Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ZOT!! Overturned Same-Sex Marriage Ban is a Win for Freedom
The Woodward Report ^ | August 4, 2010

Posted on 08/04/2010 3:44:08 PM PDT by thisisthetime

When a San Francisco Federal Judge ruled the ban on same –sex marriage (enumerated by Proposition 8) unconstitutional today it was a big win for freedom in the United States. No longer will the issue be one that it is determined on a state by state basis, but the issue will eventually be enshrined in federal law pending the eventual Supreme Court decision.

The current ruling will be appealed in the 9th Circuit, but regardless of the outcome you can be assured this case will be heard by the highest court in the land. The question is – What will be their verdict? Proposition 8, which accumulated 52.3% of the vote, was deemed unconstitutional because of its infringement on the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment.

Another interesting twist to the story is the man who made the decision, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay. Regardless of his orientation, which the San Francisco Gate claims had no affect on the outcome, I believe this is the correct decision and hope that the United States Supreme Court concurs when given the chance.

As editor-in-chief of The Woodward Report I identify myself heavily with conservative politics. I am certain that by agreeing with the verdict rendered I am in the minority among conservatives. However, the reality is that there is no legitimate argument that outlines why same-sex marriage should be banned. No one can argue with a straight face that it will diminish the sanctity of marriage. The divorce rate among Americans is estimated to be between 40% - 50%. It is clear that a lot of people do not take marriage very seriously...

(Excerpt) Read more at thewoodwardreport.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics; Religion; Society
KEYWORDS: democrats; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; prop8; sodomyrus; thehomoreport; zot; zotbait; zotmedaddy; zuluoscartango
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-106 next last

1 posted on 08/04/2010 3:44:09 PM PDT by thisisthetime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime

2 posted on 08/04/2010 3:46:28 PM PDT by BenLurkin (Will must be the harder, courage the bolder, spirit must be the more, as our might lessens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/08/04/some-key-excerpts-from-the-proposition-8-ruling/
‘Some Key Excerpts From the Proposition 8 Ruling’

This is an emotional outburst, not a ‘ruling’.


3 posted on 08/04/2010 3:47:37 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

It’s an emotional outburst by a homosexual judge who should have recused himself.


4 posted on 08/04/2010 3:48:36 PM PDT by Ripliancum ("As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Or, maybe we've got this all backward.
5 posted on 08/04/2010 3:50:01 PM PDT by saundby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime

Is polygamy now legal? Or is this judge being selective with his baseless fiat?


6 posted on 08/04/2010 3:50:23 PM PDT by Hoodat (.For the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime
The divorce rate among Americans is estimated to be between 40% - 50%

That's a canard, because that statistic is heavily skewed by serial divorces. The fact is that about 80% of first marriages do succeed for life. It's the people that get divorced two or three times that are responsible for the divorce rate being so high.

7 posted on 08/04/2010 3:50:43 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime

As I stated before, if ‘gay marriage’ becomes the law of the land, being forced even here in Texas, I’ll totally and 100% support secession. America will be dead for all practical purposes, and deserve destruction.


8 posted on 08/04/2010 3:51:50 PM PDT by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Do they have to be Gay? If so how do they proove it. Can Brothers get married? How bout just friends to get deals on taxes etc. We have hit the Iceberg and are going down!


9 posted on 08/04/2010 3:52:01 PM PDT by screaminsunshine (m)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime

Same-Sex “Marriage”: insert square peg in round hole.


10 posted on 08/04/2010 3:52:21 PM PDT by windsorknot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime
What is ridiculous about all of this is that the judge is completely missing the point - this is not an "equal protection" issue, it is a DEFINITIONAL issue. The word "marriage" has a specific meaning that has been perfectly clear throughout history. And that clear meaning just simply does not include any arrangement other than a man and a woman.

To try to argue otherwise is similar to an apple being upset that it is not an orange, therefore we decide to call every type of fruit (no pun intended) an orange in order to extend "equal protection." Absurd.

11 posted on 08/04/2010 3:54:30 PM PDT by noiseman (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime
A single judge overturned the will of the people expressed once through the CA legislature and finally via the direct will of the people.

