Posted on 08/12/2010 8:24:41 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
When a federal judge last week struck down California's Proposition 8 as unconstitutional, proponents of same-sex marriage cheered the decision at rallies in West Hollywood and San Francisco.
Public displays of displeasure at U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker's ruling were far and few between.
But Walker's decision struck an angry chord with many who voted for Proposition 8 in 2008. On Thursday, he extended a temporary hold on his order until Wednesday to give sponsors of the measure time to appeal the ruling.
What was once a moral argument has morphed into a debate over the democratic process and the propriety of judges overturning laws approved by voters. It raises one of the oldest conflicts in the nation the tension between "majority rule" and a Constitution designed to protect the rights of individuals against the majority.
"I thought the people voted on it," said Russell Wade, 72, who was watching children body-boarding in the waves below Huntington Beach Pier this week. "I guess it doesn't matter as long as certain groups don't like what the voters decide. The people voted on it and it should be left alone. Period."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
And Q too.
A Queer Queer Queen.
“I dont know that I would have used the Q word to describe the judge. Liberal or anti-constitutional perhaps. Using words like the one you did does not help your argument.”
I’d go further and say knee-jerk responses only make the judge’s case, that people oppose same-sex marriage only because they are prejudiced, for him. Those of us in favor of traditional marriage need to become more intelligent in our arguments, and stop charging head-first into the traps our enemies lay for us.
>>> The fact that a single gay judge was allowed to hear this case and overturn the will of the people is far more disturbing than the posters use of the word queer
I understand your point but what would you have said to a gay man who would make the same objection if a heterosexual federal judge had upheld the ban? Would you have called him a fool ? Done a WAAAHHHH WAHHH post ?
There are more important issues to argue here. Crude name calling, not so much.
We live in a Judicial Tyranny. It’s now official.
“people oppose same-sex marriage only because they are prejudiced”
And ...? Do you oppose men who belong to NAMBLA pursuing little boys? Is that “prejudice”? Do you oppose a lifestyle in which men eroticize the hairy waste elimination sphincter of other males and organize parades to celebrate that preference?
Now tell me what is wrong with a little common sense “prejudice”?
Don't think that churches are off limits. The homo-lobby has itself admitted that Christianity and Christians are the biggest obstacles to enacting their full agenda. If this outrageous judge can rule as he has just so that "gays" can feel good about themselves, then there is little else that cannot be mandated for the same reason.
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.