
I was running for the door
I had to find the passage back to the place I was before
Relax said the nightman
We are programed to recieve
You can check out any time you like
But you can never leave
Welcome to the hotel California
--Boot Hill
I agree with Rush. Tie this judge and Ward Churchill and Whoopie Goldberg (if indeed that is her name) to the Donk Party. Let them marinate and then add Hillary's record, in small doses, through 2008.
You're right. This Judge was the lowest rung on the ladder. I believe the people of California's will will be upheld in the long run and Prop. 22 will stand.
-only two people?
-only human-human partners?
-only adults?
-only people outside one's immediate family?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
JASON KUZNICKI,
The approval of morals by society as reflected by enacting the Defense of Marriage Act and outlawing prostitution might be beyond you, and that's unfortunate; If there is no truth there is only power.
Theft, murder, and fraud are sins. Because they are sins should not disqualify them from law. This is only common sense. The Bibe is the best guide that any society can have to establish law. This is something that rigorous immoralist intellectual frauds have to face. Moral relativism doesn't cut it. Society and law may affirm some values over others.
The Defense of Marriage Act passed in accordance with Article II, Section 8, of the CA Constitution by a very wide margin. Society tolerates but does not accept homosexuality, that the Judge says that society accepts homosexuality - when clearly the people have expressed that it does not.
The Cross in San Diego, the Seal of Los Angeles, and this. These attacks are concerted, and American citizens don't have to accept this crap. We won't.
This judge wants to condone Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender nonsense and he may, but as I pointed out before, he crossed the line by perverting the law to impose his honor of barbarism on our society. Dennis Prager pointed out that homosexual prostitution was practiced in temples in antiquity. These were the days when oligarchy reigned supreme, rule by the pagan view "even when I'm wrong I'm right." Back to the cave, if we allow the trousered ape to take over our country and don't wake up to the corruption of academia that this corrupt judge is a product of.
American Law is undergirded by Judeo-Christian values. These are the values that are the bulwark of the institutions of marriage, of capitalism and the American government. Law is not made in an amoral vacuum. To imply the contrary, as this judge has done, is immoral. That is the corruption of American law and to subject humanity to the whims of oligarchs.
---someone out there in Californistan needs to remind everyone about Chief Justice Rose Bird---
This is why internet forums and blogs are the wave of the future. While MSM journalists may decry the lack of fact-checking in the blogosphere, the opposite is true. Whenever someone posts erroneous information, he is called on it immediately- much as I was as quickly as post #2.
The state legislatures and the congress are long past due impeaching these judges. If the people want a government which santions queer marriage, lets vote on it. O, yea, they did that in 11 states last election and not one, not one passed. Do not mistreat homsexuals, but do not elevate them to special status. IMPEACH THE JUDGES. They are tyranizing this country. They are sworn to uphold the Constitution and they don't. These bastards just "free associate", like some New Age encounter group, and come up with "law" out of whole cloth. We need our country back.
You know liberalism is a mental defect when an insignificant superior court judge believes he has the right to "interpret" the Constitution.
Imperial hubris, anyone?
A superior court judge has both the right and the duty to interpret the Constitution. The problem in the present case is that the judge failed to interpret the Constitution, rather relying on some nebulous "basic human rights" theory which is the hallmark of leftists that reject the Bill of Rights that were penned by our founding fathers.
--Boot Hill
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.