Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: khnyny

We enable the government to protect the rights of others. You don’t have the right to harm somebody else or their property, or otherwise infringe on their liberty. Sexual relations between two consenting adults does not qualify.

I am concerned about the way this decision was reached. That’s why I’m saying we should be removing the government from these types of issues.


467 posted on 05/16/2008 6:21:02 AM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies ]


To: MinnesotaLibertarian

One of the dissenting judges should be nominated to the Supreme Court.

Her dissent stated that she was personally for gay “marriage”, but the people had voted on a law against it, and there was nothing in the California constitution that could state that this law was unconstitutional.

What a breath of fresh air. A judge that doesn’t approach all decisions from the standpoint of “what should be” in their opinion, then finding justification for it.

I haven’t read the supporting opinions, but I’m sure they include the personal viewpoints of the judges instead of an examination of the law.


468 posted on 05/16/2008 6:24:42 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson