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.
Whatever happened to the creed: "A government of laws, rather than of men?"
Didn't he invent... the three period pause???
First off, we keep hearing over and over again from leftists, that there is a wall of seperation between "church and state."
At the same time, this court states that there's a "right" for homosexuals to marry. This begs the question, where to rights come from?
I've never actually heard this addressed by any leftists, although I've heard some mumble something about how "government gives people rights." But if that's the case, then governments can take those rights away just as easily (which has been seen over and over again during just the last 100 years).
Worse, it is contrary to the two founding documents of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.
From the Declaration of Independence: " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This states, in no uncertain terms, that rights come from G-d, NOT FROM GOVERNMENTS! These rights are unalienable, meaning that the government should NOT be able to take those rights away (although that never stopped any government that wanted to do so... After all, they tend to have the biggest and best guns).
" --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "
This flatly states that governments are formed by men, and therefore, did not exist before their formation. Taking this a step further, if you believe that rights come from governments, you must then believe that without governments, we have no rights.
This ruling asserts that there's a "right" to homosexual mariage. But if that right comes from G-d, then G-d must be in favor of homosexual mariage. But the Bible doesn't support that at all. But then, according to these same people who support that "right," the Bible has no place in government.
So, they are specifically contradicting the intent of the Declaration of Independence.
Another important thing to think of is how the judicial branch is usurping the power of the legislative and executive branches of government, in a direct contradiction of both the Constitution (which lays out exactly what the governemt - and each branch - is allowed to do) and the Declaration of Independence: "--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, " This ruling specifically contradicts the consent of the governed!
Mark
That's three dot journalism boy...
I like yer tagline...how about Gumbermental Environmental Parisitic Progeny Even Trying To Ovulate? (Geppetto) The puppetmasters are breeding a new CONservancy paid for by the conned servants (taxpayerus americanus).
Yassireebob, it shore is!!! (and mine is three stinger yernalism)
An endangered species, if EVER there was one!!!
"Geppetto," not bad... not bad at all!!!
Not precisely, it's not a matter of "should." Government CANNOT take those rights because they are unalienable; i.e., cannot be separated from you. Government can only violate unalienable rights; they cannot take them.
Bump.
Once again someone's ordering room service and charging it to my room.
If I didn't have the best job in the world, I'd have left long ago.
That is determined by whether we can keep it, as Mr. Franklin expressed.
Eternal vigilance and all that.
I'm going from supporter, to activist on this one. So the fight is just starting.
I'm confident that we can do this once we open more people's eyes to the hollow LIEberal agenda and show people what happens when sleazes like Richard Kramer are empowered more people need to see the pattern that has been used to degrade America from within.
We know their names, its just a matter of getting the message out. I think that breaking the extremist academic fraud pagan monopoly in academia is the next step after we get an amendment protecting society from this assault on the crucial human institution. Maybe we can "mobilize" on the streets, if there is are good reasons for street protesting in America today, judicial tyranny is one of them. But I don't know much about doing such things myself. I just know that we have to break the mold, responsewise this time, on this crucial tipping point.
When people know what's on the table, believe me, they will not side with the nihilists or fall for their propaganda anymore. My idea is that we have to expand exponentially and extend our communications campaign into the belly of the beast, large cities that went Democrat for lack of information.
Well, if you hear anything in this vain, let me know, I'm relatively new to Free Republic and am interested in effective activism.
Actually, the picture makes tons of sense, "Blue" California is ruled by oligarchy/degenerates. The picture represents the culture that sets the agenda in Republican states vs those that went Democratic.
The libs know they can't redefine marriage at the ballot-box, as evidenced by most Californians defending it at the ballot box with proposition 22. So a sleazy lawyer perverted the law and inposed his policy preferance on society.
Such a state of affairs must change.
imposed*
Until Republican professional politicians stop acting like the Democrats have control of castrating them, we are screwed.
A power shift of just 5=7% will make major differences in California.
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.