However, the reality is that there is no legitimate argument that outlines why same-sex marriage should be banned.

That is the author's opinion and it is irrelevant. Tens of millions of people spoke twice. Our Constitution has been turned on its head. We are no longer a self governing people.

We live in a judicial tyranny - Mark Levin.

The tyrannical judge just tossed another log on the fire of resistance.

12 posted on 08/04/2010 3:57:03 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Support the Free Republic Resistance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saundby

Next sentence:

I love Jesus but I’d have stood by Mary if she aborted him!


13 posted on 08/04/2010 3:57:56 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime
the reality is that there is no legitimate argument that outlines why same-sex marriage should be banned.

I'll give you three...

How about: because the people want it that way?

How about: "Separation of Church and State"?

How about: There is no "right to marry" for anyone?

14 posted on 08/04/2010 3:59:41 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate: Republicans freed the slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime

The idiot who wrote the article is no Conservative at all. Anyone who wants to flush the sanctity of marriage down the toilet and embrace wholesale perversion, is at best a Libertarian or RINO. I’m so sick of people pretending to be Conservatives when they aren’t. Another disgusting example is militant homosexual activist Andrew Sullivan who absurdly labels himself a ‘Conservative’. Give me a break.


15 posted on 08/04/2010 3:59:47 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: windsorknot

One thing is for sure - “Divorce Court” is about to get a whole lot more interesting. Maybe they should consider a move into prime time...

I put this into the “Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it all.” category.


16 posted on 08/04/2010 4:00:07 PM PDT by nolongerademocrat ("Before you ask G-d for something, first thank G-d for what you already have." B'rachot 30b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

“Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.”

Nooooooooooooooo, it means they are not a man and a woman.


17 posted on 08/04/2010 4:03:33 PM PDT by jessduntno (I wonder...how will third Manassas turn out?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nolongerademocrat

It’s laughable that some believe that opening up marriage to same-sex couples (and why stop there?) is a win for civilization and “freedom”.


18 posted on 08/04/2010 4:11:55 PM PDT by windsorknot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

the only legitimate one is the first one you mentioned, the people’s voice is a consideration.

Separation of church and state? what does that have to do with anything? people can married at a court house.

while there is no right to marry, there is the 14th amendment which promises equal protection under the law


19 posted on 08/04/2010 4:12:39 PM PDT by thisisthetime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:

The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%

http://www.divorcerate.org/


20 posted on 08/04/2010 4:13:44 PM PDT by thisisthetime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime

A power grab by the ruling-class over the people is certainly a loss for/of America.


21 posted on 08/04/2010 4:14:34 PM PDT by RckyRaCoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

people also approved of segregating schools? Do you disagree with Brown vs. Board of Education?


22 posted on 08/04/2010 4:15:22 PM PDT by thisisthetime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime

“Another interesting twist to the story is the man who made the decision, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay”....

Interesting twist?.....

It’s a hell of a lot more than an interesting twist!...Its about a judge who ruled against the will of the people so he can eventually marry his butt buddy!....What a mile high pile of crap!


23 posted on 08/04/2010 4:15:30 PM PDT by Route395
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime

Why post crap like this? So you have to go line by line spanking the glaring weaknesses in the argument?
It just tells me everyone has an opinion but just because they do, it doesn’t mean the opinion is worth squat. This guy is proud of not thinking. I feel sorry for the guy.


24 posted on 08/04/2010 4:16:25 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime

the woodward report is another dead site.


25 posted on 08/04/2010 4:17:28 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

How about: "Separation of Church and State"?
Not in the US Constitution. It's in the Constitution of the Soviet Union, though:
In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.
What is in the US Constitution is the express prohibition by Congress to pass laws respecting a religion, as well as the prohibition to pass laws impinging upon free exercise of religion.

How about: There is no "right to marry" for anyone?
As far as the state getting involved in it, i.e. being a director and dictator of same? Against the First Amendment.

