Conservatives speak out on Prop. 8

King/Bachmann 2012

CA judges have consistently overturned the will of the people. They have a referendum and the sore loser immediately goes to Court to have the vote overturned.

What a travesty.

Republicans in California are remaining largely silent on last week’s ruling overturning Proposition 8.

Which, in itself, speaks volumes.
If it was a conservative victory there would be mass protest by the loons. Including every single elected rep.

Where is the GOP?

Marriage is a union before god of a man and a woman. The state is welcome to no longer recognize marriage, but it is the legislative that defines the words of the law, not the courts. The people defined marriage as being a union between a man and a woman. The courts said that was mean, and reinstated a court imposed definition of marriage.

To the courts, you've one choice. If you've set yourself on the legal theory that marriage is somehow unconstitutional, you can only disallow the recognition of marriage, and throw out the marriage laws of the state. You may not legislate from the bench.

Liberals are trying to define 'gay marriage' as a 'civil rights' issue and will often try to rebut arguments against Judge Walker's ruling against Prop. 8 based ion 'the will of the people' by bringing up the old state laws against miscegenation (interracial marriage) found in much of the south during the first half of the last century. Obviously, race and sexual preference are wholly different and my reply is that, if the alleged 'gay gene' is ever found, they might have a point.

However, because homosexual behavior is based on a preference rather than a genetic imperative, the 'civil rights' argument for allowing same-sex 'marriage' doesn't hold water. Besides, most every state has adopted some form of 'civil union' law to cover same-sex couples, so the attempts by homosexuals and their advocates to have their couplings legally termed 'marriage' is simply an attempt to dilute the actual meaning of marriage, rendering the institution little more than a hollow shell, thus weakening it, possibly irreparably, while having the benefit - for gays - of elevating their sexual behavior to the status of 'respectability' by calling it 'marriage'.

With the nation's discontent over Obama and the Democrat's failed fiscal and social policies, I can see why some Republicans are soft-peddling the Walker ruling, based on the fact that 'gay marriage' tends to be a divisive issue and frankly, one the Republicans hoping to dislodge the Democrat congressional majority on November 2nd, don't feel they really need to energize the base.

I can understand that but I believe Republicans should state their disappointment the with the Walker ruling on Prop. 8 and state why they oppose it. The constitutionality of Prop. 8 is going to end up in the supreme court, eventually and congress can't do anything about it. Still, a clear statement of opposition to the Walker ruling is certainly called for. Kudos to the politicians like King and Bachmann that have the fortitude to stand up for principle.

They are afraid of the homosexual lobby...probably the most virulent and well-organized group in the U.S. Everyone who dares say anything against homosexuality is given Saul Alinsky treatment.

They have to use intimidation and demonization and take the discussion away from their abominable, nihilistic practices, because they are irrational and medically detrimental to any rational society. They also lead to pedophilia which is practiced in every society that promoted homosexuality, since it is a learned behavior at vulnerable young ages that relies on initiation into that lifestyle.

Personally, I am getting to the point where I would like to see this intelligent, patriotic, and beautiful woman run for president.

Dittos. With emphasis on the “intelligent, patriotic and beautiful” part.

"This is yet one more example of a judge substituting his moral pronouncement under the guise of constitutional law, and I think that's what people are upset about," she said.

This is a lawless judge, like so many, who needs to be removed from office.

We need to start targetting judges who substitute their personal opinion for law and removing them; until we do things will only continue to deteriorate. Each act of defiance by judges only provides precedent for further defiance by judges. If judges can violate the law with impunity they will and they do.

It isn't just that they are defying the "will of the people", but rather that they are defying rule of law itself.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) told reporters Tuesday that the California federal judge who overturned Proposition 8 last week acted against the will of voters in striking down the state's ban on gay marriage.

This makes a nice litmus test for anyone trying to get on the marron shortlist for president. Anyone who wants to be president who fears to speak up should either find a backbone or find themselves on the bench.

Where is the GOP?

In California? Are you kidding? Ahnold may have the "R" by his name, but he's not a Republican in any way, shape, or form. And, he's the leader of the "Republican" party here. There is no Republican party in California.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) told reporters Tuesday that the California federal judge who overturned Proposition 8 last week acted against the will of voters in striking down the state's ban on gay marriage.

What are they saying that's earthshattering? They're stating the obvious, which is what politicians love to do - no risk of getting yelled at.

They should forcefully state that Walker shat on the Constitution and that he should be impeached. Then I'd be impressed.

There is no way Vaughn Walker’s ruling will stand. It’s absurd to think that the court system allowed the homosexual militants to cherry pick this avowed queer judge to preside over their case. He should have recused himself immediately. Would we want a proud pedophile judge to sit on a case involving NAMBLA? What about an openly polygamist judge to preside in a polygamy case. We are entering total insanity territory.

We are entering total insanity territory.

Well, it IS California.