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

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'..


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: barackhusseinobama; bostonglobe; caglbt; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; judgesgonewild; margaretmarshall; newyorktimes; novote4you; novotes4people; nytimesmanipulation; obama; prop8; rinos4mitt; rinos4romney; romney; romneyfascism; romneyvsmasscitizens; samesexmarriage; stenchfromthebench; unconstitutionalmitt; whoisjohngalt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 361-364 next last
Siren up
1 posted on 08/04/2010 1:45:49 PM PDT by tsmith130
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tsmith130

Cobb salad for all.


2 posted on 08/04/2010 1:46:50 PM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130

JUDGE: Having considered the trial evidence and the arguments of counsel, the court pursuant to FRCP 52(a) finds that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and that its enforcement must be enjoined.


3 posted on 08/04/2010 1:46:54 PM PDT by tsmith130
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130

If this stands then all states must permit gay marriage, as a Constitutional right?


4 posted on 08/04/2010 1:46:56 PM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130

And why I avoid California and have now for 5 years, even though I have a way to get there at will.


5 posted on 08/04/2010 1:47:01 PM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130

Is anyone surprised? The ruling class cannot allow the little people input into the law.


6 posted on 08/04/2010 1:47:37 PM PDT by Ingtar (If he could have taxed it, Obama's hole would have been plugged by now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130

Facinating how our Founders, courts, Congresses, Presidents missed this for well over 200 years, that Gay marriage is a Constitutional right.


7 posted on 08/04/2010 1:48:35 PM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130

Kagan will be so happy...


8 posted on 08/04/2010 1:48:35 PM PDT by Sacajaweau (What)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130

Interestingly, the law is completely and utterly fair. It is just that some are motivated to break it more than others. All homosexuals have the same rights the rest of us have - to marry a member of the opposite sex who is not a direct family member and neither of them is currently married.

Or are those limitations unconstitutional as well? ;)

Idiots.


9 posted on 08/04/2010 1:48:43 PM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Williams
No ~ this affects a single court district.

It probably guarantees a Republican sweep in the Fall election, and quite possibly even the weakening of the Democrat lock on California's Hispanics.

The risk for the gay blades who take advantage of the injunction is that if it is lifted, and his is appealed, their marriages just disappear. Of course that's not really a risk for them since they'll just go to the nearest gay bar for dates, as per usual.

10 posted on 08/04/2010 1:49:26 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Williams
If this stands then all states must permit gay marriage, as a Constitutional right?

Where in The Constitution is marriage mentioned?

11 posted on 08/04/2010 1:49:38 PM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130
voting doesn't count for anything........

I suspect Missouri's vote to exempt itself from the federal "Manditory Health Insurance Mandate" will also be ignored by activist courts.....

The peoples voting voice is silenced.

12 posted on 08/04/2010 1:49:44 PM PDT by rface (Remember to roll your Traditional IRA into ROTH before the end of the year.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Did anyone expect anything different from this rabid court of lawmakers in black robes? Hasn’t this court ALWAYS legislated from the bench?

This court is irellevant in my opinion.


13 posted on 08/04/2010 1:50:45 PM PDT by Kevin in California
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130
Was to be expected, when our decadent imperial rulers made sure a homosexual judge heard the case.


14 posted on 08/04/2010 1:52:59 PM PDT by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I know it affects the single District, but if appealed and upheld as far as the Supreme Court, it will be the law of the land.

Even as a District Court ruling it becomes precedent for other courts.


15 posted on 08/04/2010 1:53:10 PM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130
This makes me so mad. We voted....twice...and some idiot judge ignores what the people of CA say.

This is just not the country I used to know. I really do hate the libs and their, "take it to court until we get what we want" tactic.

16 posted on 08/04/2010 1:54:12 PM PDT by CAluvdubya ("Sarah Palin fights, we cannot spare her."--GonzoGOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

used to, the definition of words used to mean something and did not need to be placed in constitution - that is, that a marriage requires a husband and a wife (ergo, no need to define it specifically as one man and one woman). All it takes is judicial notice of that definition to have tossed this out.


17 posted on 08/04/2010 1:54:24 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130
'Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians'...

(Drudge keeps adding one line at a time.)

18 posted on 08/04/2010 1:54:41 PM PDT by tsmith130
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

There is no constitutional right to marriage.


19 posted on 08/04/2010 1:55:54 PM PDT by ichabod1 (Hail Mary Full of Grace, The Lord Is With Thee...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130

One of the important aspects to consider in the decision is the judge’s ruling that having previously granted gay marriage, California cannot then take away that right.

That decision, if upheld, will be far-reaching in so many other cases.


20 posted on 08/04/2010 1:56:23 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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