Skip to comments.Prop 8 supporters are unhappy that ban on gay marriage has been overturned by a federal judge
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't know. Perhaps queer is a very good word to describe this "judge".
Fixed it (Just doing the job that JournoListers won't do).
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.
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.
1.a bundle of sticks, twigs, or branches bound together and used as fuel, a fascine, a torch, etc.
Its the people vs. the government, and the government’s winning.
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.
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?
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!
“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...
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
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.
“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?
And Q too.
A Queer Queer Queen.
“I dont 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.
>>> 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 posters 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.
We live in a Judicial Tyranny. It’s now official.
“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”?
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.
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.