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

Skip to comments.

Prop 8 supporters are unhappy that ban on gay marriage has been overturned by a federal judge
Los Angeles Times ^ | August 12, 2010 | Mike Anton

Posted on 08/12/2010 8:24:41 PM PDT by DesertRenegade

When a federal judge last week struck down California's Proposition 8 as unconstitutional, proponents of same-sex marriage cheered the decision at rallies in West Hollywood and San Francisco.

Public displays of displeasure at U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker's ruling were far and few between.

But Walker's decision struck an angry chord with many who voted for Proposition 8 in 2008. On Thursday, he extended a temporary hold on his order until Wednesday to give sponsors of the measure time to appeal the ruling.

What was once a moral argument has morphed into a debate over the democratic process and the propriety of judges overturning laws approved by voters. It raises one of the oldest conflicts in the nation — the tension between "majority rule" and a Constitution designed to protect the rights of individuals against the majority.

"I thought the people voted on it," said Russell Wade, 72, who was watching children body-boarding in the waves below Huntington Beach Pier this week. "I guess it doesn't matter as long as certain groups don't like what the voters decide. The people voted on it and it should be left alone. Period."

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: activistjudge; gaystapo; homosexualagenda; perverts; prop8; sodomite; vaughnwalker
The California voters need to rise up and impeach this queer judge from office. Over 7,000,000 voters spoke out loud and clear and voted to deny this attack on the sanctity of marriage. Yet here we have a single, avowed sodomite judge overruling the vast majority of citizens. The US Supreme Court needs to step in and stop this travesty.
1 posted on 08/12/2010 8:24:47 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

I don’t know that I would have used the Q word to describe the judge. Liberal or anti-constitutional perhaps. Using words like the one you did does not help your argument.


2 posted on 08/12/2010 8:30:10 PM PDT by cableguymn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

really? They’re unhappy? They only spent years, raising money, getting thousands and thousand of signatures, lobbying, advertising, speaking, getting votes only to have ONE QUEER JUDGE OVERTURN IT. Why should they be unhappy.


3 posted on 08/12/2010 8:32:36 PM PDT by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

The fact that a single gay judge was allowed to hear this case and overturn the will of the people is far more disturbing than the poster’s use of the word queer.


4 posted on 08/12/2010 8:33:32 PM PDT by ilgipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn
Queer is a word some homosexuals use to describe themselves, as in Queer By Choice.
5 posted on 08/12/2010 8:40:59 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

He’s a federal judge, so the people of California can’t do anything about him. The Congress would have to impeach him.

The liberals never give up. When Proposition 8 was passed, they went back to the Calif. Supreme Court. When the Calif. Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, the liberals decided to go to federal court. They will never be satisfied until we have 50 state homosexual marriage.

And when we get to 50 state homosexual marriage, that will set a new platform for other lawsuits. You can count on lawsuits about polygamy, and incidentals in marital status such as tax deductions for dependent children. The whole issue of 2nd parent adoption and gay adoption will go into high gear also. There are other “discriminatory” matters in marriage and family law which haven’t been litigated yet.


6 posted on 08/12/2010 8:42:18 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn
I don’t know that I would have used the Q word to describe the judge. Liberal or anti-constitutional perhaps. Using words like the one you did does not help your argument.

You are dead wrong about that. The average Joe's fear of using words like "queer" to describe sodomites is a huge victory for the Left, because outlawing any term with negative connotations for those with the same-sex attraction sexual disorder effectively disallows any criticism of the behavior at all. It is an Orwellian tactic. People who engage in or support sodomy can only be called nice things or neutral things, like "gay" or "homosexual", but people who are against it are called "homophobes" or "bigots", words that are spat out like the worst insult imaginable.

