for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-
sex partners," Kramer wrote.
Posted on 03/14/2005 12:16:45 PM PST by Dont Mention the War
Breaking...
Time to recall some judges.
Get-out-of-the-blue-state-while-you-still-can ping
So Art Bell's earthquake prediction will definitely come true- maybe sooner than we think.
Prop 22 was not an amendment to the Constitution, it added a statute to the Family Code. Thus (although in reality it is not) a judge could find it unconstitutional
A problem is that this case is in San Francisco, and it might be hard to recall a judge there. Those ACLU bastards are crafty. We need more statutes that limit jurisdiction of their suits and judicial selection process. They always seem to find their man.
But per So Cal Rocket's synopsis, the judge starts out using a rational basis test, suggesting that the law does not have a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. Then he jumps to a denial of equal protection, which would call for strict scrutiny.
Since when is being a homosexual a suspect category?
One more time J. Kramer: you guys in the gowns interpret the laws, while the guys/gals in suits make them.
(Let's hoist them, whaddya say? "We are a notion of laws, not men." US v. Nixon, 1974)
Impeachments are paper. Tyrants don't care about no stinking paper.
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. Keep your powder dry boys.
notion=nation
"california is sooo wacked. its unconstitutional to prevent same sex marriage... but just try to light up a ciggerette on the beach..."
Hey just tell the judge you were just trying to smoke a fag, and that'll completely confuse 'em!
:)
Who is this turkey ?
>> Also no rational reason why mother-daughter, father-son, brother-brother, sister-sister can't marry. In the case of mother-daughter or father-son, it would be quite practical for children taking care of elderly parents and needing the SS survivor benefits, and no inhertance tax. <<
Then it'll be adult-child, human-animal, environmentalist-tree, etc. ("Get away from my wife with that chainsaw!") Once you junk the religious reasons for man-woman marriage, and it becomes "because I want to", what standard remains to use in deciding what's right or wrong?
As statute, even one passed by the voters themselves and not the Legislature, it can be held unconstitutional. An amendment would not suffer that same vulnerability.
Right on. I have felt this way for a long time.
Or polyamory :)
Here's a chink in the pervert armor, and a chance for the other 90% to speak up.
Superior Court judges ARE subject to "no confidence" votes!
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.
Nothing except a law passed by 2/3 of California voters.
Per the down thread article it refers to it as a statutory law.
IMO the SCOC should reverse this ruling, and if not, then stone-cold-lock-winning state constitutional amendment will be in order.
I have said it before, and I am not kidding. Someday, there will be a lawsuit by someone wanting to marry his goat. Don't laugh. If someone can change a thousands year old definition of marriage, why can't they change it again? What about consent? Well, what about it? A court could determine that an animal has no right to give consent, and the wishes of the pervert is what controls. After all, if a guy is screwing his goat, what business is it of yours? People have willed money to their pets.
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.