This ruling is not constitutional. Equal protection under the laws cannot encroach upon free exercise of religion.
26 posted on 08/04/2010 4:18:46 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Route395


“Another interesting twist to the story is the man who made the decision, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay”....
Interesting twist?..... It’s a hell of a lot more than an interesting twist!...Its about a judge who ruled against the will of the people so he can eventually marry his butt buddy!....What a mile high pile of crap!
It's also a violation of the principle of impartial judgment.
27 posted on 08/04/2010 4:21:45 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

conservatism is embodied mostly by conserving principles that our country was founded on, which is mostly preserving liberty and keeping the government out of the people’s social lives. If you read the entire article you can see that the author asserts that marriage should be a government sanctioned process anyway, but you probably just read the snippet.

People that concerns themselves with social issues like drugs and gay marriage and morals are missing the point. The important issues are taxes, deficits, foreign policy, national security... the government should not have an opinion in matters of morality except when it infringes upon other’s liberty.


28 posted on 08/04/2010 4:21:50 PM PDT by thisisthetime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime

Here is a situation that all taxpayers will question: An 80 year old retired fireman receiving a pension for 25 years. When he dies, his wife, if still alive, receives about 90-95% of that pension until she dies, then it’s done. Now at 80 years old, he divorces his current wife and marries his 18 year old great-grandson. If he lives for at least 1 year and then dies in the future, this young man will get the pension for the rest of his life. I guess some would call that a scam, but, hey- maybe it’s true love.


29 posted on 08/04/2010 4:22:42 PM PDT by Mark (Don't argue with my posts. I typed while under sniper fire..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine

based on what has been written on the judges ruling.

you are correct.

all recreation taboos are gone.

This is about you have a fundamental right to “feel good”

no drug laws.
no any law that makes you feel bad.

in fact being a buzz kill is now illegal.

(see “Brave New World”)


30 posted on 08/04/2010 4:22:42 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: windsorknot

explain how equal protection under the law is not violated by refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry (which is a government sanctioned process) ?


31 posted on 08/04/2010 4:23:46 PM PDT by thisisthetime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

you supply no argument here — worthless post by you.


32 posted on 08/04/2010 4:25:15 PM PDT by thisisthetime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

Well said. The first thing I thought when reading the article, this phony who wrote this is a Libertarian. Conservative, my eye.


33 posted on 08/04/2010 4:26:15 PM PDT by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mark

IOW they will outlaw the pension payment for the wife entirly because a few deviants get their sexual excitement from being deviants in public.


34 posted on 08/04/2010 4:26:18 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime
You're all still missing the point:

The left is trying to change the definition of the key word here - "marriage." THAT is the issue, not all of the irrelevant ancillary arguments that follow. But the definition of that term has never before been in doubt. So we can't even logically get to the equal protection argument because you've got to cross the bridge of what "marriage" means first.

As I said before, an apple is not an orange and never can be regardless of whether a group of fools arbitrarily decide to just call apples oranges, and thereby argue that it is unfair that everyone else is making such a distinction. It is what it is. IT'S ALL IN THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM "MARRIAGE."

35 posted on 08/04/2010 4:29:32 PM PDT by noiseman (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime

One more reason why there will be a GOP sweep in November.


36 posted on 08/04/2010 4:29:59 PM PDT by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

But would not the SC rule on whether a federal judge can overturn a state proposition? Not on gay marriage per se?


37 posted on 08/04/2010 4:32:52 PM PDT by squarebarb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
That's a canard, because that statistic is heavily skewed by serial divorces. The fact is that about 80% of first marriages do succeed for life. It's the people that get divorced two or three times that are responsible for the divorce rate being so high. Very well put! I have always been of the same opinion, but couldn't state it as well as you just did.

Golly. there are many things that the state won't allow me to do. Is it now my constitutional right to do them?

Our society has certainly changed since the days of my youth, when sexual deviancy was only whispered about.

38 posted on 08/04/2010 4:36:16 PM PDT by mckenzie7 (Democrats = Trough Sloppers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime
Overturned Same-Sex Marriage Ban is a Win for Freedom

Well I'd like to marry two women. What about me? You're telling me two men can marry but I can't marry two women?
39 posted on 08/04/2010 4:38:46 PM PDT by Vision ("Did I not say to you that if you would believe, you would see the glory of God?" John 11:40)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

They could for new employees. I’m sure the judges have similar contracts for themselves.


