Calif. Gay-'Marriage' Trial Wraps Up (Homosexual judge prepared to overturn Prop 8.)

Wall Street Journal ^ | 06-17-2010 | Nathan Koppel

[freedomwarrior998]

The federal trial over California’s gay-marriage ban wrapped up yesterday with closing arguments from both sides.

Judge Vaughn Walker (pictured) seemed skeptical of the attorneys defending Proposition 8, which has outlawed same-sex marriage in the state since late 2008.

[freedomwarrior998]

The FDRQ overseeing the case is going to overturn the votes of 13,000,000 Californians. He doesn't care.

[greatplains]

Of course he doesn’t care. The homosexual agenda trumps everything.

[SandRat]

Solid grounds for an appeal, the Jusge should hae recused himself.

[Nateman]

If your vote counted for anything they would not let you do it.

[freedomwarrior998]

It’s disgusting to see one filthy deranged pervert overturn the will of the people. The case law is absolutely clear, the Supreme Court of the United States actually has already held that traditional marriage laws do not violate the Constitution. This was pointed out to this pervert, and he basically told the lawyers that he didn’t care and he didn’t think that the precedent was binding on him.

[freedomwarrior998]

The appeal goes to the Ninth Circuit. This judge will also stack the case record with “facts” that support his perverted agenda. The factual record cannot normally be altered on appeal. That was the whole reason this diseased pervert wanted to have a “trial” in the first place.

[apillar]

This is going to the Supreme Court no matter how the butt bandit rules. It might actually help get the Social Conservatives fired up for November if he does overturn the will of the people.

[jonascord]

This judge is putting a lot of faith in the System. You know, the one that is not paying the cops, or state workers, or unemployment, and is planning to triple gas prices, lay off every oil worker on the Gulf coast, and regulate the internet, and get this whole God thing out of government...

By all means. Keep defying the VOTED WILL OF THE PEOPLE! What could possibly go wrong?

[Cyman]

It seems that with all of the important cases that are discussed about on FreeRepublic the main impediment to the plaintifts is lack of legal standing an/or jurisdiction. Now since the ability to get married is dictated by the state wouldn’t it seem that any federal trial court and judge would lack jurisdiction?

[fwdude]

Yes! The case was fraught with favoritism and bias. Walker had two of his procedural decisions disadvantaging the Prop 8 defenders reversed by a higher court. This should have been stopped from it’s inception as a blatant circus, but like another poster said, the “gay” agenda trumps everything else.

[ntmxx]

If ruling is in favor of homosexuals as the new ruling class.

The Headline will read,

“Now hear this Homo-Leninists are in charge, submit now!”

[Die_Hard Conservative Lady]

All of this just makes me so mad! Just like when they threw out prop. 187 back in the 90’s, when I lived in California..

It’s just making more and more people mad.....

I can’t wait for November.....

[Tzimisce]

If a white judge unilaterally threw out Affirmative Action, what would the media and our elites say?

[achilles2000]

What they should say if that happened is that a judge finally upheld the law -—of course they wouldn’t say that.

[max americana]

The SC will vote against overturning this faggot decision eventually.

[DesertRenegade]

It still stuns me that the judge didn’t recuse himself. The liberals would scream bloody murder if some judge associated with the KKK presided over an African-American’s trial. Yet they allow an active and unrepentant homosexual judge to make decisions about forcing his lifestyle on all Americans. That is pure insanity.

[Dilbert San Diego]

I know this applies only to California specifically, but, as a federal case, won’t this call into question each state that has a constitutional amendment defining marriage?

In this case, the state Supreme Court of Calif. upheld Prop. 8 even though it overturned their own previous court order mandating homosexual marriage. So if all state laws and procedures were followed in passing Prop. 8, where is the violation of federal law?

Or if the judge finds a violation of federal law if a state defines marriage, doesn’t this call into question each other state defining marriage also? If this judge decides that it was against federal law to define marriage within the borders of a state, then how can any state define marriage at all? Are we at a point where only judges can define marriage?

No matter what happens, the U.S. Supreme Court will have to weigh in.

[fwdude]

Judge Vaughn Walker (pictured) seemed skeptical of the attorneys defending Proposition 8, which has outlawed same-sex marriage in the state since late 2008.

First of all, people need to understand the fact that this isn't a "proposition" anymore, hasn't been in over a year. It is an amendment to the California State Constitution - IT'S PART OF THE CONSTITUTION. Walker wants to overturn the California State Constitution because some people's feelings might get hurt.