Judge Walker overturned California’s marriage law. Not only is the result of this rulingbizarre and ignores the hint in Lawrence that the Supreme Court had not intention of delving into marriage law, it is the epitome of one man’s personal agenda being placed over the law and the will of the people. In order for the framers of the 14th amendment to have intended there to be a right for gays to marry, they would have to be mad. Why would they have blocked Utah’s admission to the union and insisted 4 western states added a one man and one woman clause to their constitutions before being admitted if they believed the equal protection clause banned such a definition of marriage? This ruling is a perversion of all that the courts represent and will be overturned.
Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said “Judge Walker‘s decision goes far beyond homosexual ‘marriage’ to strike at the heart of our representative democracy.”
In addition, University of Notre Dame law professor Gerard V. Bradley, who said much of Judge Walker‘s actions during the trial were “bizarre,” should have recused himself, because “(as several newspapers have reported) the judge is openly gay.” The Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle have both reported that Judge Walker‘s sexuality, though he is not “out,” is an open secret in California gay and legal circles.
If we had a real Congress, An Article of Impeachment would be filed today.
This guy is one of two openly gay federal judges. The irony is that he was appointed by Ronald Reagan and opposed by Nancy Pelosi at the time for his “insensitivity” towards gays.
Judge Walker walks in lock step with the Democrat liberal agenda these days.
correction – George H.W. Bush not Reagan
Judge Walker walks in lock step with the Democrat liberal agenda these days.
Well, if that is the constitutionally correct agenda, then get in step.
A Hollywood comedy writer couldn’t have written a more absurd decision.
This decision is an abomination. It is a legal fraud. It violates any reasonable understanding of law, history, and culture. It needs to go on the ash heap of history.
This decision is an abomination. It is a legal fraud. It violates any reasonable understanding of law, history, and culture. It needs to go on the ash heap of history.
LOL… proving once again the truth of this advice:
Keep banging that table.
Obviously, ‘alpha’ never read the decision.
Sure, the most overturned Circuit Court in the nation (9th) will concur, but the U.S. Supreme Court will not.
Meanwhile, let Socialist-Democrats rejoice; they will find it to be a pyrrhic ‘victory’ as November approaches.
Alpha try to educate yourself. I would also encourage you to look at the same sex marriage category on this blog. I have a couple of pieces which discuss this in depth.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/07/judge_tauros_questionable_past.html
I hope you agree certain “rights” for each person are embedded in the Constitution, like equal protection. That is not something we “vote on”. We don’t have a referendum deciding our right to assemble or practice our religion. We can’t have a referendum deciding if Muslims can build a mosque on private property they own in NYC. It’s a right. The California decision says that. If we could referendum everything there’s no need for a Constitution. Let’s just vote to see if blacks should eat in any restaurant. Same with gay people hooking up. It’s a right, not some privilege granted by the majority.
I think we did have a vote on the restaurant thing. It was called the Civil Rights Act not the Court ramming it down your throat ruling. I think we did have a vote on the Muslim thing, it was called the First Amendment. I think we had a vote on the marriage definition as well in 31 states and it was 31-0. The federal law was overwhelming. The history is impeccable if you want to actually look at it.
Thank you WH – what they fail to understand id that the Judge ruled on points of fact as well as point of law.
NOW – points of fact (there where 80, I believe) will not be overturned by the Appellate Court and they are finding of fact entered as testimony.
The other side had two dweebs that had!! BOLGS!! too and relied on blogs as testimony
Bolgs are opinions – NOT FACTS – no wonder they lost
80 points of law will not be overturned – tee hee heee
The judge did not actually rule on equal protection. He said that the referendum (Prop
is illegal b/c it imposes a heterosexual “morality” upon the state that homosexuals are “inferior.”
However, Cali does NOT have equal protection — domestic partnerships do not have the same benefits as married hetero couples. The judge would have been much better served focusing on that. But he really didn’t.
See more: http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/304295.php
WTF is a “bolg?”
you think you’re so intellectualy superior – you figure it out..
Judge didn’t have to rule on “equal protection” its already guaranteed – duh – by the 14th Ammendment – you know the one the Right Wingnuts want to repeal
therefore, California’s Prop 8 violated the Federal Constitution’s 14th ammendment as well as the STATE constitution- the popular vote CANNOT overthrow the Constitution – I thought you (un)Constitutional Conservatives knew all this stuff.
please – don’t worry about the spelling – that is the weeds – think substance
this is too easy………..and do try to keep up
you think you’re so intellectualy superior – you figure it out..
Never made any such claim. Moot.
Judge didn’t have to rule on “equal protection” its already guaranteed – duh – by the 14th Ammendment – you know the one the Right Wingnuts want to repeal
Well, now maybe I WILL make such a claim, at least in terms of dealing with you. NO ONE has called for repealing the 14th Amendment, idiot — what some have called for in amending the birthright citizenship provision. That’s all. There are many things in the 14th Amendment, after all. Next, judges rule on “equal protection” all the time. If it’s “already guaranteed,” then why do gay Americans not have it already? Sheesh.
therefore, California’s Prop 8 violated the Federal Constitution’s 14th ammendment as well as the STATE constitution
Nope. Prop. 8 AMENDED the state’s constitution. And the matter of whether it violates the 14th Amendment hasn’t been ultimately decided.
Gee, I am intellectually superior, certainly in terms of dealing with your idiocy.
gays do have equal rights – except in the marriage arena – because of exactly what the judge said – that marriage has been redefined by time – and “traditional roles” are being redefined by society.
you (un) Constitutional Conservatives want to define it by saying marriage is between a man and a woman:
1. one man one underage girl
2. one man and one woman, after woman, after woman?
