Thomas More Law Center Condemns California Supreme Court’s Mandate of Homosexual Marriages

Thomas More Law Center ^ | May 15, 2008 | staff

[tbw2]

I guess the Conan bit WAS an act.

[yankeedame]

If you set moral objections aside, this is a bad ruling from a Constitutional point of view. If there had ever been a Constitutional right to marry someone of the same gender, it would have been already been written there. This is lawmaking by judicial fiat, four judges who think their law degrees and black robes give them the right to impose their views on an unwilling public because they think they’re so much smarter than everybody else.

Amen, fellow Freeper, amen! The job of the judiciary is to decide whether something is in keeping with the Constitution or not. If it isn't, the affair is thrown back to the legislative body with "Sorry. No go. Try (re)writing it another way, then we'll see."

It's function is not to decide, "Yes (or No) regarding this case. And now how's we're ordering you to do it."

[kellynla]

ping

[muleskinner]

Ultra Cliff Notes version of this ruling: “They” use the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. It is for equal application of the laws. The State Supreme Court decided domestic partnership laws don’t protect certain people as well as marriage laws.

[purpleraine]

Well you have a problem with that argument. I think five of the judges were there from the Wilson and Duke administrations.

[Paleo Conservative]

Do you think this issue could put California in play in the Electoral College?

[NYer]

When four judges can overturn the vote of the people protecting marriage, the Constitution’s guarantee of a Republican form of government becomes meaningless. This battle is not over

Ecclesiastes
Chapter 1

1

¹ The words of David's son, Qoheleth, king in Jerusalem:

2

² Vanity of vanities, says Qoheleth, vanity of vanities! All things are vanity!

3

³ What profit has man from all the labor which he toils at under the sun?

4

One generation passes and another comes, but the world forever stays.

5

The sun rises and the sun goes down; then it presses on to the place where it rises.

6

Blowing now toward the south, then toward the north, the wind turns again and again, resuming its rounds.

7

All rivers go to the sea, yet never does the sea become full. To the place where they go, the rivers keep on going.

8

⁴ All speech is labored; there is nothing man can say. The eye is not satisfied with seeing nor is the ear filled with hearing.

9

What has been, that will be; what has been done, that will be done. Nothing is new under the sun.

10

Even the thing of which we say, "See, this is new!" has already existed in the ages that preceded us.

11

⁵ There is no remembrance of the men of old; nor of those to come will there be any remembrance among those who come after them.

---

IOW - everything old is new again. This paganistic practice existed in all the great empires - Rome - Athens - etc. Each time society embraced this foolishness, it collapsed. Those who do not learn from history are forced to repeat it.

Catholic Ping List
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[Ransomed]

I am shocked. Who could ever imagine the gubberment messing up marriage. Gubberment does so well at everything else...

Freegards

[Chode]

filthy disease ridden queers strike again...

[iowamark]

You need to do some research on Meg Whitman. She is hardly a leftist.

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.php

[NYer]

We’re in a world of hurt.

This is one truly ugly election. Hillary is pro-death; Obama takes it a step futher in favor of infanticide and McCain will keep us in the war. He is still the least threatening of all the candidates. Should he be elected, we can expect little will be accomplished as Pelosi and her followers try to block any legislation he may try to pass. With him, we can buy 4 more years.

Hey, what about Jindhal (sp?)?

[annalex]

It is my biggest regret as a Freeper that I opposed Patrick Buchanan’s candidacy in 2000. It was doomed anyway, of course, but it was quite possibly the last time for a conservative to support a major politician in earnest.

[B-Chan]

My wife, to her credit, voted for Buchanan that year.

PJB is wrong about some things. He is right about a great many more. Too bad such men are unelectable under our republican system of government.

We are so boned.

[Bernard Marx]

Here's the tragedy: 3 of the 4 CA Supremes who voted for the Gay Special Rights decision were Republican appointments. Apparently "Republicans" no longer believe in the Republican form of government, where the people have the final say.

Yesterday's devastating Polar Bear announcement that will stop Alaskan oil development forever was made by a "conservative Republican" Interior Secretary serving a "Republican" President, enforcing a law signed into being by another "Republican" President.

The Stupid Party's circular firing squad has finally done its job. There is no longer any point in voting. Tyrants in black judicial robes run this country. One vote on the Court trumped a legal, binding election in CA. What a travesty!

[Doe Eyes]

Apparently "Republicans" no longer believe in the Republican form of government, where the people have the final say.

Interesting interpretation of what a Republic is.

[Thorin]

>>>>It is my biggest regret as a Freeper that I opposed Patrick Buchanan’s candidacy in 2000.

But at least you know better now. The tragedy is that so many do not.

[the invisib1e hand]

When the Rotweiler bears his teeth, the puppies do, too.

[Bernard Marx]

Okay, explain it to me. My understanding of a Democratic Republic involves duly elected representatives making laws for the people. The lawmakers are not necessarily bound to faithfully "represent" the wishes of the people who elected them, being free to bring their best judgment to bear on such decisions.

BUT when the people speak on a ballot initiative (plebiscite?) aren't their decisions to be honored? The people of CA passed Prop. 187 which, after years of dilatory legal mumbo jumbo, was wrongly declared unconstitutional by a federal judge. Gray Davis killed it forever by refusing to file an appeal.

Now our black-robed Masters have decided by a single vote that the will of the people should again be ignored. I'm interested in your explanation of why that should be.

[bulldozer]

[this is why a Constitutional amendment is necessary - come on Congress, get the ball rolling!!]

I think it is a pure pipe dream if the do-nothing congress will ever get the ball rolling.

[dr huer]

The gay marriage issue is a dictionary problem. When two persons of the same sex manipulate each others genitals for sexual gratification they have no intention of making babies. Perhaps from envy they demand the social recognition that married couples get. If the pairing is friendly and extended they want married privileges. Perhaps they deserve some the benefits like health care coverage on one partners job health plan. But lets fix the dictionary and call it garriage, and say they are garried. So when legislators pass laws they can choose to clearly express which legal benefit and responsibility goes to each type of union.