Posted on 03/01/2009 7:33:16 PM PST by Steelfish
Dueling lawyers in California Prop. 8 case are a study in opposites
By Aurelio Rojas
Mar. 1, 2009
Kenneth Starr and Shannon Minter, lead attorneys in the California Supreme Court case that will decide the fate of same-sex marriage in the state, are as different as the competing sides they represent.
Starr, dean of Pepperdine University School of Law, is best known for leading the inquiry into President Bill Clinton's affair with a White House intern.
Since then, the former federal judge and U.S. solicitor general has dedicated himself to conservative causes, including writing briefs for the Mormon church in a previous gay marriage case in California.
Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco, is a transsexual who spent his first 35 years as a female. He was a lead counsel in the state Supreme Court case decided last May that allowed same-sex couples to marry, a ruling that was reversed in November when voters approved Proposition 8.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Starr is one of the best lawyers in the country. This joke they have up against him wouldn’t stand a chance in a federal court (possibly excluding the 9th Circuit), though you never know with the California Supreme Court.
If the courts knock it down again, there will be another antigay marriage initiative on the next ballot.
These liberals are bullies and they don;t get it.
They want everybody to rubberstamp their agenda whether it is good idea or not.
Gays should be satisfied with civil unions, not marriage period. Don’t call it marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Get used to it.
In any event, marriage laws don’t discriminate against gays. A straight man and a gay man have the same legal right to get married - they can each marry one woman, provided she agrees to get married.
Gays have been marrying since as long as there has been marriage.
Californians are not allowed to amend their Constitution if it takes away an "inalienable" right (which thought, by itself, is completely correct!). So if the CSC decides homos have an "inalienable" right to marry each other, then the Prop 8 amendment is unconstitutional, and invalid.
Of course, the fact that it completely alters the many thousands of years of Stare Decisis that viewed marriage as between a man and a woman means nothing to these people. It's time to fix what ain't broke!
This is how they do it, folks. This is how they use legalistic maneuverings to get what they want shoved down our backs.
Push is coming to shove. Very soon!
These liberal activist judges are trying to cram down things that the clear majority of folks do not want.
I wonder if it'd have gotten this far were it called homo marriage, rather than 'same-sex'? And is this really an 'issue' we should be spending so much time (and money) on?
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Checkout: http://SilencingChristians.com
Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco, is a transsexual who spent his first 35 years as a female. He was a lead counsel in the state Supreme Court case decided last May that allowed same-sex couples to marry, a ruling that was reversed in November when voters approved Proposition 8.
I don't understand why it isn't. My Bible says God said to go forth and multiply, and I'm sure he meant under the covenant of marriage, therefor, it is God-given and inalienable.
Restrictions can, and have been used (must be old enough, can't marry your sibling, etc.), and for good (obvious) reasons. But the Constitution doesn't give us ANY rights. That's not its design, although the liberals have obviously taken that approach.
We heteros need a better argument to prevent homos from re-defining the word marriage.
But it isn’t the courts job to decide what God says, only what the Constitution says.
Yes, gidget, but we are talking about the California Supreme Court. When they hear someone say, "God!", they say, "Yes? What do you want?" . . . . .
The wierd notion of being accused of "hate speech" and "inciting to riot", as if one who speaks out against homosexuality is responsible for someone else's behavior, is insane, not to mention the fact that it seems to be a one-way street; that is, I can be accused of "inciting to riot" if I speak out against (or even question) homosexuality, but homos are never accused of incitement if they get in my face and scream their screeds.
In fact, if I did "riot" after being accosted by a homo, I'm the one who would be arrested!
Why do the homos get a free pass? Because we have "supressed" them all these years? Pushaw!! I don't care if someone is a homo anymore than I care if someone is a hetero! Just don't broadcast it!
So what do I think? Well, as a Christian, I think you can guess. Satan is working his will on us to destroy us (he's very subtle, you know). He's not some scary looking half-man, half-goat with horns and a pointy tail carrying a pitchfork. He's a very well-mannered, well-dressed individual that you would never suspect as being evil.
The greatest trick he's ever done is make you think he doesn't exist. Why? Because if he showed himself, and proved who he was, then you would know that if he exists, then so does God!
I know. Drunk on power. Lot of that going around these days.
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.