Posted on 05/16/2008 8:56:49 AM PDT by DaveyB
Click on link to see story - copyright rules prohibit it's posting here.
Bottom line 3 of the 4 judges in CA homo-marriage ruling were appointed by Republicans.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
There are Republicans and then there aren California Republicans.
Hey!
Narrow that brush, dude.
Justice Joyce Kennard, 67, a Republican appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian in 1989. She is considered a moderate and joined the majority opinion.
Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, 72, a Republican appointed by Wilson in 1994. She is considered a moderate and was part of the majority in the ruling.
Justice Carlos Moreno, 59, the court's only Democratic appointee, named to the bench by Gov. Gray Davis in 2001. He is considered a moderate and voted with the majority.
Justice Marvin Baxter, 68, a Republican appointed by Deukmejian in 1990. He is considered a conservative and wrote a dissenting opinion that accused the court of substituting "its own social policy views for those expressed by the people."
Justice Ming Chin, 65, a Republican appointed by Wilson in 1996. He is considered a conservative and joined Baxter's dissenting opinion.
Justice Carol Corrigan, 59, a moderate Republican appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005. Her separate dissent said that the court should not invalidate the ban but that "Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriages."
If you do not fit the mold of the typical CA Republican, which I can now assume you do not, you have my apology.
The aged and infirm probably should not be making such decisions.
The legal reasoning used in the case is bogus. It’s bogus because the concept of homosexuality per se, is not in the law at all. The law says that men and women are treated equally. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman, so everyone is treated equally. There’s no provision in the law for homosexuals of either sex. But a gay male is still a male, so he’s treated the same as any other male under the law.
The dissent was right on, in saying that the court was substituting its own social policy for the expressed social policy regarding marriage and family that had been agreed to previously.
In the same sex marriage debate, most of the time and loudest voices talk about how marriage is discriminatory against gays and lesbians. Very little is said about how same sex marriage is good for society.
That doesn't sound like a McCain endorsement!
I find it amazing that so much truth can be found in anagrams.
“California Supreme court”
anagrams to:
“Role: American fruits’ coup!”
Go on, work it out!
I do not endorse McCain (it turns out).
The Majority opinion was written on semantics. They deemed that using the word “Marriage” for opposite sex couples and “domestic partnerships” for Same Sex couples violated the equal rights protections of the 14th Amendment. Should SCOTUS hear this case I would like Scalia to determine that the Religious History of the word “Marriage” should preclude it from being used by the government. This would achieve dentente and should really piss off the Gay Agenda. As People of Faith will continue to enjoy the word “Marriage” under the auspices of the 1st Amendment.
...and my wife, and daughter, too.
(c;
The decision relied solely on the California Constitution, not the federal Constitution, so it cannot be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
If Cali voters want to ban same sex marriage they can either 1. repeal the antidiscrimination law or 2. pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
As much as I am opposed to gay marriage, the California Supreme Court got this one right based upon the California constitution. They rendered their decision in compliance with strict wording that was codified to eliminate the ban on multiracial marriage. Links to the oral arguments and the written opinions can be found at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/ This is a very perplexing and vexing case for many so-called conservatives. While railing against legislation from the bench and activist judges they too often shriek like scalded cats when the Republican appointed, conservative justices rule on the law instead of the conservative agenda.
So does this mean gay mormons can have more than one husband?
???
If that gets on the ballot and passes, it will overturn this decision.
As with all of those who seek to destroy the existing Judeo/Christian culture which gave us the real Constitution, these lawless liberal judges hate our country.
In the mean time, you should thank these judges for giving the conservative voters of California a reason to turn out in November.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote an impassioned dissent which was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas. Scalia wrote: [Amendment 2 is] a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws. That objective, and the means chosen to achieve it, are [...] unimpeachable under any constitutional doctrine hitherto pronounced.
Scalia argued that Amendment 2 did not deny homosexuals access to the political process but merely made it more difficult to enact laws that favored them. He noted that the majority's result stood in flat contradiction to the court's earlier decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), in which it had ruled that laws outlawing sodomy are not unconstitutional.
The point is the vote doesn't matter. The court now wields the divine right of kings!
Romans 1:25-27 tells us that same-sex sexual relationships are a consequence of idolatry. In other words, such relationships are a consequence of disobeying the 1ST COMMANDMENT, a major aspect of the GREATEST COMMANDMENT, to love the jealous God with all your being.
Homosexuals need to keep in mind, however, that the good news of the gospel is not about how God despises same-sex sexual relationships. In fact, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 indicates that certain members of that church had been slaves to such relationships but had been cleansed in Jesus' name. So these former homosexuals had evidently repented and accepted God's grace to straighten their lives out.
John 3:16
Revelation 3:20
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.