[Blood of Tyrants]

Tell them to go pound sand.

[jeffc]

...recognize the marriages of three same-sex couples during the consideration of their lawsuit...

This is how liberals shove their "values" in our faces: Even if the homo's lawsuit fails, it will be a "hardship" to undue what is already done (their "marriage").

[Viennacon]

What a gruesome bunch of freaks

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

FTJ. Sounds like it may be time to protest in front of that commies house.

[12th_Monkey]

So this judge has a phone and a pen too. $h!t if we can just make up laws, every liberal in Hollywood needs to pay me $10k

[melsec]

Even if the Anti Recognition laws are wrong does that mean the States are automatically forced to recognize them?

[SharpRightTurn]

“LGBT rights litigator Abby Rubenfeld, along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights”

I wish these perverts could be exiled to some island somewhere where they could engage in any unnatural “right” they wish without inflicting their sick lifestyles on the rest of us.

[SoFloFreeper]

Sorry, judges do not write law. That is the responsibility of the LEGISLATURE.

[Revel]

Reply from the state should be that the Feds have no authority over this issue, and to buzz off.

[Revel]

Better Yet-

Have the Governor declare via Executive order that the Federal court order does not stand. After all Obama can do it.

[oldbrowser]

" Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

A man and a woman joining together before God is different than the government recognizing a same sex union.

[GeronL]

Courts have no constitutional power to make law

[SkyPilot]

U.S. District Court Judge Aleta Trauger

- Feminist

- Bill Clinton nominee

- Lifelong Democrat

[Some Fat Guy in L.A.]

Some federal judges need to go away.

[ncalburt]

buzzcrap is founded by gay wacko / journOlist/ obamabot Benny Smith from Leftico.

[mikefive]

I think its long past due for states to tell these activist judges to pound sand. Enough is enough already.

[LowTaxesEqualsProsperity]

Judge Traugher is a Democrat.

[Amendment10]

... wrote that “all relevant federal authority indicates ...

Citizens need to work with their federal and state lawmakers to make it a crime for state and federal activist judges to use vague language to attempt to justify what are actually constitutionally indefensible decisions imo.

More specifically, contrary to the vague language that the judge used to defend gay marriage, here are points based on the Constitution and previous Supreme Court decisions which show that the states uniuely have the have the 10th Amendment to discriminate against so-called gay rights.

• The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution's silence about any issue, such as marriage, means that goverment power to address such an issue is automatically reserved uniquely to the states.

• When the Supreme Court decided against polygamy in the late 19th century in Reynolds_v._United_States, justices referenced English common law, indicated in the 7th Amendment, which prohibits anything but one man, one woman traditional marriage.

  In fact, note the wording in the Preamble to the Constitution which reflects on traditional marriage.

  "... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (emphasis added) ...,"

• Regardless of PC pro-gay interpretations of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protections Clause, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights, marriage in this example. This is evidenced by the Minor v. Happersett opinion where justices officially clarified that the 14th Amendment did not add any new rights to the Constitution.

  “3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had (emphasis added).” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.

  So the states are free to make laws which discriminate against the constitutionally unprotected gay agenda imo, as long as such laws do not also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.

• Regardless that the corrupt liberal media attempted to distort the Supreme Court's decision concerning the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Section 2 of DOMA is evidently still in effect.

  Section 2. Powers reserved to the states

  No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

  In fact, DOMA's Section 2 is reasonably based on the Constitution's Section 2 of Article IV, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which grants Congress the power to regulate the effect of one state's records in the other states.

Again, patriots need to work with their state and federal lawmakers to make laws to remove and punish activist judges who use vague language to try to legislate new constitutional rights from the bench. Patriots also need to work with their state lawmakers to amend the Constitution to automatically impeach activist justices who likewise play games with the Constitution, particulary when they decide cases in ways that helps the federal government to unconstitutionally expand its powers.

[jonrick46]

The govenment is bending over backwards (and maybe, forwards) to accept the civil rights of gay marriages. However, we are watching the Constitution being trashed and the idea of Natural Law being 1984'd. Big Brother is taking on a whole new meaning.

[Svartalfiar]

Hmm.. funny how all of these have been handed down by a federal judge..