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

Skip to comments.

SOURCE: CA Prop 8 held to be unconstitutional under due process and equal protection.
Drudge Report ^ | 8/04/2010 | Drudge

Posted on 08/04/2010 1:45:48 PM PDT by tsmith130

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 361-364 next last
To: italianquaker

It’s called Judge shopping, the left does it all the time. The right needs to start using this tactic.


261 posted on 08/04/2010 5:03:56 PM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama = Epic Fail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

The Colorado law did not interfere with gay “rights” I was here at the time. It merely prevented assigning gays protected class status.


262 posted on 08/04/2010 5:04:19 PM PDT by Mom MD (Jesus is the Light of the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: L,TOWM

I would be lying if I said I hadn’t thought about that.


263 posted on 08/04/2010 5:12:27 PM PDT by whitey righty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
To the left abortion and Gay marriage are fundamental rights that may not be submitted to a vote, and don't depend on the outcome of any election.

Meanwhile freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, freedom to own a gun... ect.. are all infringed upon to the point that they don't even exist practically.

So to sum things up.. liberals rights are absolute, conservative right are subject to restriction, got it.

264 posted on 08/04/2010 5:13:32 PM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama = Epic Fail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: yooling

>>You avoid California because of a judges ruling? The people of California voted for Prop.8.
A judge just overruled the will of the people. Get your facts straight before you go running off at the mouth.<<

Oh, the irony. I’ve BEEN avoiding it for five years.


265 posted on 08/04/2010 5:13:36 PM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Mom MD

Of course it didn’t. There’s no such thing as gay rights.


266 posted on 08/04/2010 5:14:07 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: yooling

Map = Locus of girlie men?

http://www.ksby.com/news/gov-schwarzengger-issues-statement-on-prop-8-ruling/


267 posted on 08/04/2010 5:14:51 PM PDT by gsan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: cranked
I am having a hard time finding where same sex marriage is a ‘fundamental right.’

That's because it's not a fundamental right anymore than abortion is.

I am also finding that the majority rule in our country, as with some states, is being steadily overridden by minority rule.

That's because liberals believe that our laws exist to protect minorities from the majority.

268 posted on 08/04/2010 5:20:21 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Floratina
*ding, ding, ding, ding*

We have a winner!

269 posted on 08/04/2010 5:22:56 PM PDT by nonliberal (Graduate: Curtis E. LeMay School of International Relations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: whitey righty

I am still going by the Claire Wolfe benchmark for “here we go” time.


270 posted on 08/04/2010 5:23:05 PM PDT by L,TOWM (The Democratic Party Platform: Lies, promulgated by Liars whose only real talent is Lying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130

I want to put up a ballot proposition to abolish the court.


271 posted on 08/04/2010 5:25:51 PM PDT by mhx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
"That's because liberals believe that our laws exist to protect minorities from the majority."

I would alter that statement to read that liberals believe that our laws exist to impose the will of minorities on the majority.

272 posted on 08/04/2010 5:27:53 PM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
"red herring.

corporations do not produce future citizens.

corporations do not give birth.

This is not about ownership or property.

This is about society continuing society and society rewards the institution not the individual

corporations are about individual reward.

even a childless couple proves the model. "

Talk about your red herrings.

Where in the Constitution does it mention anything about givng perks to promote births?

273 posted on 08/04/2010 5:48:46 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the next one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
Where in the Constitution does it mention anything about givng perks to promote births?

Where in the Constitution does it mention anything about giving perks to promote, intelligence, education, hard work, physical fitness, or leadership etcetera? The Constitution limits government -it does not define society -DUH...

--paraphrased from a post I made on a similar thread:

The issue regarding marriage is about marriage that is accommodated and granted privilege by society. Society like an economic free market chose to value heterosexual marriage as something that contributes to society. The laws as evidenced in common law determined what exactly was valued. Those that reject this fact and history seem to reject the free market idea of value and suggest there is government mandated value?

Why should those that are predisposed to an unhealthy sexual disorder be granted benefit and privilege -because they get a government certificate that society rejects?

Such marriage innovations are the realm of progressives -those lost in progressive ideas that fly in the face of reality. The "enlightened" viewpoint is severely flawed by the FACTS... If homosexual marriage is so valuable to society THEN where has it been up until now?

Do we discuss the rights of individuals or do we discuss the promotion of a sexual preference here? What about marriage for those that are into sheep?

274 posted on 08/04/2010 6:07:11 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130

CA can decide to nullify the rogue federal courts for wresting the Constitution (the Constitution does not demand allowing same sex marriages) and/or take it to the Supreme Court.


275 posted on 08/04/2010 6:11:26 PM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130
Something every day now. . . the silver lining is more Conservative Votes on November 2nd!
276 posted on 08/04/2010 6:11:51 PM PDT by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130

How about not allowing the voters of Massachusetts to vote on the gay marriage/civil unions issue? How is THAT, also, not unconstitutional?


277 posted on 08/04/2010 6:12:50 PM PDT by johnthebaptistmoore (If leftist legislation that's already in place really can't be ended by non-leftists, then what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

CA has the choice of nullifying what it may consider to be an invalid, wholly unconstitutional decision by a rouge court of a rogue federal government.


278 posted on 08/04/2010 6:14:31 PM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

>> Someone please tell me again why I should take the time to vote?

To record how the will of the people was continuously ‘overruled’.

We communicate with our vote, and it is essential we never stop.

Of course, you already know that.


279 posted on 08/04/2010 6:15:47 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
OK, so CA has the option of nullifying this decision as utterly unconstitutional and invalid from a court of a rogue federal government.

The state of CA has the option of not recognizing its law being overturned by a rogue federal government.

280 posted on 08/04/2010 6:19:11 PM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 361-364 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