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 ...
A power grab by the ruling-class over the people is certainly a loss for/of America.
people also approved of segregating schools? Do you disagree with Brown vs. Board of Education?
“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!
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.
the woodward report is another dead site.
Not in the US Constitution. It's in the Constitution of the Soviet Union, though:
How about: "Separation of Church and State"?
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.
As far as the state getting involved in it, i.e. being a director and dictator of same? Against the First Amendment.
How about: There is no "right to marry" for anyone?
It's also a violation of the principle of impartial judgment.
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!
“Another interesting twist to the story is the man who made the decision, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay”....
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.
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.
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”)
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) ?
you supply no argument here — worthless post by you.
Well said. The first thing I thought when reading the article, this phony who wrote this is a Libertarian. Conservative, my eye.
IOW they will outlaw the pension payment for the wife entirly because a few deviants get their sexual excitement from being deviants in public.
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."
One more reason why there will be a GOP sweep in November.
But would not the SC rule on whether a federal judge can overturn a state proposition? Not on gay marriage per se?
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.
They could for new employees. I’m sure the judges have similar contracts for themselves.
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.