Any man that receives sexual arousal from another man is a queer or a fag. Period.
7 posted on 08/12/2010 8:44:02 PM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn
Queer:
adjective
1. strange or odd from a conventional viewpoint; unusually different; singular: a queer notion of justice.
2. of a questionable nature or character; suspicious; shady: Something queer about the language of the prospectus kept investors away.

dictionary.com

I don't know. Perhaps queer is a very good word to describe this "judge".

8 posted on 08/12/2010 8:44:21 PM PDT by chaos_5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade
Public displays of displeasure at U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker's ruling were far and few between even though far more citizens supported the ban and opposed the judges interference.

Fixed it (Just doing the job that JournoListers won't do).

9 posted on 08/12/2010 8:46:10 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper
The fact that a single gay judge was allowed to hear this case...

Indeed.

There is still no scientific evidence homosexuals are born with their same-sex attraction and plenty of evidence same-sex attraction has environmental roots. Yet we have a judge who by all means appears to be mentally confused making decisions affecting the entire state of California and perhaps beyond California's borders.

10 posted on 08/12/2010 8:47:39 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak; cableguymn

I bundled a bunch of fagots together and put them out by the curb this spring. Trash man picked them up and promptly took them to the dump for me. Quite convenient.

fag·ot–noun
1.a bundle of sticks, twigs, or branches bound together and used as fuel, a fascine, a torch, etc.


11 posted on 08/12/2010 8:54:46 PM PDT by SZonian (July 27, 2010. Life begins anew.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade
“Queer” is the mildest term I'd use to describe this so-called judge. If I said what I really think about this sodomite I'd be banned from this site permanently.
12 posted on 08/12/2010 8:57:07 PM PDT by mojito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

Its the people vs. the government, and the government’s winning.


13 posted on 08/12/2010 9:09:12 PM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

Until queers, bastardized the definition of the word gay, they were queers, homos, or homosexuals, and so they shall remain.

In polite company or to their face, I might be a little more PC or polite.


14 posted on 08/12/2010 9:13:01 PM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn; DesertRenegade

Oh? So you do not think the “Q” word is relevant here? Even though the judge’s conflict of interest in this case is staggering and glaringly obvious?

How about we use the truthful word: HOMOSEXUAL SODOMITE... There, is that more appropriate? We have a HOMOSEXUAL SODOMITE judge overturning the democratically achieved result of a legal referendum... a vote that specifically outlawed “marriage” between HOMOSEXUAL SODOMITES ... But all you can think to do is find fault with using the “Q” word?


15 posted on 08/12/2010 9:16:47 PM PDT by TCH (DON'T BE AN "O-HOLE"! ... DEMAND YOUR STATE ENACT ITS SOVEREIGNTY !When a majority of the American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn; DesertRenegade
"Using words like the one you did does not help your argument."

Wrong. He's only calling that homo judge what he is. We conservatives, as a philosophical constituency, have to get over this aversion we have to pi**ing the other side off. Taking the high road and holding the moral high ground has gotten us where we are...barely holding our heads above water. We should have started fighting fire with fire a long time ago...if we had, maybe our Republic wouldn't be in such dire straits.

They want to call us "teabaggers"? Fine...the judge is a queer. At least we're factually correct.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

16 posted on 08/12/2010 9:25:29 PM PDT by wku man (Steel yourselves, patriots, and be ready. Won't be long now....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

“Yet here we have a single, avowed sodomite judge overruling the vast majority of citizens.”

Is he really “avowed?” I didn’t think he’d said one way or the other. Not that I’m doubting it...


17 posted on 08/12/2010 9:26:20 PM PDT by Kahonek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak
Spot on. Don't let the other side set the terms of the debate.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

18 posted on 08/12/2010 9:30:10 PM PDT by wku man (Steel yourselves, patriots, and be ready. Won't be long now....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

The Q word describes their chosen behavior perfectly. So queer they are,not “gay”. I prefer the Biblical term,”sodomite”. “Pervert” and “degenerate” also fit. There’s nothing mean about these words in themselves. It depends upon the spirit in which they are said.


