Skip to comments.Prop 8: Contemptuous Judge Overturns Will Of Both God And The People
Posted on 08/04/2010 6:03:33 PM PDT by Michael Eden
Here's the latest story of judicial abuse:
SAN FRANCISCO A federal judge overturned California's same-sex marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if gays have a constitutional right to marry in America.This is now the third time that a judge substituted his will for the clear will of the people in the state of California. There's a phrase in the Declaration of Independence that no longer matters: "deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed." Of course, there are other phrases that liberals despise in the Declaration of Independence as well, such as "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights. Gay couples waving rainbow and American flags outside the courthouse cheered, hugged and kissed as word of the ruling spread.
Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume. That's because the judge said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents pursue their appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Aug. 6 on the issue.
Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.
California voters passed the ban as Proposition 8 in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," the judge wrote in a 136-page ruling that laid out in precise detail why the ban does not pass constitutional muster.
The judge found that the gay marriage ban violates the Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses.
"Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," the judge ruled.
For the official record, Thomas Jefferson - who wrote the Declaration of Independence - would have led the revolt against these evil, malicious, degenerate judges and supervised their tarring and feathering.
Just one of Jefferson's comments about such "judges" as Vaughn Walker:
The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51Thus this isn't judicial activism; it's judicial DESPOTISM.
Let me address the specific objections to traditional marriage:
"Equal protection"? How is that violated by a law that defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman?
A gay man has the right to marry any adult woman who will have him - the same as me. There's your "equal protection." On a platter.
If a gay man doesn't want to take advantage of that, then that's his loss. But radically redefining marriage into something it has never been in the history of this nation - or for that matter the history of Western Civilization, or for that matter any civilization period - is not a response that any morally intelligent individual would descend into.
How about the concept of "due process"? How does redefining marriage from an institution to a convention that can be radically transformed by judicial fiat encourage due process? All it does is create undue process. How will this judge now prevent three men from marrying? If you can redefine the "one man and one woman thing," why can't you redefine the "two people" thing? And by what objective standard that can never be overturned? And if three people can marry, why can't fifteen or more? Just who are you to impose your narrow-minded morality on thirty people who want to get married to each other?
The same thing goes to inter-species marriage: just who the hell are you to say that that weird woman next door can't marry her Great Dane? Or her Clydesdale Stallion, for that matter? Why can't I marry my canary?
And you'd better have a damn good reason for restricting each of these, or they'll probably be legal next month.
Gays want the right to marry. The North American Man/Boy Love Association wants the right to have men marry boys. Unlike homosexuals, pedophiles actually have something approaching a historic case: the Roman world had something called pederasty, in which men gave boys mentoring and help with their futures in exchange for the boys giving up their virginal backsides.
The liberal culture says a twelve year old girl has the right to an abortion on demand without her parents' consent. That's a very adult decision, not unlike a very similar adult decision to have a relationship with the adult who impregnated her in the first place. Why not give NAMBLA what it wants? It's not fair to allow two people who love each other not to marry, after all, right? That's the argument we keep hearing, so let's be consistent. Why are we denying the right of men and boys to marry whomever they choose?
NAMBLA once actually had United Nations status, due to its membership with the "legitimate" International Lesbian and Gay Association.
NAMBLA has been a member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association for 10 years. We've been continuously active in ILGA longer than any other US organization. NAMBLA delegates to ILGA helped write ILGA's constitution, its official positions on the sexual rights of youth, and its stands against sexual coercion and corporal punishment. We are proud of our contributions in making ILGA a stronger voice for the international gay and lesbian movement and for sexual justice.Today the gay community excludes NAMBLA as a matter of pure political expediency. Harry Hay, the founder of the first gay organization in America, ultimately condemned the "gay community" and "reviled what he saw as the movements propensity for selling out its fringe members for easy, and often illusory, respectability." The simple fact is that the gay community is just a bunch of narrow-minded, intolerant bigots and naked political opportunists who want to deny others the basic rights they demand for themselves.
And, of course, President Obama appointed a pro-NAMBLA guy to be the "Safe Schools Czar," so we have a pretty high-level endorsement right there, don't we? We're talking mainstream stuff here, these days.
Given the fact that judges can usurp the clearly expressed will of the people and impose their own "morality" as they choose, it is guaranteed that we will legalize the buggery of young boys down the road. Secular humanism simply doesn't have the moral resources to prevent it.
Who are you not to allow your little boy to get married to some forty-year old "lover," you intolerant pig?
People who defend traditional marriage have an easy and powerful defeater for these objections. Gay marriage proponents have none. If I'm wrong, then just finish this thought: "A marriage of three people will never be allowed by a court to happen because...". And don't say that it won't ever happen because marriage is a particular type of thing, because that was our argument, and you ran roughshod over it.
The last idea is this commonly-heard challenge: "How does allowing gay marriage harm heterosexual marriage?"
That one really isn't very hard to answer.
