Posted on 08/04/2010 6:19:25 PM PDT by NoLibZone
Despite the media hoopla, this is not the first case in which a federal judge has imagined and ruled that our Constitution requires same-sex marriage. A federal judge in Nebraska ruled for gay marriage in 2005 and was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in 2006.
The Proposition 8 case on which the Ninth Circuit's Judge Vaughn Walker ruled Wednesday was pushed by two straight guys with a hunger for media attention, lawyers with huge egos who overrode the considered judgment of major figures in the gay legal establishment, thinkers who feared exactly what we anticipate: the Supreme Court will uphold Prop. 8 and the core civil rights of Californians and all Americans to vote for marriage as one man and one woman.
Judge Walker's ruling proves, however, that the American people were and are right to fear that too many powerful judges do not respect their views, or the proper limits of judicial authority. Did our Founding Fathers really create a right to gay marriage in the U.S. Constitution? It is hard for anyone reading the text or history of the 14th Amendment to make that claim with a straight face, no matter how many highly credentialed and brilliant so-called legal experts say otherwise.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Did you read ANY of his rant (er, uhhhhh DECISION) this is a Gay with a mission...er, a guy with a mission...welll, his position is not a missionary one...ahhhhhh...fugeddit. A typical fruitloop on the bench...shame on us all for allowing this.
The 9th will affirm and if it is accepted by the SCOTUS it will be up to Justice Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas.
Asshat judge. Does not even know the law.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
United States Code, Title 1, Chapter 1, Section 7
Will NOT stand... This is just another case of the Judiciary reaching beyond the law. If the Supreme Court upholds this, it will be another peg against law and order in the US. (Actually, just a small part of an ongoing rebellion against the attempt to overrule the people). After all, the people rule, NOT the government and the Constitution shall be read as written, not as they prefer...
And Kennedy’s bias?
good point!
I would have guessed a Clinton appointee but was surprised to learn we have George Bush to thank for this one.
He was appointed by Reagan not Bush.
Justice Kennedy is a Roman Catholic.
His bias shall be for “Social Justice”.
The case will definitely be overturned. It was doomed from the start when the militant homosexuals were allowed to cherry pick Judge Walker, an avowed and unrepentant homosexual. What next, are we going to choose pedophile judges to preside over molestation cases. This is pure insanity. Luckily, the USSC will slap queer Walker in his face and overturn this soon.
Justice Kennedy ought to recuse himself from receiving Communion.
The case will definitely be overturned. It was doomed from the start when the militant homosexuals were allowed to cherry pick Judge Walker, an avowed and unrepentant homosexual.
Thanks Reagan.
If the People really want to get rid of the Supreme Court's abominable, unnatural and genocidal "interpretations" of law, they can. It's called Revolution. We didn't have one in 1933. We didn't have one in 1973. We didn't have one in 2003. And doggone it, we're not going to have one when Justice Kennedy writes his predictable opinion in 2013 finding no rational basis for marriage.
Exactly.
Not sure why it matters who appointed him - geez, it is becoming known by now that all elites seem to think similarly.
No, it is not a genetic thing, but an elite thing taught in college - wonder who all those college teachers stand? Geez, maybe it’s just a generation thing...
Yes, that is coming sooner than you might expect. Don’t agree with your earlier statement about People crying No though... We have had enough.
The People haven’t had enough. They want more.
I should think it would.
Hope you’re wrong...
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.