Skip to comments.SOURCE: CA Prop 8 held to be unconstitutional under due process and equal protection.
Posted on 08/04/2010 1:45:48 PM PDT by tsmith130
Court enjoins enforcement of Prop 8... Will be released at 2 pm pt...
Judge strikes down 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California'..
Cobb salad for all.
JUDGE: Having considered the trial evidence and the arguments of counsel, the court pursuant to FRCP 52(a) finds that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and that its enforcement must be enjoined.
If this stands then all states must permit gay marriage, as a Constitutional right?
And why I avoid California and have now for 5 years, even though I have a way to get there at will.
Is anyone surprised? The ruling class cannot allow the little people input into the law.
Facinating how our Founders, courts, Congresses, Presidents missed this for well over 200 years, that Gay marriage is a Constitutional right.
Kagan will be so happy...
Interestingly, the law is completely and utterly fair. It is just that some are motivated to break it more than others. All homosexuals have the same rights the rest of us have - to marry a member of the opposite sex who is not a direct family member and neither of them is currently married.
Or are those limitations unconstitutional as well? ;)
It probably guarantees a Republican sweep in the Fall election, and quite possibly even the weakening of the Democrat lock on California's Hispanics.
The risk for the gay blades who take advantage of the injunction is that if it is lifted, and his is appealed, their marriages just disappear. Of course that's not really a risk for them since they'll just go to the nearest gay bar for dates, as per usual.
Where in The Constitution is marriage mentioned?
I suspect Missouri's vote to exempt itself from the federal "Manditory Health Insurance Mandate" will also be ignored by activist courts.....
The peoples voting voice is silenced.
Did anyone expect anything different from this rabid court of lawmakers in black robes? Hasn’t this court ALWAYS legislated from the bench?
This court is irellevant in my opinion.
I know it affects the single District, but if appealed and upheld as far as the Supreme Court, it will be the law of the land.
Even as a District Court ruling it becomes precedent for other courts.
This is just not the country I used to know. I really do hate the libs and their, "take it to court until we get what we want" tactic.
used to, the definition of words used to mean something and did not need to be placed in constitution - that is, that a marriage requires a husband and a wife (ergo, no need to define it specifically as one man and one woman). All it takes is judicial notice of that definition to have tossed this out.
(Drudge keeps adding one line at a time.)
There is no constitutional right to marriage.
One of the important aspects to consider in the decision is the judge’s ruling that having previously granted gay marriage, California cannot then take away that right.
That decision, if upheld, will be far-reaching in so many other cases.
Yet another issue for the Democrats and RINOs to deal with this November.
Can I go out and smash some windows now?
I’ve been needing a new flat screen.
No, it means that as of 2:00 PM Pacific Time, gay marriage is legal again in California. The rulings in other states banning gay marriage are not affected by this decision until and unless it reaches the SCOTUS.
Posted it on my blog as well:
This will make more people in this country turn against the liberal judges.
Where is abortion mentioned? It doesn’t matter - the courts now makes the rules.
The State should get out of the marriage business entirely. I’d rather have it eliminated than have it redefined like this. It’s meaningless now. You want to have kids with someone? Draw up a contract.
I suspect you will see the Gubernator NOT appealing this case to the 9th ~ and it'll just die.
What you will need to do is run another referendum, and keep on doing that until you have some trustworthy individuals in your state government's leadership positions, and several federal judges out there die ~ or retire (although it is preferable they simply pass on to the other side ~ where Satan awaits them ~ else they continue to serve as judges on a part time basis and can continue to create mischief).
No. Only minorities have the right to riot and destroy property. If you do it, you're ...
Wait for it ...
As long as homosexual males continue to spread AIDS and kill people they'll really have a difficult time eliciting any sympathy from serious minded people.
'Stereotypes and misinformation have resulted in social and legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians'...
JUDGE: THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUALS CHOICE OF MARITAL PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER...
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS DO NOT SATISFY CALIFORNIAS OBLIGATION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFFS TO MARRY...
So polygamy is a go as well?
Why not a Man and 6 year old while we are at it!?
Judge Napolitano said on Cavuto just now that he thinks there'll be a 5-4 SCOTUS decision upholding this ruling with Kennedy voting with the liberals. He bases that opinion on a previous ruling in Colorado in which Kennedy voted to invalidate a law interfering with gay rights.
Then the law that required only men register for the draft is a violation of equal protection.
I guess as long as it is a six year old boy and not a girl for these perverts.
The ruling ended with “Who wants fudge?”
Another nail in America’s coffin.
Ideological and idiotic “decision” using 138 pages to strike down one sensible sentence...
They took a stand for their side; other than that, it means nothing - either way it was going to be decided in SCOTUS, so it was a political freebie for 9th Circus.
How many times can the government subvert the will of the people in a so-called democratic society before the people stand up and do something about it?
Judges and the current administration are destroying this country. November can’t come quickly enough, but I fear even that will be too little, too late.
Will there be throngs of Prop 8 supports flooding the streets and throwing a tantrum tonight?
Actually it makes no noise so it is a light LOL
Many voters do not equate homosexual marriage to dems. This is due to the fact many dems openly deny supporting homosexual marriages (Of course, they wink, wink, which many voters do not pick up).
Also add to the fact that the Judge who overturned Prop 8 was appointed by a Repub President (Correct me if I am wrong).
How will you equate the democrat Party with this decision? (Dems will cover and say “We must respect the process etc...”)
The case for civil marriage between a man and a woman in a nutshell:
Probably. Consenting adults and all ...
Why not a Man and 6 year old while we are at it!?
Minors can't consent for themselves. You know, except in the cases of whether or not they want their parents to know they're having sex and killing babies.
Then bestiality following close behind.