For one thing, it cheapens marriage to the point of meaninglessness, which is why marriage has declined markedly in every single country in which gay marriage was imposed. I mean, given how marriage becomes a mere convention, why even bother getting married?
Gay activists look at the gay-marriage countries and argue that divorces have leveled off. But the problem with that line of reasoning is that divorce only becomes a factor if people actually bother to get married in the first place. And the fact of the matter is that they AREN'T bothering to get married. Because marriage is being destroyed.
When a young man today says "I do" in a marriage to his wife, he is continuing an institution that his parents, his parents' parents, and his parents' parents' parents - going all the way back to Adam and Eve (i.e., and NOT Adam and Steve).
We go back to the very beginning when GOD instituted marriage. And God said:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:24)."Shall cleave to his WIFE" - not to whoever or whatever the hell happens to turn his fancy.
Gay marriage does to marriage what cancer does to the cells of a body - it alters it, it corrupts it, and ultimately it destroys it.
Marriage is no longer a holy union between a man and a woman under God that the state recognizes; it becomes a convention BY the state APART from God that can be changed at will by powerful elites who have determined that they know better than God.
So yeah, gay marriage hurts legitimate marriage. Because it warps the very concept of marriage.
CA can decide to nullify the rogue federal courts for wresting the Constitution (the Constitution does not demand allowing same sex marriages) and/or take it to the Supreme Court.
It is a fact that controlling the language often controls the conclusion.
That is the genius of political correctness.
“Being politically correct is not just a cutesy attempt to make people feel better; it’s a larger, coordinated effort to change Western culture as we know it. Early Marxists/ Progressives designed their game plan long ago and continue to execute it today: Control the argument by controlling the language. Those with radical agendas understand that plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive public.” - Glenn Beck, An Inconvenient Book
I think most people want to be fair, and want to be “tolerant,” but they are ignorant as to what “fair” is and how to be “tolerant.” And then by default they think as they are told to think.
Wally, I have seen similar surveys with similar numbers, but those who understand constitutional law are less likely to support such efforts. I’m sure that a brief survery of those taking the relevant classes in college would confirm.
Also, most people are moderate. They might not wish for people to smoke at home, but they would stop short of supporting a constitutional amendment mandating a governmental discrimination against those who smoke at home.
The judge is himself a sexual deviant. How low have we fallen?
I think you’re right in absolutely everything you said.
But I wanted to comment a little more about the “most people are moderate” part.
Sadly, most people don’t know what it means to be “moderate.” And they therefore don’t know that on many key issues, there IS no “moderate” position.
For instance, regarding abortion. A woman is either killing an innocent human being - her own child, to make it even more monstrous - or she is not. If the former, then there cannot be a justification for abortion. If the latter, then the most radical view of abortion is fine.
But there isn’t a “moderate” position that unites both views.
What ends up happening on these issues is that the radical leftist position is defined as the “moderate” position. And a good “moderate” sees abortion as the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy at will, versus the humanity of the child who is being killed. And we must focus solely on the rights of the mother, which presuppose the duty of a baby to die for the convenience of her mother, and the duty of a father to stand by while his son is murdered.
The same way with marriage. If marriage is an institution ordained by God to make one man and one woman into one flesh, then there is no possible rationale for abortion. If not, then let us change marriage into whatever we want. Where’s the “moderate” view? Again, the radical leftist view becomes the “moderate” view by media fiat.
I personally believe we need a lot fewer “moderates” and a lot more people of virtue.
The same way with marriage. If marriage is an institution ordained by God to make one man and one woman into one flesh, then there is no possible rationale for abortion.
I think you meant “there is no rationale for same sex marriage”?
Just checking. Great points. The “moderate” crap is just leftist creep. At best it means someone who has no moral compass but goes with the flow, checks which way the wind is blowing, whose viewpoitns are based on whimsy or digestion or polls, etc.
You are correct.
If marriage is an institution ordained by God to make one man and one woman into one flesh, then there is no possible rationale for same-sex marriage.
Marriage is either a sacred institution or it is not. If it isn’t, then change it any way you want, and there is really no point bothering to get married. And so much for the anchor of Western civilization.
Because we could do an even better job destroying ourselves than we’re already doing, after all.
Evolution has a competing model: wham, bam, thank you ma’am. Men should have as much sex with as many females as possible, in order to leave behind the most offspring and thus become “the fittest.” Rape is fine on this view. Marriage is utterly useless.
Of course, even on the model of evolution, homosexuality is a biological dead end, with homosexuals being defined as “biologically unfit.”
Lets look at what God intended, by contrast:
He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them man. Genesis 5:2
The words of Jesus: But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE (Mark 10:6).
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorwho is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
God created humankind male and female. When God ordained marriage, He ordained it between a man and a woman. And He ordained it so because the union of a man, a woman, and the resulting child/children most fully expressed His divine nature which He created us in.
“So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” - Genesis 1:27
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh Genesis 2:24
Any other sexual union abandons Gods created order and is the result of a depraved mind.
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.