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.
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.