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

Skip to comments.

Judicial Watch Statement on CA Supreme Court Ruling that Overturns Traditional Marriage
Judicial Watch ^ | staff

Posted on 05/16/2008 8:12:15 PM PDT by T.L.Sink

Judicial Watch issued the following statement on the ruling by the California Supreme Court that imposes same-sex marriage on the state:

"Today, a bare majority of the California Supreme Court, in an audacious political power grab, usurped the democratic process by redefining marriage. The laws of this nation rely on the proper functioning of the courts, including a proper balance of powers, and the judiciary's ability to demonstrate restraint. This ruling undermines the rule of law. Bigamists and other 'polyamorists' will take solace in this activist and radical ruling because, if its logic is followed, it will be difficult to keep marriage limited to only two people. Judges are not free to rewrite statutes to say what they would like or what they believe to be better social policy." Judicial Watch had filed an amicus brief with the California Supreme Court.

(Excerpt) Read more at judicialwatch.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: California
KEYWORDS: caglbt; homosexualagenda; judicialwatch; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last
Obviously another example of a few unelected lawyers choosing to write law to advance their personal political agendas, rather than interpret what's already been written. Imagine what the U.S. Supreme will give us if Barack or Hillary are making the appointments! And it's certain that many will have to be made in the near future, given the age and health of some now serving.
1 posted on 05/16/2008 8:12:16 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink
More 9th circus folly!!!
2 posted on 05/16/2008 8:17:21 PM PDT by evad (.I.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink
Imagine what the U.S. Supreme will give us if Barack or Hillary are making the appointments!

Expect no better from McAmnesty. He voted for Ginsburg and said point blank that he wouldn't appoint someone like Alito because his conservatism was obvious.
3 posted on 05/16/2008 8:20:29 PM PDT by CottonBall (A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority. "Civil Disobedience", Henry D.Thoreau)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink

I dont have a warm feeling about mcnutts judicial nominees either.


4 posted on 05/16/2008 8:20:40 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Defeat liberalism, its the right thing to do for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: evad
These guys are on the California state supreme court, but they definitely seem to be 9th Circus wannabees.

Their spouses now know something more about their real interests.

5 posted on 05/16/2008 8:20:41 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: evad
More 9th circus folly!!!

This wasn't the 9th Circus, it was the California Supreme Court.

6 posted on 05/16/2008 8:20:41 PM PDT by oldbrowser (Few things are more dangerous than articulate superficiality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser
ah...very good.

It must be in the water.

7 posted on 05/16/2008 8:24:13 PM PDT by evad (.I.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: evad
Every generation needs a new revolution.-- Thomas Jefferson

A revolution that is not accomplished by the peaceful means of the ballot box, will eventually be exercised in the less peaceful means of open war. The CA court has moved from the virtue of America and propelled us to an upcoming civil war.

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. -- John Quincy Adams

8 posted on 05/16/2008 8:37:21 PM PDT by DaveyB (Land of the taxed and home of the slave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CottonBall; imahawk

You guys are probably right but McCain’s latest statements indicate he’d appoint original intent justices. Is this just a sop to the conservative base? I don’t know. It’s hard to predict the actions of a lunatic!


9 posted on 05/16/2008 8:53:47 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink

Three of the four judges who voted in the majority were Republican appointees.


10 posted on 05/16/2008 9:14:12 PM PDT by Judges Gone Wild (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink

I don’t think you can trust anything McCain says.


11 posted on 05/16/2008 9:14:34 PM PDT by FFranco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink

I dont think mcnutts would pass up a chance to stick conservatives in the eye over judges.


12 posted on 05/16/2008 9:25:44 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Defeat liberalism, its the right thing to do for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: evad

This decision didn’t come from the 9th Circus - but don’t worry! They’ll be affirming it soon!


13 posted on 05/16/2008 9:33:09 PM PDT by RebekahT ("Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem." -- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink

Any Court based in San Francisco is a circus.


14 posted on 05/16/2008 9:47:06 PM PDT by TheEaglehasLanded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Judges Gone Wild

Republicans have made plenty of disastrous choices, too. I think, more often than not, the judges appointed by Republicans have had moderate/conservative judicial records but then moved left once appointed. But in California there are few real conservatives and I can imagine Arnold nominating some “Republicans” who are more like Trotskyites. In Mexifornia, they’d be considered social and political conservatives!


15 posted on 05/16/2008 10:07:30 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

Right - the inmates are running the asylum in that place.


16 posted on 05/16/2008 10:10:00 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: evad

This isn’t 9th circuit court. This is California Supreme Court. No higher appeals.


17 posted on 05/16/2008 10:39:33 PM PDT by 49erss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink
You wrote
Obviously another example of a few unelected lawyers...
California Supreme Court justices are affimed by general election -- in other words, elected by the public. The four who voted to end marriage discrimination enjoyed support from libertarian and conservative "small government" activists both in Sacramento and among the voting populace.
18 posted on 05/16/2008 10:39:34 PM PDT by sprocculator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink; All
Regarding the decision of California judges concerning gay marriage, given that the judges not only had Proposition 22 in their faces, but also that Californian’s will likely consider a one-man, one-woman marriage amendment to their constitution in November, the judges’ decision reeks of pro-gay, special-interest PC.

Romans 1:25-27 tells us that same-sex sexual relationships are a consequence of idolatry. In other words, such relationships are a consequence of disobeying the 1ST COMMANDMENT, a major aspect of the GREATEST COMMANDMENT, to love the jealous God with all your being.

Homosexuals need to keep in mind, however, that the good news of the gospel is not about how God despises same-sex sexual relationships. In fact, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 indicates that certain members of that church had been slaves to such relationships but had been cleansed in Jesus' name. So these former homosexuals had evidently repented and accepted God's grace to straighten their lives out.

John 3:16
Revelation 3:20

19 posted on 05/16/2008 10:47:35 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink

Those California Supreme Court scumbags can only “write law” if the legislature and governor allow them to. In a nation where co-equal branches of government had any spine at all, small cadres of “men in black” would never get away with these obscene power grabs.

Unfortunately, politicians with spine are a very rare commodity these days.


20 posted on 05/16/2008 10:54:04 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

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.

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