19 posted on 08/12/2010 9:33:33 PM PDT by liberalism is suicide (Communism,fascism-no matter how you slice socialism, its still baloney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

“Using words like the one you did does not help your argument.”

Huh? That’s what they call themselves. Don’t they even use the letter GLBQ or something like that in their organizations? Plus there is a show called “Queer as Folk.” If they are proud of degeneracy, then are we supposed to just ignore that?


20 posted on 08/12/2010 9:42:37 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

And Q too.


21 posted on 08/12/2010 10:49:49 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chaos_5

A Queer Queer Queen.


22 posted on 08/12/2010 10:51:04 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

“I don’t know that I would have used the Q word to describe the judge. Liberal or anti-constitutional perhaps. Using words like the one you did does not help your argument.”

I’d go further and say knee-jerk responses only make the judge’s case, that people oppose same-sex marriage only because they are prejudiced, for him. Those of us in favor of traditional marriage need to become more intelligent in our arguments, and stop charging head-first into the traps our enemies lay for us.


23 posted on 08/12/2010 11:00:08 PM PDT by COgamer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: COgamer
I’d go further and say knee-jerk responses only make the judge’s case, that people oppose same-sex marriage only because they are prejudiced, for him.

Bah. The judge doesn't have a case, at all. Since when does it matter what our motivations are when we go to the polls? This judge thinks that a measure like Prop 8 would have merit as long as nobody who voted for it felt disapproval for homosexual behavior, but that the law is invalid if some people voted for it because of purely religious or moral reasons? What a load of bunk, and you appear to be falling for it! This judge has effectively disenfranchised all members of Christianity if his decision is allowed to stand, because, in his warped view, Christian morals and ethics are an insufficient basis for voting.

Is this sodomite judge going to vacate the 2008 election of Obama because so many people voted for him specifically because of his skin color? If voting for a measure based on religious values is sufficient to void that vote, then why wouldn't voting based on racial prejudice be a valid reason for voiding a vote?

And one more question, when, exactly, did this bastard of a judge gain the power to read minds in the first place? How does he even know what people were thinking when they voted?
24 posted on 08/12/2010 11:22:25 PM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper; cableguymn; DesertRenegade

>>> The fact that a single gay judge was allowed to hear this case and overturn the will of the people is far more disturbing than the poster’s use of the word queer

I understand your point but what would you have said to a gay man who would make the same objection if a heterosexual federal judge had upheld the ban? Would you have called him a fool ? Done a WAAAHHHH WAHHH post ?

There are more important issues to argue here. Crude name calling, not so much.


25 posted on 08/12/2010 11:22:37 PM PDT by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cementjungle

We live in a Judicial Tyranny. It’s now official.


26 posted on 08/13/2010 12:28:54 AM PDT by Kozak (USA 7/4/1776 to 1/20/2009 Reqiescat in Pace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: COgamer

“people oppose same-sex marriage only because they are prejudiced”

And ...? Do you oppose men who belong to NAMBLA pursuing little boys? Is that “prejudice”? Do you oppose a lifestyle in which men eroticize the hairy waste elimination sphincter of other males and organize parades to celebrate that preference?

Now tell me what is wrong with a little common sense “prejudice”?


27 posted on 08/13/2010 2:09:51 AM PDT by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
You are absolutely correct that 50-state same-sex "marriage" will not be the end of it, Dilbert. It is a fatal blow to family and civilization, to be sure, but the homo-anarchists are after more. They want absolute normalization and acceptance, on par with normal marriage, and they will do whatever is necessary to enact this, by ruthless force if necessary.

Don't think that churches are off limits. The homo-lobby has itself admitted that Christianity and Christians are the biggest obstacles to enacting their full agenda. If this outrageous judge can rule as he has just so that "gays" can feel good about themselves, then there is little else that cannot be mandated for the same reason.

28 posted on 08/13/2010 5:52:45 AM PDT by fwdude (Anita Bryant was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

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