Posted on 08/05/2010 9:35:25 AM PDT by mojito
Here’s a quick overview of Judge Walker’s conclusions of law (from pages 109 to 135 of his wild opinion), with some interspersed commentary in brackets:
1. Proposition 8 violates the Due Process Clause by unconstitutionally burdening the exercise of the fundamental right to marry. “Marriage has retained certain characteristics throughout the history of the United States”: “two parties … give their free consent to form a relationship, which then forms the foundation of a household.” [Ah, yes, “parties.” “I now pronounce you party and party”—that sure captures what marriage has traditionally been.]
“The spouses must consent to support each other and any dependents. The state regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of a stable, governable populace.” “Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license.” [Walker obscures as much as possible the central purpose of marriage as a vehicle for helping to ensure that children are raised by their father and mother. That purpose is advanced even when a husband and wife can’t procreate together (because one of them is infertile), as the marital obligation of fidelity helps ensure that the fertile spouse doesn’t have children outside the marriage. That purpose is also advanced when a husband and wife don’t intend to procreate, for the obvious reason that they may nonetheless end up having children together (and also may change their intent). And, of course, there are plenty of countervailing privacy reasons why the state wouldn’t be exploring “procreative capacity.”]
“[M]arriage in the United States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples.” But that’s “an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
gender today..
species tomorrow..
And it's the conservatives who are supposed to be the ones ignoring science . . .
I wish you were wrong . . . but I fear you are right.
Federal law itself says the term “marriage” means a union between one man and one woman.
Seems to me the Feds have no business telling California what to do unless they clean their own house, and even if they change their laws, they have no right telling California what to do.
Yes, marx says everyone is equal...no difference....all adults work...state raises children....they mold the minds to continue good little marxist cycle.....Kill all useless eaters like all animals... No Bible.....except for the Communist Manifesto..... Can't have man and woman....Can't have emotionally strong and independent children that give their loyalty to other than the state.
They have the right to marry and always did. What they are asking for is not marriage, but a shack up arrangement that they desperately want to call marriage.
as someone else said:
gender today
species tomorrow
(for those liberals reading this, species = horses, dogs, sheep, whatever)
The institution of marriage was around for hundreds of years before the US was established, and the institution of marriage has ALWAYS been a husband (male) and wife (female). While some societies have allowed for polygamy (in which a husband may have more than one wife), there is no historical basis for any claim that the institution of marriage allows for “same-sex” marriage.
The judge has the wrong perspective. There should not be a need for the defenders of the institution of marriage to provide a compelling reason for maintaining the integrity and definition of marriage. The other side should be required to show a compelling reason for refefining the institution of marriage that has been in place for centuries.
Well look at most of the people under 30, never in my life have I observed so many sissy and feminine boys....
It is like they are trying to make boys into girls and create *One Gender*
...The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity.
This revolution consisted of forcing the sexual genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society, heightened male-female love and sexuality (and thereby almost alone created the possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task of elevating the status of women.
It is probably impossible for us, who live thousands of years after Judaism began this process, to perceive the extent to which undisciplined sex can dominate man’s life and the life of society.
- Dennis Prager
The silver lining..
we are all mortal..
and in the end, accountable
contrary to what some believe..
This judge went so far as to say that religion and morals are “irrational”.
The defenders of Prop 8 missed the boat. They never could answer the question of why marriage between sterile heterosexuals is o.k., but that between homosexuals is not. They also refused to go to the obvious:
Marriage has by definition always been the commitment of a man and a woman for life and exclusively to each other with the right to those sexual acts which may, but need not necessarily, result in the conception of a child. Those acts, in themselves, affect the parties in physical and physiological and psychological ways that acts between same sex partners cannot whether or not they result in a chld.
LMAO!!!!
Shut up -you make too much sense!!!!
You hit the nail on the head!!!
Two indeed! Society placed a value upon the institution -it was common practice, common law and then codified into written law. The Judge now attempts to redefine the terms and replace historically proven value determined by society with his own perverted innovative idea of value...
Synonyms: “Federal Courts” and “Sodom and Gomorrah”
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
There are gazillions of articles about this from yesterday and today, and no doubt more tomorrow. Hopefully at least keywords will get added to all of them for anyone who wants to read lots and lots and lots. Here's a representative pro-same sex marriage editorial, with many great arguments in the thread. My .02 - sexual perversion is not a right, has nothing to do with marriage which is based on Natural Law, and the homosexual agenda is part and parcel of Lefist plans and ideology. End of story.
Thank God for that.
I agree it’s outrageous that judges read things into the constitution that simply aren’t there. There is no right to marry that is protected by the constitution. Rights do not flow from government and the rights protected by the constitution are natural, unalienable rights that are vast and unenumerable.
At best, the topic would fall under the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment - everyone must be governed equally by the states.
But more importantly, the necessity for state regulation of marriage in the first place should be examined. My belief is that if not for the progressive tax code we would not need state regulation of marriage and it would probably be better if it were left to the people (local level), as the latter part of the 10th amendment states instead.
In order for that to work (as intended by the framers), however, Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank must be completely overruled because there is no basis for Federal regulation of discrimination in the commerce clause. The 14th amendment gives the Feds the ability to ensure everyone is governed equally by the states, but it cannot insist that private individuals do likewise.
Denial of reality reigns supreme.
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.