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'..
This judge is a “couples only” bigot of the worst sort. People for truly open and free marriage should reject this decision as garbage ~ which they won’t.
n trying to be fair minded. I don’t get it. Gays can marry.
If it is life insurance,benefactor rights...I see the term
significant other on all paper work with employment.As spouse no one is dare discriminated against in today’s PC world if John writes John as his spouse. They have Heather has two Mommies and gay penguins as the way of life in schools.They need to shut up and lead their lives. No one cares. But don’t promote the gay lifestyle in education and try to define a legal definition of them being legitimate.
If they need a piece of paper to say it is ok to pack fudge they have many other issues and the political correctness has gone too far they need to stfu and live.
I really think they just want it defined as ok to tick off Pat Robertson and so forth... that is all.It is a right vs left game. It is sick and out of hand.
Excellent Link.
those are for encouraging the NATURAL production of offspring.
this judge made his ruling based on ability to orgasm.
The decision has been stayed.
“The Federal Judge who made this ruling is openly gay???? Shouldn’t he have recused himself?”
Only if you want all gun owners recusing themselves from 2nd Amendment cases, all Christians recusing themselves from religious freedom cases, all blacks recusing themselves from civil rights cases, etc...
If he uses his decision to marry another man, will it be an issue?
As usual, when liberals can’t win in the legislative areas, the resort to activist judges to get their way. First, the queers used a state judge to strike down a state law prohibiting homosexual marriage, then when the people amended their state constitution to prohibit it, they get a F*&KING FEDERAL JUDGE to overturn the will of the people.
A revolution is getting damned close. The people will not be lorded over by an elitist liberal ruling class.
millions voted, millions spent and because the homo’s took a hissy fit they then get a homo judge who should not have even took the case and then overturn everything which was done lawfully
now since when did judges make laws based on their own gain?
“The DU thread on this is chock full of oranisms.”
Don’t you mean “onanisms?”
Okay, so, in effect, this judge has decided that there is no actual definition of marriage. There is no difference between gay marriage and cohabitation. The only possible defining act of “marriage” would be fruitful intercourse, or the intent for fruitful intercourse.
Therefore, it seems to me that this judge has just opened the door to, say, “drinking buddies” getting “married” for the sake of workplace benefits, or even “college roommates” that want to take advantage of some benefit or another - maybe to apply for mortgages or piggyback someone’s great credit score. There doesn’t actually have to be intercourse, because, it no longer matters. People can get married for no reason whatsoever, harvest whatever benefits they need from the private and public sector, then file for divorce and walk away.
Pontius Pilate asked “What is truth”?
This judge asks, “What is marriage?”
homosexual friend you mean right.
Gay is a word hijacked by them to make themselves look happy.
I for one will not play the far lefts word game
Frak these activist judges. Prop 8 was an amendment to the California Constitution. That means it IS Constitutional. The people spoke, and put it in their Constitution.
The ballot box is no longer valid.
Jury box up next.
then those polygamists should sue to have their marriage and lets see if these judge then grants them that.
If homosexuals do not agree then they are discriminating against men who want more than one wife.
Hell at least their sex can produce offspring and is natural unlike homosexuals.
Homosexuality is a mental disorder, they do unnatural acts and to them it is all about getting off . Every argument they use can be used fo any kind of marriage
If this stands, then Christians should refuse to get married legally. They should insist on a church wedding, and then - in the eyes of the law - live together.
You could get a court order to change your name and live as common-law man & wife...but refuse to be legally married, since a legal marriage becomes an abomination.
the judge can gain from his decision, you bet it is a issue.
Not for long:
In his decision Wednesday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ordered the state to stop enforcing its same-sex marriage ban immediately. But CNN reported that Walker also issued an emergency stay, meaning that same-sex marriages are still on hold for the moment. We'll have more on that shortly.
Here’s Walker’s conclusion:
Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.
Lawyers for the Prop. 8 supporters filed papers Tuesday night seeking a stay that would prohibit same-sex marriage while the decision is appealed. Walker will have to deal with that separately. CNN reported that Walker is giving the defense team a chance to make their case for a stay pending the appeal. But Loyola Law Professor Douglas NeJaime said he doesn't think a permanent stay will be issued.
“The tone of this is it doesn't look like he would be issuing a stay,” said the law professor.
For whatever reason it still leads us to unintended consequences.
Would the courts allow a law that said only a man and a woman could form a Corporation? (doing so to engage in tax benefits and legal protection of personal assets)
Answer would be no based on the equal protection clause and the courts will use the same for marriage.
I'm not saying this is how it should be I am saying that legally this is what happens when the government starts granting goodies based on the sex of those involved. The Government should have never granted financial benefits based on married status.
“Prop 8 was an amendment to the California Constitution. That means it IS Constitutional.”
I think the constitution this judge was talking about was the U.S. Constitution. This is a Federal District Court judge. That’s why it’s such a big issue for so many people.
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.