SOURCE: CA Prop 8 held to be unconstitutional under due process and equal protection.

Drudge Report ^ | 8/04/2010 | Drudge

[tsmith130]

Court enjoins enforcement of Prop 8... Will be released at 2 pm pt...

Judge strikes down 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California'..

[Jacquerie]

Yeah, judges flick away the will of the people like a pesky booger.

There is also a separation of powers issue here.

We live in a judicial tyranny.

[musicman]

"So polygamy is a go as well?"

"Why not a Man and 6 year old while we are at it!?"

[RobRoy]

>>Are you moving to Nebraska?<<

Nope. I bought a small farm in central Kentucky on a handshake in October of 2008, closed in August of 2009 and drove a u-haul with most of my stuff there in late June. We got almost 400 bales of hay off it while I was there.

I have an interview tomorrow for a job where I can “work remote”. We are on a month to month lease in our home in the Seattle area which has a bed on the floor in the bedroom, a TV, A computer and other furniture that we will craigslist or donate as well as some clothing. We’ll sell one of our cars and stuff the other one with the small stuff and drive it all out there, hopefully in the next month.

I’ve lived in Seattle since 1966 and am absofrickinlutely done with this place. It’s a shame, really. The climate is nice, I love to bicycle here, etc. But the politics and congestion are just more than I can stand.

I’m putting my money where my mouth is and going Galt. My “finger of a plateau” in Kentucky will be getting a plaque at the front gate that says “Galt’s Plateau”.

[byteback]

If upheld I think it will affect all states. This judge found a new "right" in the Constitution.

To determine whether a right is fundamental under the Due Process Clause, the court inquires into whether the right is rooted “in our Nation’s history, legal traditions, and practices.” Glucksberg, 521 US at 710.

Here, because the right to marry is fundamental, the court looks to the evidence presented at trial to determine: (1) the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States; and (2) whether plaintiffs seek to exercise their right to marry or seek to exercise some other right.

[08bil98z24]

I’m with you ... I see nothing in the constitution about marriage ...

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[Cboldt]

-- But it is coming to a state near you. --

I hear you. It'll be hard for me to obtain more contempt and disrespect for the government and the judicial function than I have now, but hey, they try harder, and I'll certainly find a way.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

More details and discussion about the non-impartial judge in CA spitting on the voters.

[RobRoy]

I can only assume it will be appealed. I don’t much care though. We have much bigger problems than this. And there is no human resolution. It just needs to play out.

Hence my tag line.

[Smogger]

If upheld I think it will affect all states.

Your betcha ass it will. Anyone who thinks there won't be lawsuits filed in every state within days is delusional.

[trumpetvine]

This from the gay judge;

# “Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.”

No, your honor; it will teach our children that perversion and human degradation are the law of the land. It will teach them that the democratic process means nothing and that animals have the same rights as humans.

Thanks your honor.

[scott7278]

Wonderful - as a pastor, I just love the fact that my freedom of religion is trampled on by a single judge. Someone’s personally declared right cannot interfere with a God-given right as expressed in the Constitution.

Forcing me to recognize marriage as lawful in the eyes of God, and having to perform them under penalty of the state (where this is all headed) violates my rights, and the rights of all citizens of good will.

Gay people have the same rights as normal people (yes, I said it). An unmarried person has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, who is not a family member. That is equal protection under the law. We cannot and must not cater to the whims of whomever thinks they’re owed something.

They should be able to have a private relationship, work without discrimination, enter into contracts with one another, and anything else that they want to do - but they must not tread on others. The ruling class once again shows that they hate the will of the people:

- Prop C in Missouri is under attack because of the heat.
- Election 2000 was marred because of “hanging chads.”
- This election result is under attack under false pretenses.
- Etc.
- Etc.
- Etc.

It’s a communist coup. I’m sick of people pretending it’s anything but.

[Red in Blue PA]

The Federal Judge who made this ruling is openly gay???? Shouldn't he have recused himself?

[Yosemitest]

There is only one way to solve the homosexual problem.

[EODGUY]

Perhaps we should adopt the “state’s rights” attitude that the esteemed governor of California showed when he chastised Arizona for drafting a law (identical to Federal law) to protect her citizens from illegal aliens, drug traffickers, human smugglers, terrorists, marauding Mexican military personnel etc. who invade Arizona?!

They could offer free air travel to California and I’d stay home.

The bottom line is this is an example of the will of the people being usurped by the radical interpretation of our Constitution by one lousy judge. Excellent /sar/

EODGUY

[Mrs. Don-o]

And unborn babies are really minor minors. I sometimes think we could get the Left to oppose abortion with the NAMBLA argument: don't kill them because in just a few years we can **** them.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Now let me go outside and scream.

[historyrepeatz]

An OPENLY GAY judge.. San Francisco.. What a frickin’ surprise.

[umgud]

The DU thread on this is chock full of oranisms.

[trumpetvine]

Now you be nice to those peace loving practitioners of the Muslim faith.

[italianquaker]

“Walker was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on November 21, 1989, on unanimous consent and received commission on November 27, 1989. Walker is one of two federal judges publicly known to be gay”

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

They are working on an amendment to the Constitution

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.J.RES.56: