"There's hope for us yet Honey ..."
[Pic from "Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex" - Woody Allen movie]
Posted on 08/04/2010 1:45:48 PM PDT by tsmith130
Court enjoins enforcement of Prop 8... Will be released at 2 pm pt...
Judge strikes down 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California'..
marriage is a social/cultural institution codified/regulated in law and has always stood as husband and wife and for having/raising kids.
You are more optimistic than I am.
I’d prefer to stick to actual arguments against gay marriage, rater than delving into nutball mysticism and numerology.
Yep!!
Although this offends me as much as anyone else on the forum, I am sure this will be appealed and overturned. It had been repeatedly ruled as constitutional and then this rodent judge reverses it. Don’t get too discouraged (yet).
The case was randomly assigned to him. Interesting coincidence, though.
“Shouldn’t this judge recuse himself from this case because of a possible conflict of interest? Or is honesty no longer required to be a judge?”
Would you expect all gun owners to recuse themselves on 2nd Amendment cases? Scary precedent you’re pushing there, I think.
No I am not even suggesting this. I would compare society to the free market economy -with government but an observer. Just as the free market determines economic value so does society determine moral value. The homosexual disorder and those that purse and promote it has never been highly valued and or given preference or privilege by society. The government in the interest of promoting the common good in addition to not involving itself in manipulating society the way it sees fit should accept this -just as it accepts that society chose VHS over beta and SUV cars over compact cars...
But once the government chooses a side as in the case of marriage (monetary goodies for being a man and a woman who marry) it opens up the equal protection clause. As far as I am concerned morally you are right but Legally the Constitution sez you are wrong. This is why the Government should not be involved in promoting marriage of any type. It should provide the same legal coverage as any contract between two or more people and allow for safe dispensation of underage children as regards to custody.
But I fear we can never undo the damage done by what was probably an honest attempt to help American Families. As I've said before this should be a lesson to us all on the law of unintended consequences stemming from Government meddling where it shouldn't.
There are areas where government is tasked by the people with enforcing laws premised upon protecting unalienable rights endowed by the Creator. With unalienable rights there come necessarily unalienable definitions of terms -necessarily as well, defined by the Creator. What I suggest we see here is a government redefining the unalienable term "marriage" as a method for promoting and protecting the innovation. In my opinion, government is overstepping and taking the role of God in this pursuit...
In essence the unalienable redefined becomes alienable -with this we see government moving toward tyrant...
Great bullet for the GOP Campaign in Nov. But then we had great ones last time around too. I guess the bullets depend on the shooter don’t they.
Good info thanks
Yes, I’m aware of the history of gay marriage in California. Judge Napolitano on Fox made the statement about California having previously granted the right to gay marriage.
The people mean nothing to these tyrants.
The homos rode in on the backs of the black slaves to get their fetish classified as a civil right. The blacks said nothing. The polygamists and bestial will ride in on the backs of homos, and the homos won't be able to argue against it.
"There's hope for us yet Honey ..."
[Pic from "Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex" - Woody Allen movie]
Some do. Take the 1st Ammendment. A majority could vote representatives into Congress that may makes laws to limit free speech. The 1st Ammendment exists precisely to protect the minority from the majority. That's the point.
Having said that, I agree that there is no right to gay marriage and that this ruling is incorrect. Let's just not forget that the majority doesn't, and shouldn't, always get its way.
ANOTHER gay “Judge” with AIDS dementia!
If the judge’s order is ruled correct, than yes, every state must allow gay marriage under the equal protection clause.
It won’t matter what the constitution says.
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.