40 posted on 08/04/2010 4:38:49 PM PDT by Mark (Don't argue with my posts. I typed while under sniper fire..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime

It may be a ‘win’ for freedom, but it is a definite loss for those of us who are totally, completely, and utterly creeped out by deviant, sick, and utterly depraved behavior.

Gays always have and always will turn my stomach. There is no law, no judicial ruling, and no court order that can EVER make me accept them.


41 posted on 08/04/2010 4:40:21 PM PDT by hoagy62 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime

“Overturned Same-Sex Marriage Ban is a Win for Freedom”
No, it is a win for evil. It is opening the door for polygamists and pedophiles to become legitimate on the same grounds as the queers. It is also a win for evil because the will of the people was ignored and a decree from a single unelected individual took its place. There is no good in this.


42 posted on 08/04/2010 4:46:01 PM PDT by GenXteacher (He that hath no stomach for this fight, let him depart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: squarebarb
I'm going to start hyperventilating soon.

"But would not the SC rule on whether a federal judge can overturn a state proposition?

IT DOESN'T MATTER! If we allow ourselves to be drawn into arguments on this issue about states rights or constitutionality or whatever, then the left has won! That's exactly what they want because then we have essentially stipulated to their contention that the definition of marriage is malleable and can cover any arrangement anyone happens to fancy. To do that is to fight the wrong battle.

The correct response to them is to force the plaintiffs in this case (the left) to produce evidence that the term "marriage" can be extended to same-sex unions. THEY CAN'T! There is no case-law precedent, no historical precedent, nor any other evidence whatsoever that the term means anything other than the union of a man and a woman. I just can't believe that they have essentially waltzed into a courtroom and arbitrarily redefined the critical word in the case with zero legal backing, gotten the judge to go along with it, and then succeeded in getting the conservative opposition to argue about whether it's constitutional or whether it violates the equal protection clause.

Come on, this one isn't difficult.

43 posted on 08/04/2010 4:46:01 PM PDT by noiseman (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime

I’m sure NAMBLA is just waiting for their freedom next..

There’s some sick, sick bastards we have in society..


44 posted on 08/04/2010 4:46:39 PM PDT by maddog55 (OBAMA, Why stupid people shouldn't vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime; Olog-hai; y'all
Separation of church and state? what does that have to do with anything? people can married at a court house....Not in the US Constitution. It's in the Constitution of the Soviet Union, though:

As far as I'm concerned, "Separation of Church and State" is a liberal invention, and I'd only use it to throw it back in their face.

Then again, why the hell CAN you get married in a court house? Marriage IS a tenet of religion.

while there is no right to marry, there is the 14th amendment which promises equal protection under the law

All that means is a gay guy would have as much right to marry a woman as does the next guy....if it was a right.

45 posted on 08/04/2010 4:52:01 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate: Republicans freed the slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: windsorknot

They only want “marriage” because they do not have it - give it a few years and they’ll be fighting like hell to get out of it... It is different when you break up and the other person can take half your stuff. They will figure it out eventually.


46 posted on 08/04/2010 4:53:28 PM PDT by nolongerademocrat ("Before you ask G-d for something, first thank G-d for what you already have." B'rachot 30b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime

“Marry” your boyfriend while you can.


47 posted on 08/04/2010 4:53:46 PM PDT by Jacquerie (We live in a judicial tyranny - Mark Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime
There is already "equal protection under the law" when it comes to marriage, strictly and traditionally defined. As a man you are free to marry a woman, and as a woman you are free to marry a man.
48 posted on 08/04/2010 4:55:58 PM PDT by windsorknot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: thisisthetime

Minority rule once again trumps majority rule...... =.=


49 posted on 08/04/2010 4:56:34 PM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
"All that means is a gay guy would have as much right to marry a woman as does the next guy....if it was a right."

Finally someone is zeroing in on the real issue. I might not hyperventilate after all, although I still have my paper bag handy since everyone else is still arguing over the placement of the deck chairs while the ship goes down.

50 posted on 08/04/2010 4:58:12 PM PDT by noiseman (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-106 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson