Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Voids California Voter-Approved Gay-Marriage Ban
WSJ Online ^ | 8/4/2010 | GEOFFREY A. FOWLER

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: 9circuit; homosexualagenda; proposition8
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last
Fight on California!
1 posted on 08/04/2010 5:27:41 PM PDT by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

Shame on this gay judge for NOT recusing himself from this case!! ON TO THE SUPREMES! >:-(


2 posted on 08/04/2010 5:28:45 PM PDT by pillut48 ("Now is the time that tries men's souls...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

I wouldn’t have expected any other “decision” from a “gay” judge. Banning homosexual “marriage” is un-gaylike.


3 posted on 08/04/2010 5:29:59 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (The United States of America! aka The Big PiƱata. Bash it and the goodies fall out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

Voters just don’t matter to the courts! Especially, this one!


4 posted on 08/04/2010 5:30:40 PM PDT by Bushbacker1 (I miss President Bush greatly! Palin in 2012! 2012 - The End Of An Error! (Oathkeeper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

Bush I’s fault


5 posted on 08/04/2010 5:32:34 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Mexico is the U.S. version of Hamas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
I don't know why they don't go ahead and let them get married.

Sometimes you get what you ask for.

The gay divorces are sure to be a TV extravaganza!
6 posted on 08/04/2010 5:34:02 PM PDT by jrg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pillut48

Is there a sexual orientation out there that wouldn’t have to recuse him/her/istself?

Maybe this isn’t something that is a basic right but has as a practical matter to be decided by the public at large for the sake of an orderly society.


7 posted on 08/04/2010 5:34:40 PM PDT by sailor4321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

End of “Consent of the Governed” ping.


8 posted on 08/04/2010 5:36:10 PM PDT by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
I wouldn’t have expected any other “decision” from a “gay” judge.

I would.

I expect judges to look at the law, look at precedent and the constitution and then make a ruling based on the law.

If the judge does not think that they can make an impartial judgment then they should recuse themselves.

I don’t see that being gay alone would make this judge partial. But perhaps being an activist judge and being gay perhaps she should have recused herself.

9 posted on 08/04/2010 5:37:38 PM PDT by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1
Voters just don’t matter to the courts! Especially, this one!

Sure they do! But only the ones that agree with them.

10 posted on 08/04/2010 5:38:57 PM PDT by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jrg
The gay divorces are sure to be a TV extravaganza!

Draw up a proposal.

It could be the reality TV hit of next year.

11 posted on 08/04/2010 5:40:49 PM PDT by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

I can see it now......The Bichon Frise is mine, dammit!


12 posted on 08/04/2010 5:43:04 PM PDT by jrg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

Here in WI we banned homosexual marriage and our Supremes upheld it. So is homo marriage legal or not?


13 posted on 08/04/2010 5:43:04 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Mexico is the U.S. version of Hamas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Lydia

Marriage is between two people of the opposite sex.
That’s a definition, and has been for centuries.

I don’t accept their perverse redefinition. Nor will I attend any event where they are welcome. While corporate policy may demand it, they cannot demand my support, and I’ll not offer it.

I’d also prefer to decrease AIDs funding to zero: don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.


14 posted on 08/04/2010 5:44:17 PM PDT by benewton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: benewton
I’d also prefer to decrease AIDs funding to zero: don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.

Just think of how they've screwed up your health insurance.

15 posted on 08/04/2010 5:46:46 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate: Republicans freed the slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sailor4321

It really about what our moral beliefs are and will be based upon. See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2564773/posts and my post also.

Bless the Lord.


16 posted on 08/04/2010 5:54:05 PM PDT by daniel1212 ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
So is homo marriage legal or not?

NOT

At least not until August 6.

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.

17 posted on 08/04/2010 5:55:56 PM PDT by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

Just another example of the judiciary controlling the people’s decisions. State’s rights has long been nullified.


18 posted on 08/04/2010 5:58:07 PM PDT by Deagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

Judge voids...on California voters.


19 posted on 08/04/2010 5:58:32 PM PDT by windsorknot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jrg

OK

But your not getting your mother’s wedding ring back!


20 posted on 08/04/2010 6:09:37 PM PDT by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

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.


21 posted on 08/04/2010 6:09:44 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009
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.

22 posted on 08/04/2010 6:18:58 PM PDT by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

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.


23 posted on 08/04/2010 6:20:50 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

Or something more akin to Nazism. And the Anti-Christ.


24 posted on 08/04/2010 6:21:41 PM PDT by daniel1212 ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

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.


25 posted on 08/04/2010 6:24:05 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: pillut48

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.


26 posted on 08/04/2010 6:32:15 PM PDT by fwdude (Anita Bryant was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

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.


27 posted on 08/04/2010 6:32:21 PM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast (668, neighbor of the beast, is tagline enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2
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,

I don’t think you know what you are saying here or you have no idea what Islam is.

28 posted on 08/04/2010 6:44:00 PM PDT by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sailor4321
William Blake said. "The eye altering, alters all."

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)

29 posted on 08/04/2010 6:54:47 PM PDT by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

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.”


30 posted on 08/04/2010 7:06:34 PM PDT by daniel1212 ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

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.


