Skip to comments.Judge Voids California Voter-Approved Gay-Marriage Ban
Posted on 08/04/2010 5:27:36 PM PDT by Pontiac
A federal court in San Francisco on Wednesday overturned the state's voter-approved initiative banning same-sex marriages, in a landmark case that could force the U.S. Supreme Court eventually to decide if gays have a constitutional right to marry.
District court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that 2008's Proposition 8 violated the constitutional guarantees to equal protection and due process because it singles out gays and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.
"The evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," wrote Judge Walker in a 138- page ruling.
The verdict doesn't mean same-sex couples can now get married in California. Judge Walker stayed new same-sex marriages in the state pending an appeal until at least August 6. Lawyers for the defense have said they plan to appeal.
The Prop. 8 case, known as the Perry trial after lead plaintiff Kristin M. Perry, was filed by two same-sex couples seeking to marry. In a bench trial conducted in January and June, they claimed that the state's ban on gay marriage is an infringement on the civil rights of gays and lesbians.
Lawyers for the defense, which was provided by Protectmarriage.com, argued that the court shouldn't overturn a law voted on by citizens.
While Judge Walker's verdict specifically reverses a line in the California state constitution that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman, the case could potentially re-write marriage laws and legal protections for gays and lesbians across the nation as it makes its way through appeal.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The reality is that same-sex couples could be allowed to engage in the rights associated with marriage. The problem is, however, the courts and politics have a problem with thinking that the two could work separately. Civil Unions have been around for quite some time.
The problem for the Left is Christianity.
In giving the gay community the right to marry they are destroying marriage. In destryoing marriage they are putting another nail in the coffin of Christianity.
By destroying Christianity they destroy the family. In destroying the family they believe that they gain total control of shaping society as they see fit.
Unfortunately it will not work that way. If they finally destroy the family their will be no society their will be anarchy and chaos. The order of society will dissolve and the rule of law will be gone. The law of the jungle will reassert itself.
There is no doubt in my mind that any man who does what gay men do to each other is absolutely insane and should be treated as such. God will not be mocked, and every day more people who agree with stoning as the remedy make this country their home; in the end, they will be the determining factor in putting sodomy laws back on the books and driving the perverts back into their closets. While it is an “un-American” solution, demographics are on their side.
Or something more akin to Nazism. And the Anti-Christ.
The problem for the left is Islam, and it has more “cojones” than Christianity in defending what it perceives as the will of God. As a Roman Catholic, I appreciate any help they can provide, since American Catholics and many liberal Protestants have joined the sodomites in rejecting God’s Word on this matter.
It seems, in extraordinary case, that the US Supreme Court can claim jurisdiction in a case without letting it go through the appellate courts. I believe this is such a case if ever there was one. The 9th Circus will just rubber stamp Judge Fag Walker’s decision anyway.
It’s usually a bad idea to let the govt get its fingers in anything. Govt grants marriage licenses and govt makes rules, bureaucrats proliferate...rules multiply...meanwhile the nation deteriorates into a democracy.
Seems like there’s a point at which civilization can no longer sustain itself, like a tower to the sky that topples when it reaches a structural limit, or a lifeboat with too many people grappling to get in, or a human giant who dies of growing.
Gay marriage is just another fracture in the collapse.
I dont think you know what you are saying here or you have no idea what Islam is.
Since he is a "homosexual" judge, he should not be allowed to judge the intent of the Constitution because it will be a twisted vision and what is really Constitutional will most likely be ignored, at best twisted.
Our laws were built on Natural Law Theory as understood by John Locke and is not the "inverted" view through the distorted lens of homosexuality. It was meant to be viewed from the heterosexual lens. We did not design our country to be ancient Greece and a pagan society. We did have Christian "morality" firmly established by law into our Founding documents.
Homosexuals are trying to design a communist state which has no family--children belong to the state to form and condition. They do not want to deal with that stupidity of biological ties of true love and loyalty. Important goal of communists is to destroy the natural family and destroy Christianity. (Naked Communist--from the 1950's)
Islam is part of the left, as it likewise uses deceit and political manipulation to gain its objectives, and because the common enemy of both is Jesus Christ, they are allies in their war against the God of the Bible. And “Christian” churches who are truly not, seek to be more friendly with Islam, or are more sympathetic towards them, than with the nation of Israel.
(Luke 23:12) “And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.”
This judge is preposterous. First through mentally deformed gymnastics he redefines the 5000 year history of marriage in a couple of throw away sentences, and then casually as slipping into a hot tub with five naked guys, he claims that our Constitution always included this new definition for men to marry men. It dovetails so perfectly with what the Constitution says - or what he wants it to say.
Why even have a Constitution if you are going to vandalize with this monstrosity. If this Judge, a self proclaimed chandelier repairman, had a speck of honesty, he would say that this issue is completely beyond him and that no where in the law could this right possibly exist - and then urge the supporters of it to petition for a Constitutional Amendment. And good luck with that. I can’t stand this cavalier countermanding of the democratic process all for the sake on in vogue beliefs.
No more judges as kings.
This queer judge Walker needs to be removed from office immediately. Hopefully the voters in California can teach this pervert a lesson.
You have to understand that yes, there are some causes that Islam is similar to us on, how they view homosexual behavior is one of them. However, you also need to understand that one common cause does not guarantee friendship in every way. Just be careful on your assumptions.
The situation with Muslims, if that’s what you are referring to, is primarily in Europe. The bad part about this is the threat of a rebound or backlash, should the marginalized, traditional Muslim communities gain power. Rebounding groups coming to power have not had a very promising track record as far as tyranny is concerned.
Correction. Groups rebounding into power have not had a good track record as far as tolerance and democracy is concerned.
They are. Why should the judge think otherwise?
Meanwhile, I see nothing that precludes gay people from getting married. Lot's of gay and lesbian people are married, with the same rights as every other human being in this country -- to someone of the opposite sex.
Heterosexuals can't marry people of the same sex, just like Homosexuals. The rights are identical.
The judge confuses rights with desires. The fact that a homosexual might not WANT to marry a person of the opposite sex does not change the fact that they have the right to do so; the fact that a heterosexual might not WANT to marry a person of the same sex does not change the fact that the heterosexual is banned from doing so.
I think the judge should next forbid the NBA from preventing me from being a center for the LA Lakers. After all, it's not my fault I'm 50 years old and a 5-foot 5-inch white guy. I should obviously have the same rights to play center for the LA lakers as some really tall black guy. Equal rights and all.
I suggest that you show up for practice and sue when they have you arrested.
Dont forget to drop me a Freep Mail and let me know what Psych ward you end up in so I can visit.
And just incase some judge does rule in your favor (after all with all of the stupid court rulings in the last 100 years why should I suppose that you would not win). Send me a signed jersey.
Or Dimocraps appoint too many.
Or we elect too many Dimocrap presidents (which leads too many Lib judges).
US SUPREME COURT is the only hope...9th Circuit will not overturn this decision...