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

Skip to comments.

Shocker: "Gay" Federal Judge Rules California Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
Bluegrass Pundit ^ | Wednesday, August 4, 2010 | Bluegrass Pundit

Posted on 08/04/2010 5:34:28 PM PDT by Askwhy5times

U. S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker has ruled California's Prop 8 banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. Walker is one of only two known gay federal judges. Ironically, his appointment by former President George H. W. Bush was opposed by some Democrats on the grounds he was anti-gay. The Constitution has been in effect for over 200 years and the Fourteenth Amendment, cited by Judge Walker, has been in effect for over 140 years. Some things, such as new technology, may not have been envisioned by our founding fathers and could need interpretation by the courts. Gay marriage isn't one of them. Being gay isn't a new invention. If states want to allow gay marriage, I believe that is their right. However, reinterpreting the Federal Constitution to mean anything judges want it to mean isn't acceptable. In order to believe there is a constitutional right to gay marriage, one would have to believe that the people who wrote the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment were so stupid they accidentally wrote this alleged right into law and this federal judge is the first judge smart enough to find it. That scenario is completely unbelievable.

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


TOPICS: Gardening; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: constitution; federaljudge; gay; marriage

1 posted on 08/04/2010 5:34:32 PM PDT by Askwhy5times
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Askwhy5times

The petri dishes are running the asylum.


2 posted on 08/04/2010 5:38:23 PM PDT by MarineBrat (Better dead than red!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Askwhy5times

The gays are doing to the constitution what they do to each other.


3 posted on 08/04/2010 5:40:54 PM PDT by Loud Mime (Argue from the Constitution: Initialpoints.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Askwhy5times

We need a consitutional admendment:

Marriage is between one man and one woman.


4 posted on 08/04/2010 5:42:22 PM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Askwhy5times

Isn’t this a conflict of interest?!


5 posted on 08/04/2010 5:43:50 PM PDT by VanDeKoik (Iran doesnt have a 2nd admendment. Ya see how that turned out?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Askwhy5times

The gays are bringing their own brand of Marxism to the human relationship. Now all human relationships are equal. Try telling that to a child who only wants a mom and a dad.


6 posted on 08/04/2010 5:48:09 PM PDT by jonrick46 (We're being water boarded with the sewage of Fabian Socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Askwhy5times

“I want to marry my butt buddy so all of California must suffer!”......


7 posted on 08/04/2010 5:49:11 PM PDT by Route395
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Askwhy5times

Who’d have thought a pervert judge would rule in favor of perversion?


8 posted on 08/04/2010 5:50:54 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 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

They are trying to “pack” the courts.


9 posted on 08/04/2010 5:52:01 PM PDT by BlackjackPershing (The patriot's blood is the seed of Freedom's tree - Thomas Campbell (Scottish poet))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Askwhy5times

Take it to the SCOTUS NOW!


10 posted on 08/04/2010 5:52:29 PM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Askwhy5times

Time for the people to take back Law and Order from both the State, Federal Legislatures, and the Judges! Seems that laws voted on by the people have little respect. Heck, the Law Enforcers don’t seem to have to obey the laws, why should we?


11 posted on 08/04/2010 5:54:12 PM PDT by Deagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Askwhy5times

Once again, a judge overrides the will of the people. How much further will the electoral process be degraded by the judiciary before it becomes meaningless?


12 posted on 08/04/2010 5:55:29 PM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Askwhy5times

This is tyranny, rule outside the law.

Where does a judge think he has the legitimate authority to make law, that marriage can be between same sexes? Why bother then with elected representatives and governors?

Tyrants once feared for their personal safety. They should do so once again.


13 posted on 08/04/2010 5:58:39 PM PDT by Jacquerie (We live in a judicial tyranny - Mark Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CIB-173RDABN

One unrelated man and woman.


14 posted on 08/04/2010 5:59:21 PM PDT by FrdmLvr ( VIVA la SB 1070!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CIB-173RDABN
"We need a consitutional admendment:"

We need leaders with a moral grounding and common sense. An amendment would be unnecessary then.
15 posted on 08/04/2010 6:00:00 PM PDT by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Askwhy5times

I’m so glad that my parents (rest their souls) were one man and one woman.


16 posted on 08/04/2010 6:40:27 PM PDT by Gator113 (Beauty will devour the Beast in 2012....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Askwhy5times

The “Pink Mafia” should have been stopped when they first appeared in power as Hitler’s “Brown Shirts” but the “tolerance” of the intolerable has compromised societal judgement to the point where one homosexual activist judge posits that two men “doing that which is inconvenient” is the same as the sacred bond of the marriage and what was done on the sacred, “Marriage Bed” of your grandparents. The altered mind alters all. Gay Marriage=Unholy Matrimony


17 posted on 08/04/2010 8:23:23 PM PDT by Binstence (Live Freep or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Askwhy5times

From Wiki:

...his September 7, 1989, nomination by President George H. W. Bush to a seat on the federal district court...


18 posted on 08/05/2010 4:22:10 AM PDT by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gator113
Me too. The most important thing is how all this turmoil affects kids, but being an amateur genealogist, I think of family trees and how they are so screwed up now just with hetero shenanigans—in the future being a genealogist is going to be a bitch.
19 posted on 08/05/2010 4:26:41 AM PDT by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Askwhy5times

I say it again, Frank and Mary had two, John and Bill had none......


20 posted on 08/05/2010 5:12:20 AM PDT by gulfcoast6 (GOD IS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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