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 ...
>> Overturned Same-Sex Marriage Ban is a Win for Freedom
Forcing free enterprise to support what it considers to be degenerate behavior is not ‘Freedom’.
Nice big kitty for this guy.
Don't forget "equality" .
I told one person, "We certainly don't need to show up to the polls and vote any more". Her reply was, "You can still vote just don't be so presumptuous as to think that a majority vote will make rules on the private life of the minority"
Excuse me? Isn't that the definition of a democracy?? Am I nuts? What am I missing here?
Cool cat
The real win for Freedom would’ve been for the Federal Government to get out of the business of treating married and single people differently... then all these marriage arguments go away in an instant. The less government does, the more Freedom we can enjoy. The more they try to make choices, the more they ruin, and the less Freedom we have.
There is only one way to get rid of this cancer ... only one way.
Enjoy the shorter life expectancy, perv.
IATZ
Indeed.
And regrettably more on the way, after what will be four years of Obama and Dems in control. There is no sanity or family values being represented in our government...
Those who are demoniacn do not know what is to be done and what is not to be done.
Neither cleanliness nor proper behavior nor truth is found in them.
They say that this world is unreal, that there is no foundation and that there is no God in control. It is produced of sex desire, and has no cause other than lust.
Following such conclusions, the demoniac, who are lost to themselves and who have no intelligence, create unbeneficial, horrible works meant to destroy the world.
The demoniac, taking shelter of insatiable lust, pride and false prestige, and being thus illusioned, are always sworn to unclean work, attracted by the impermanent.
They believe that to gratify the senses unto the end of life is the prime necessity of human civilization. Thus there is no end to their anxiety.
Chapter 16, Bhagavad Gita
Maybe there won’t be two more years, perhaps 0thugga will “resign” or be arrested. He is a criminal and knows he is not eligible.
It’s actually a big LOSS for freedom when the people vote in a law and an appointed judge knocks it down against the will of the people.
Love it or hate it, the people of California had spoken on the issue - and now the law has been overturned by a judge.
Guess the will of the people doesn’t count for much these days...
I really like that one, too.
No, they still use the same round peg you do, just a different hole...
And the Lesbians use the same hole, but a strap-on peg...
A round hole full of fecal matter.
thanks, as always, lj.
your posts are always a treasure.
Moral issues have always been defined by the Supreme Court. I believe polygamy and homosexual “marriage” are intimately related; if you allow one, you must allow the other.
Chief Justice Waite, in 1878, dismissed the legality of polygamy, based largely upon an argument of morality.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=98&invol=145
Justice Waite wrote in his decision that even though Congress had no power over the opinion as expressed by citizens, Congress was free to limit the actions of citizens whose behavior was “in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” He expanded on this statement by outlining the offensiveness of polygamy in English law (a mother of American law) and further justified his opinion by exhibiting that Virginia tried to introduce a clause into the first amendment which would prohibit polygamy and make its exercise an offense punishable by death.
Justice Waite wrote, “We think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offense against society” and that this offense had been recognized and held punishable by the courts of law.
I think the same argument can be made for homosexual “marriage”. Supreme Court Justices have always relied upon precedence in their rulings. If precedence is really that important, then the CA judge is wrong.
Ping to Post #79. It’s my opinion that if you allow homosexual “marriage”, you must allow other “non-traditional” marriages, including polygamy, polyandry, etc.
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.