Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FNC: California law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional
Fox News | March 14, 2005

Posted on 03/14/2005 12:16:45 PM PST by Dont Mention the War

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 421-438 next last
To: Psycho_Bunny

The "judge" just found that thousands of years of civilization has no rational basis, like he knows better.

A tyrant wearing a black robe.

Impeach him.


101 posted on 03/14/2005 1:22:50 PM PST by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: drungus
Thanks for the link!
102 posted on 03/14/2005 1:23:26 PM PST by Kretek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Dont Mention the War

BELIEVE IT.....THEY ARE COMING FOR THE CHILDREN (gay marriage, then widespread gay adoption)
dfu commentary | 2-27-04 | dfu


Posted on 02/27/2004 4:10:32 PM PST by doug from upland


It has happened in San Francisco. It has now happened in a town in New York. It is threatened in Chicago. Gay marriage is here in all of its rainbow glory. We don't have time for a Constitutional amendment to stop it.


What is it that gays want? The right to visit in the hospital? They have it. The right to will property? They have it. The right for insurance benefits? They have it.


What they want is not tolerance. They have been given tolerance. What they really want is recognition that marriage between two people of the same sex is just as noble as marriage between a man and a woman (as it has been for thousands of years around the world).


Most of us believe in just letting people alone in the privacy of their bedrooms. That has nothing to do with abortion, however, because an abortion results in the death of an innocent. If you believe homosexuality is wrong, you also probably believe that a sinner will eventually meet his Maker. It will be up to God to judge.


But the activist gays have gone way over the top. They are attempting to destroy an institution that has proven to be the best way to raise children and provide for a continuity in society. Moms and dads raising kids is the best thing for children. Gays will never admit that it is better to have a mom and dad. They change the argument and make it a comparison of a divorced couple vs. a loving gay home, whatever that may be.


The next step is logical. Not only do gays want the right to adopt, which they have in several states, but they want equality. They want the adoption and welfare agencies to be gender blind. If a child is available, they want an equal right to adopt. A married man and woman should have no advantage.


They are getting close to that. What will stop them? If they are allowed to marry, not just have some civil arrangement for living, they will sue for adoptive equality. It will only take a few whacked out liberal judges to give it to them.


When it happens, Western Civilization has died. And its death won't even have to be arranged by the Islamist terrorists. It will have been accomplished by self-centered homosexual activists and a handful of judges.


103 posted on 03/14/2005 1:24:12 PM PST by doug from upland (Ray Charles --- a great musician and safer driver than Ted Kennedy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pfony1
"Did the Judge ALSO approve marriages of live people with dead people or marriages of human people with domestic animal people? "

Not yet, but give it time and it'll happen. I'm serious. Watch for it.
104 posted on 03/14/2005 1:24:49 PM PST by Wampus SC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Dont Mention the War

Thank God I'm moving.


105 posted on 03/14/2005 1:24:58 PM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kretek

You are very welcome. I strongly encourage you to read Scalia's dissent.


106 posted on 03/14/2005 1:24:58 PM PST by drungus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Chesner

Uh, a retired *rear* admiral? I won't repeat the cabin-boy ditty, in its entirety!
"The admiral had a cabin-boy,
the dirty little nipper . . "
(Do they grow these lemon-judges on trees out there?)


107 posted on 03/14/2005 1:25:12 PM PST by tumblindice (Our Founding Fathers: all conservative gun owners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice

Save our country.

Impeach, impeach, and impeach again.

We need to cleanse the judicial bench of the liberal freaks that are willy-nilly jettisoning thousands of years of civilization and attempting to remake society in their desired image (of Sodom & Gommorah).


108 posted on 03/14/2005 1:27:19 PM PST by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
Absolutely Correct! Great post. The religious implications of marriage properly belong to the religions. The loudest cries against gay "marriage" come from mainstream Christians, and I certainly applaud and defend their right to hold their beliefs and tenets sacred. I have, however, several family members who are gay, and whether it is a "lifestyle choice", a "damned-to-hell" disease, or just who they are, is a debate that I will not engage in here. What is clear though, is that committed gay partners do not have the same civil rights as their heterosexual counterparts. "Civil" being the operative word.

