Posted on 08/15/2010 5:24:02 AM PDT by rhema
Did you know that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are bigots? Ditto for the justices of New York's, Maryland's and Washington's highest state courts. And there are at least 7 million bigots in California alone, along with legions more across the country.
Their strange and aberrant delusion? They believe -- or say it's reasonable to believe -- that traditional marriage is a social good that serves our nation well.
So says federal Judge Vaughn Walker, who recently overturned Proposition 8 -- passed by California voters in 2008 to enshrine one man/one woman marriage in their state's constitution. Walker ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional under the U.S. constitution. Only "prejudice," "fear" and "misinformation," he said, can explain Californians' support for it.
Anyone who wonders why Americans are up in arms over the arrogance of our quasi-totalitarians in black robes -- activist judges who want to rule your life -- should flip through Walker's opinion.
Arrogance and disdain for those who dare to disagree drip from every page:
So what if male/female marriage has been the core institution in virtually every human society? Walker dictates that male/female differences shall henceforth be eradicated from marriage. "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage," he ruled, rejecting other views as "antiquated" and "discredited."
And the universal belief that kids do best with both a mom and a dad? That one goes in the garbage can, too. It's "beyond any doubt" that "parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes," he instructs us.
Walker's 136-page opinion is rife with contempt for American citizens, who are too ignorant and easily led to have a voice in defining marriage. As a result, the issue of marriage is "beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives," Walker tells us. In other words, get in line
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Walker's failure to disclose his relationship requires that his opinion be vacated and a new trial be held before a different judge, Chapman University law professor John Eastman wrote last week.
Walker's attempt to smuggle in his own, self-interested version of morality may be the real reason for his arrogant and indefensible decision.
God designed marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Anything else is an abomination.
Not to mention the AIDS rate.
I read last week that another law professor said Walker's court had no standing to hear the case in the first place, that once Prop 8 cleared the California Supreme Court the only proper place was the U.S. Supreme Court, not some local-yocal District Court.
6.
to pass legal judgment on; pass sentence on (a person): The court judged him guilty.
7.
to hear evidence or legal arguments in (a case) in order to pass judgment; adjudicate; try: The Supreme Court is judging that case.
Oh, oh. We’re in trouble. I went to dictionary.com to find the definition of “Judge.” Only the two above came close. What I expected to find was that a Judge determines the legal weight of each person’s argument and then decides to which side the actual, written law applies. In other words, you’d never find in a judge’s opinion words such as: “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage,” or “antiquated” and “discredited.”
Laws can be antiquated and still on the books and, therefore, still in force. That doesn’t mean that the judge can arbitrarily overrule them. It means he must base his rulings on written law. If We The People, don’t like it, then We can have our representatives change the law.
Every extreme group is now engaged in Lawfare. That’s warfare conducted against society from within the society’s own defense mechanism; the courts. It’s the judicial equivalent of HIV. Like HIV, if We The People don’t do something about it then science labs in junior high school will soon be teaching fellatio and cunnilingus.
I’d expect nothing else from a pole smoker.
God gave us the concept of marriage and the ability to make gun powder for a reason.
Can’t there be legal definitions defining the difference between marriage and ‘civil unions’?
Heterosexuals can marry, other mixed societal combination’s can have a civil union.
I can see where a civil union for tax,employment,insurance, benefits, pensions,and mutually owned property could have a place...but not just limited to gay’s.
Why couldn’t two siblings, never marrying but living in the same household declare a civil union, or two friends (not lovers)?
If same sex pairings can avail them selves of these legal and financial advantages, it should be extended to others who would like the same advantages who are not ‘romantically’ involved.
Further ruminations on civil unions....I wonder if the ‘gay’ population would be for or against extending civil unions to other non gay pairings in the civil union picture?
“I read last week that another law professor said Walker’s court had no standing to hear the case in the first place, that once Prop 8 cleared the California Supreme Court the only proper place was the U.S. Supreme Court, not some local-yocal District Court.”
This is incorrect. Because a federal issue has been raised for the first time in this case, it is appropriate to introduce it at a District Court.
WELCOME TO FREE REPUBLIC’S MINNESOTA PING LIST!
139 MEMBERS AND GROWING...!
FREEPMAIL ME IF YOU WANT ON OR OFF THIS LIST!
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.