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

The judge should have recused himself. Ted Olson sells out the memory of his wife Barbara who died in 9-11.
1 posted on 08/04/2010 9:43:57 PM PDT by Steelers6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Steelers6

I am kinda surprised that a conservative website still garners 54 percent that says that prop 8 violates the constitution.


2 posted on 08/04/2010 9:46:44 PM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Steelers6

That maggot Olson swerved way over to the left after Barbara died.


3 posted on 08/04/2010 9:48:02 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (The United States of America! aka The Big Piñata. Bash it and the goodies fall out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Steelers6

Order in the courtroom – here come de judge! All ye mere mortals bow to his honor.


8 posted on 08/04/2010 9:53:57 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (JUST VOTE THEM OUT! teapartyexpress.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Steelers6
Tried to leave the following comment but I wouldn't sign up:

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.

9 posted on 08/04/2010 10:01:56 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Steelers6
"The judge should have recused himself. Ted Olson sells out the memory of his wife Barbara who died in 9-11."

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?

10 posted on 08/04/2010 10:03:36 PM PDT by Spunky (You are free to make choices, but not free from the consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Steelers6

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?


12 posted on 08/04/2010 10:13:58 PM PDT by airedale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Steelers6

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)


16 posted on 08/04/2010 10:24:37 PM PDT by J Edgar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Steelers6

He should have recused himself because he is gay.
He should NOT have ruled on this.


17 posted on 08/04/2010 10:27:01 PM PDT by cruise_missile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Steelers6

Only one Judge can define marriage and He isn’t from California


18 posted on 08/04/2010 10:33:25 PM PDT by uscga77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Steelers6
I don't see how anyone can now make a legal argument against polygamy. You can't appeal to a traditional interpretation of marriage because that argument is now legally invalid. It will be interesting to see how these same people will defend a limitation of two people, which logically is untenable now.
19 posted on 08/04/2010 10:48:58 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Steelers6

Hell no. There is a reason there are men and women.


20 posted on 08/04/2010 11:03:10 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Steelers6

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.


22 posted on 08/04/2010 11:55:03 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Steelers6

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.


23 posted on 08/05/2010 12:18:25 AM PDT by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Steelers6

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.


25 posted on 08/05/2010 2:04:07 AM PDT by wiggen (Government owned slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Steelers6

Unrecused Rump Ranger

29 posted on 08/05/2010 5:26:25 AM PDT by bmwcyle (It is Satan's fault)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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