I for one could not imagine being sexually attracted to another man. And as a reasoning, thinking, man, I must consider that these men and women DON'T have a choice about to whom they are attracted. (I guess I did go a little into that debate) If gay partners could register a partnership with the civil authorities the same way that you and I register our marriages, then both sides would benefit. The risk and financial cost of divorce would keep people from entering a union on a whim, or just to beat the system, and at the same time, people who are in love and committed to one another could get the civil recognition and all of the legal protections that come with marriage.

I know that I am probably in a minority on this issue, and I invite all reasoned response. I am not looking to start a flame war, but rather prompt some people, hopefully, to look inside and see what their real objection is to this idea. Keep the religions sacred, let them decide for themselves if they will choose to honor or recognize a gay marriage, but let all Americans have the same benefits, rights, AND responsibilities.

109 posted on 03/14/2005 1:29:47 PM PST by SilentServiceCPO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket

What is so irritating about yet another judge playing God IS that the people of California have already spoken regarding this subject---

they already voted to have marriage be between and man and a woman and this judge has decided that because of California's constitution's clause, the people's vote doesn't count===

So, I truly think that the only choice is for Bush to really push for a National Constitutional Amendment or the 9th circuit WILL ultimately get this case---

Judge Napalitano on Fox said it would go to the Cal. Supremes, but who wants to bet what THEY will decide?


110 posted on 03/14/2005 1:29:47 PM PST by Txsleuth (Mark Levin for Supreme Court Chief Justice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
"I don't know about you, but I'm ready for some serious civil disobedience if the black robed wicked fools keep this up. "

I've held back about civil disobedience, but now I'm ready for it too. On this and several other issues. It's getting closer to the time when the Liberty Tree may need watering again.
111 posted on 03/14/2005 1:30:11 PM PST by Wampus SC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: inquest; Dog Gone
Is it within the purvey of a State court judge to overrule a State Constitution based upon the US Constitution?
112 posted on 03/14/2005 1:31:26 PM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beansox
california is sooo wacked. its unconstitutional to prevent same sex marriage... but just try to light up a ciggerette on the beach... LOL!

Or if you live in a coastal area, try to build a house on your own property!
113 posted on 03/14/2005 1:31:27 PM PST by SOSCEO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Rambler7
Well, it does seem unconstitutional. I mean, isn't that why some think there would have to be a constitutional amendment against it for it to remain illegal?

The amendment is to make it clear to activist judges who tend to interpret the law according to their present mood that it is indeed unconstitutional.

114 posted on 03/14/2005 1:32:18 PM PST by nosofar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Dont Mention the War
The State appellate court should be bitch slapping this judge shortly.
115 posted on 03/14/2005 1:33:28 PM PST by Redcloak (There is no "I" in team. But then again, there is no "us" in it either. There is "meat" however.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs
amen!

twice :)

116 posted on 03/14/2005 1:36:33 PM PST by eccentric (a.k.a. baldwidow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SilentServiceCPO

In some regard, I can see see the argument for gay marriage. But on the other hand, marriage is a legal bound created by society, which benefits society. Gay marriage does not benefit or promote society (at least I don't think so). Let each state decide--let the backers of gay marriage MAKE their argument, let the voters vote....not judges, not committees, not legislatures. Let the people decide. I may well be convinced that gay marriage is hunky dory--but I want to decide.


117 posted on 03/14/2005 1:38:02 PM PST by Pondman88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: tomahawk; So Cal Rocket
Who needs an anachronistic Constitutional Republic any more?

Why waste time and money on that bothersome "democracy" thing?

We have KING COURT.

KING COURT knows better than we mere peons.

KING COURT exists at a higher level than we serfs.

KING COURT knows what is best for us.

Bow low, peasants, and ALL HAIL KING COURT!

118 posted on 03/14/2005 1:38:54 PM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland; little jeremiah

Bump!


119 posted on 03/14/2005 1:41:43 PM PST by EdReform (Free Republic - helping to keep our country a free republic. Thank you for your financial support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: DaveyB
In Colorado a few years back an amendment to the Colorado Constitution was thrown out by a judge after it was approved by vote - guess what it was about?

Yep! Limiting gay special rights. We are now a lawless society.

That's not exactly what happened. It was the U.S. Supreme Court that ruled the Colorado amendment violated equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and thus was invalid. The case was Romer v. Evans. Here's a link.

120 posted on 03/14/2005 1:42:23 PM PST by nyg4168
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 421-438 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