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

Skip to comments.

SOURCE: CA Prop 8 held to be unconstitutional under due process and equal protection.
Drudge Report ^ | 8/04/2010 | Drudge

Posted on 08/04/2010 1:45:48 PM PDT by tsmith130

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-364 last
To: Mad Dawgg
I tend to agree with you about government involvement -less is best.

There are areas where government is tasked by the people with enforcing laws premised upon protecting unalienable rights endowed by the Creator. With unalienable rights there come necessarily unalienable definitions of terms -necessarily as well, defined by the Creator. What I suggest we see here is a government redefining the unalienable term "marriage" as a method for promoting and protecting the innovation. In my opinion, government is overstepping and taking the role of God in this pursuit...

In essence the unalienable redefined becomes alienable -with this we see government moving toward tyrant...

351 posted on 08/05/2010 11:13:11 AM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Great bullet for the GOP Campaign in Nov. But then we had great ones last time around too. I guess the bullets depend on the shooter don’t they.

Good info thanks


352 posted on 08/05/2010 11:41:22 AM PDT by TomasUSMC ( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

Yes, I’m aware of the history of gay marriage in California. Judge Napolitano on Fox made the statement about California having previously granted the right to gay marriage.


353 posted on 08/05/2010 12:38:49 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130

The people mean nothing to these tyrants.


354 posted on 08/05/2010 12:39:04 PM PDT by Force of Truth (Yes political conservatives are libertarians. They want to have their rights and eat them too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
So polygamy is a go as well? Probably. Consenting adults and all ... Then bestiality following close behind.

The homos rode in on the backs of the black slaves to get their fetish classified as a civil right. The blacks said nothing. The polygamists and bestial will ride in on the backs of homos, and the homos won't be able to argue against it.

355 posted on 08/05/2010 1:19:02 PM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: mquinn
" I’d prefer to stick to actual arguments against gay marriage, rater than delving into nutball mysticism and numerology. "

Come on now, lighten up.... I didn't figure that out myself, I saw it on a you tube video.
356 posted on 08/05/2010 1:48:46 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist (There the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USAis no civility in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130

"There's hope for us yet Honey ..."

[Pic from "Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex" - Woody Allen movie]

357 posted on 08/05/2010 2:35:01 PM PDT by Lmo56 (</i><p>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
"That's because liberals believe that our laws exist to protect minorities from the majority."

Some do. Take the 1st Ammendment. A majority could vote representatives into Congress that may makes laws to limit free speech. The 1st Ammendment exists precisely to protect the minority from the majority. That's the point.

Having said that, I agree that there is no right to gay marriage and that this ruling is incorrect. Let's just not forget that the majority doesn't, and shouldn't, always get its way.

358 posted on 08/05/2010 10:46:05 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130

ANOTHER gay “Judge” with AIDS dementia!


359 posted on 08/06/2010 5:52:14 PM PDT by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puppage

If the judge’s order is ruled correct, than yes, every state must allow gay marriage under the equal protection clause.

It won’t matter what the constitution says.


360 posted on 08/07/2010 8:26:39 PM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Beastiality will come not under equal protection but under the right to privacy.

Since abortion is under the right to privacy it will be said eventually that what one does in their own homes constiutes that which will then allow anyone to beat their husband/wifes etc etc etc.

The constituion will then allow not the freedom of man from government but for the government to allow whatever depravity it chooses too in order to allow for the contitution of their power.


361 posted on 08/07/2010 8:32:06 PM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Williams
Facinating how our Founders, courts, Congresses, Presidents missed this for well over 200 years, that Gay marriage is a Constitutional right.

Can you blame them? They missed a woman's "right" to an abortion for almost as long.

362 posted on 08/07/2010 10:20:06 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (California Bankruptcy in 4... 3... 2...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA
Someone please tell me again why I should take the time to vote? A single judge can overturn the will of the people.

Because when Conservatives quit voting, the socialists and liberals are able to select even more judges. If there was ever a time for all good Conservatives to NOT sit on the sidelines, a time to vote in the elections this November and try to take back the US House and Senate, to remove as many liberal politicians from control of your state as possible, now is the time. This will be a Democrat bloodbath in November. We need help from all Conservatives voting.

363 posted on 08/07/2010 10:27:08 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (California Bankruptcy in 4... 3... 2...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

How about relatives? If one of them gets their tubes tied, then it is not about inbred offspring. Why can’t a father marry his daughter if they are “in love” and consenting adults. Why can’t a sister marry her brother.

Once you defy the traditional definition of marriage, you allow for anything and everything that does not “hurt” somebody else, such as pedophilia. Other than that, you have to allow for bigamy, polygamy, incest and communal marriages among large groups of people. All legal. All recognized, with benefits.


364 posted on 08/07/2010 10:30:43 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (California Bankruptcy in 4... 3... 2...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-364 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