Skip to comments.SOURCE: CA Prop 8 held to be unconstitutional under due process and equal protection.
Posted on 08/04/2010 1:45:48 PM PDT by tsmith130
click here to read article
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...
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
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.
The people mean nothing to these tyrants.
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.
"There's hope for us yet Honey ..."
[Pic from "Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex" - Woody Allen movie]
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.
ANOTHER gay “Judge” with AIDS dementia!
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.
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.
Can you blame them? They missed a woman's "right" to an abortion for almost as long.
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.
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.