I am kinda surprised that a conservative website still garners 54 percent that says that prop 8 violates the constitution.
That maggot Olson swerved way over to the left after Barbara died.
Order in the courtroom here come de judge! All ye mere mortals bow to his honor.
The trap is to agree to the underlying premise in the first place. Homosexuality is a behavior, not an identity. By failing to understand this, you build your argument on a falsehood to begin with. The examples of the recent court custody fights between states are a perfect illustration. In these fights one half of a lesbian couple leaves the lifestyle and gets married to men. They then don't want to share custody with the former female partner.
So how can it be an identity if you are “gay” on Monday and “straight” on Friday?
The core problem is that homosexuality is a disorder. It is an aberration of the normal. Sorry, facts are stubborn things. The judge in this case suffers from the disorder and should have recused himself from the case to begin with. Many gays become ex-gays over time and NARTH and other organizations can help.
This ruling should be overturned, but with the current lack of thinking among people, it is doubtful it will be. Regardless, the homosexuals who “marry” will not be married. Marriage is between a man and a woman. No one is denied that.
I just happened to see Ted Olson on the news but didn't get what he had to do with this case. Can you fill me in?
Since the judge is gay if he decided that proposition was invalid he’s a hero in the gay community and the liberal areas in San Fransisco and Los Angeles. If on the other hand he decided it wasn’t he’d be a traitor to the gay community in lots of their eyes and would be ostracized/shunned. If there is any dirt on him or any significant others in his life or his family they would see it got out (they’d have gone after his family no matter what if he was straight). His life would be made a living hell.
Does anyone know if he has a significant other and they want to get married?
Question:
Is the regulation of marriage law a state enterprise, or a federal enterprise?
I thought it was a state enterprise. If so, then this judge is totally out of his mind! (to be kind)
He should have recused himself because he is gay.
He should NOT have ruled on this.
Only one Judge can define marriage and He isn’t from California
Hell no. There is a reason there are men and women.
This ruling is going to be overturned for sure. Vaughn Walker, openly queer, should have recused himself before the case even started. The activist judge was clearly biased from the start because of his personal choice of perverted sexuality. Hopefully the electorate can remove this scum from his position.
Ted Olson is a disgrace to his wife’s memory! That being said, the incredibly ugly Ted ignores the fact that the Constitution and all of our laws are based on Natural Law Theory and there is NO way that YOU could EVER say that homosexual sex is natural. Our Constitution is based also on logic and reason. Teddy is trying to take away reason and logic and all of John Locke’s theory which will make the Constitution worthless in ALL areas.
Cicero—even in pagan Rome—declared that laws that go against Natural Law are unjust.
Plus, this law violates the Freedom of Religion because it’s going to FORCE by LAW (in the public square and public schools) that everyone’s children has to believe in the pagan paradigm. No Christianity or Judaism allowed (unless gutted of its beliefs).
The court has no right to redefine a word that the Founders defined by using the word spouse, meaning the opposite of the gender. There is no doubt that the Founders meant to establish a country built on the natural family knowing that it is the most solid foundation for a prosperous society.
While that’s true,the more disturbing issue to me is that a judge has the power to overturn the will of the people. This wasn’t some law enacted by state legislature on their own. This lost in an open vote of the people,by the people and for the people.
Unrecused Rump Ranger