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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 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