3. a man and a woman (but all the women at the same time)
which definitiion is it??
obviously you have not read the 8o points of fact – nor the point of law – its only 138 pages – get one it
and when you are done… let me know
as for repealing the 14th – oh yes they did call for it – then tried to ‘walk it back” to discuss birth tourism which is dumb because of you are a tourist you are here legally on a visa
“Senator Jon Kyl became the latest to support the move over the weekend when he told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that he agrees with Senator Lindsey Graham’s call to repeal the amendment.”
http://cbs4.com/local/14th.amendment.repeal.2.1838076.html
“TPMDC asked, “Do you support the Minority Leader’s push for hearings into the repeal of birthright citizenship?”
“Sure, why not?” McCain said briefly. ”
asked – and answered – direct quote – and if he was misquoted then he has not denied it
and you are playing with semantics here – you know they originally asked for repeal – then said WHOOPS when they saw the reaction – even Alan Keys won’t support it
keep up will ya – or would you rather just unzip and start measuring?
“If we had a real Congress, An Article of Impeachment would be filed today.”
LOL! This blog is so AWESOME!!! I’m now convinced that it is a parody site put up by some leftists to make the right look ridiculous.
“Well, now maybe I WILL make such a claim, at least in terms of dealing with you. NO ONE has called for repealing the 14th Amendment, idiot — what some have called for in amending the birthright citizenship provision.”
and I hate to break it to you – but one would have to repeal the whole ammendment in order to change its provisions – they cannot be parsed – kind of an all or nothing issue…
get some constitutional scholarship lessons – will ya
hey Hube – no answer?? – you burning up Wiki??? and ask.com?? LOL
Jason – I am convinced that you are right on the money!!
But its my daily entertainment – kinda sad tho…watching them flounder and gasp…..
kinda like a dying fish
and I hate to break it to you – but one would have to repeal the whole ammendment in order to change its provisions – they cannot be parsed – kind of an all or nothing issue…
UUURNT. No they wouldn’t. What they would have to do is pass another amendment to excise/modify the birthright provision of the 14th Amendment. Using your logic, you’d have to repeal the entire Constitution (instead of just sections of it) to change just a small part of it. (Like, for example, Amendment 17.)
gays do have equal rights – except in the marriage arena
I agree — sort of. As I mentioned previously, if gays are not afforded the same government benefits that are given to hetero couples, it’s an equal protection violation (IMO). But also as I noted, this judge (and others) continue to demand that the term “marriage” be used for gay unions. Polls have consistently said that 1) Americans do NOT favor gay “marriage,” yet 2) they DO favor gay civil unions. If Judge Walker or anyone else concentrated on just granting gay couples the same benefits as straight couples and get off the hang-up on the traditional term of “marriage,” this battle would be over. (Or largely over.)
hey Hube – no answer?? – you burning up Wiki??? and ask.com?? LOL
Your sense of self-flattery is a bloated as your lousy intellect. Sorry, but I had a date at the driving range. Surgery has prevented me from golfing until now.
Regarding civil rights our history clear shows the Courts had to interpret the Constitution in ways the majority did not favor. How would Delaware have voted in 1951 on Brown vs Board of Education? Did you know Brown vs Board combined five complaints the lead complaint involving black kids in Claymont Delaware?
Delaware – Belton v. Gebhart (Bulah v. Gebhart)
First petitioned in 1951, these local cases challenged the inferior conditions of two black schools designated for African American children. In the suburb of Claymont, African American children were prohibited from attending the area’s local high school. Instead, they had to ride a school bus for nearly an hour to attend Howard High School in Wilmington.
The Court had to force us to do the Constitutional (and moral) thing. Delaware voters would have defeated integration by 5 to 1 is it was on the ballot then.
Wrong this interpretation of the 14th amendment was not a given. http://patriotpost.us/opinion/ann-coulter/2010/08/05/justice-brennans-footnote-gave-us-anchor-babies/
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Are you subject to the jurisdiction if you are not here legally? Children of legal aliens not diplomats who are not subject to our jurisdiction were long held citizens. Justice Brennan made this an issue in 1982 when he claimed there was not material difference between people who were here legally and here illegally.
I happen not to want to open the can of worms that is 14th amendment citizenship, but you can not pretend that Hube is some radical advocating its repeal.
David: I suggest you check out this post of mine: http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/304246.php
And for WH, I suggest this one: http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/304295.php
Comment in mod. b/c of two links. FYI.
The majority of the United States seemed to have favored it. They elected super majorities of the Congress and 5 consecutive Presidents when this was an area of dispute who favored that proposition. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon all favored the Civil Rights Laws. Every President and most elected officials since favor them. Every Gallup poll since the 40′s show support for Civil Rights was with the people long before the politicians and courts took it up. The Civil Rights Amendments to the Constitution passed overwhelmingly. So did the Civil Rights laws over the veto of President Johnson. It was the courts which undermined them contrary to the will of the people.
The fact the courts caught up almost 90 years late is not worthy of giving them credit.
The Civil Rights that you refer to were not based upon remaking society. It was based upon tearing down artifical barriers put up by some who wanted to keep a slave class. That was not the will of the people.
Not only that, David, race as a construct (for slavery purposes) was essentially a Western idea, therefore relatively new by human civilization standards.
But gender? This has been a plain fact of biology since the dawn of man, natch.
First, the US Supreme Court will reverse this decision.
Second, a ‘marriage’ requires a husband and a wife.
“Do you, John, take John as your lawfully wedded wife? I do.”
Only the perverse left could sanction such an absurdity.