31 posted on 08/04/2010 7:07:35 PM PDT by Titus-Maximus (Light from Light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

This queer judge Walker needs to be removed from office immediately. Hopefully the voters in California can teach this pervert a lesson.


32 posted on 08/04/2010 7:25:03 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

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.


33 posted on 08/04/2010 9:13:36 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

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.


34 posted on 08/04/2010 9:19:27 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

Correction. Groups rebounding into power have not had a good track record as far as tolerance and democracy is concerned.


35 posted on 08/04/2010 9:20:43 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
"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.

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.

36 posted on 08/04/2010 10:08:03 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
they just don't remove enough federal judges

.

37 posted on 08/04/2010 10:20:41 PM PDT by Elle Bee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
I think the judge should next forbid the NBA from preventing me from being a center for the LA Lakers.

I agree.

I suggest that you show up for practice and sue when they have you arrested.

Don’t 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.

38 posted on 08/04/2010 10:23:30 PM PDT by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Elle Bee
they just don't remove enough federal judges

Or Dimocraps appoint too many.

Or we elect too many Dimocrap presidents (which leads too many Lib judges).

39 posted on 08/04/2010 10:27:12 PM PDT by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

US SUPREME COURT is the only hope...9th Circuit will not overturn this decision...


40 posted on 08/04/2010 11:59:12 PM PDT by L.A.Justice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009; Pontiac; daniel1212; Sivad

The simple fact of the matter is that supporters of marriage as we know it are losing this fight, and without joining “our enemy’s enemy” it is lost. Within a year 5 more states will ban “gay marriage”, and five more judges will overturn their bans. I’m open to any suggestions...


41 posted on 08/05/2010 2:49:11 AM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

And just to make sure, the coming generations have been well and truly indoctrinated in the government-run indoctrination centers known as public schools to be accepting of queer perversion as just another “lifestyle choice”. Time is not on our side in this matter. Christian prayer is outlawed on school property while Islamic prayer rooms are built on that same property. A student is kicked out of a graduate program for her Christian beliefs opposing homosexuality while Christian groups are forced to accept members who oppose their Christian opposition to homosexuality. I see a trend here, but it’s no surprise, the Bible foretold it, and this is only the beginning.


42 posted on 08/05/2010 5:14:25 AM PDT by mrsmel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
and the GOP rubber stamps them

Watch them approve Kagan to SCOTUS today just as they had the wise latina

.

43 posted on 08/05/2010 5:59:23 AM PDT by Elle Bee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: L.A.Justice

I’m hoping the Supreme Court will claim appellate jurisdiction in this case and take it directly. The stakes are too high.


44 posted on 08/05/2010 9:02:44 AM PDT by fwdude (Anita Bryant was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

The judge decalred sexual behavior as an IMMUTABLE trait.

IOW all sex crimes are “born that way” and gurantees protection under the fundamental right to orgasm.


45 posted on 08/05/2010 9:07:33 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

One fed judge has said it is up to the states.
This fed judge just said it is a federal supremacy fundamental right matter.

laws in conflict.

The saddest part is Ted Olsen spoke for the soddomites.


46 posted on 08/05/2010 9:09:19 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

I am not worried about what Muslims do under Sha’ria Law, but I pray that when they do, they won’t be carrying out reprisals against people for the deaths called “collateral damage” done in the Middle East. True, they may follow the route of the Persian Empire under Cyrus, in which they preach to us that they delivered us from the tyranny of secularism, but there’s also a lot of anger in the Islamic world for the deaths caused by military action from Europe and the U.S.. It’s not a pretty picture. In the long-term, yes, Islam will take over, it just about appears inevitable to me based on the infertility rates of Europeans that this is true. The only question I am left with is, “How friendly they will be now that they have conquered the land of their persecutors and killers?”. I would figure that they would certainly appeal to the traditional Jews and Christians to solidify popularity, but then again, it’s not certain.


47 posted on 08/05/2010 2:11:30 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

The even sadder part is how our schools were indoctrinating us the same about sex outside of marriage and now turn their heads the other way when the nation is high in out-of-wedlock births and STDs. We pay for the STDs through taxes to medicaid, and we pay a large welfare bill in taxes to support single-mother families. We bear a heavy burden for reckless behavior, yet we are taught that people are hard-wired to be promiscuous, commit homosexual acts, etc. It is all an attempt to justify the vast expenses dumped on the public through taxes for the welfare system.


48 posted on 08/05/2010 2:16:14 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: sailor4321

Maybe this isn’t something that is a basic right but has a practical matter to be decided by the public at large...

IMO, I don’t see much of an if to this one. There is a tax bill placed on us to support irresponsible sex acts throughout the U.S. in everything from the welfare checks to families that are predominantly mothers with children born outside of wedlock, to AIDS as the number one federally researched disease in America, it’s primary American transmission occurs through means most of us know too well. We are citizens of this country, we pay the price of someone’s irresponsible sex acts in a large number of ways. Saying that our votes don’t count, is offensive, because we pay in taxes for numerous programs.


49 posted on 08/05/2010 2:24:21 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

I can only pray that in the mercy of God the supreme ct. will rule against homosexual marriage. While we may concur with Muslim etc., we cannot suppose they are on the side of Christ.


50 posted on 08/05/2010 3:20:14 PM PDT by daniel1212 ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson