Judge has spoken - whether you like it or not

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 8/5/10 | Debra J. Saunders

[Jacquerie]

Bye, bye, 10th amendment

Bye, bye to a lot more.

"The Constitution does not constitute us as Platonic Guardians nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, wisdom or common sense . . . We trespass on the assigned function of the political branches under our structure of limited and separated powers when we assume a policymaking role." - Chief Justice Warren Burger, 1982

We live in a judicial tyranny.

[MrB]

I believe Congress actually can do something about judicial tyranny,

like, disbanding all courts except the Supremes,
then re-instituting them at a later time.

[safeasthebanks]

Ok, this is officially getting tedious now. Please pay attention to what I'm REALLY saying, not what you want me to be saying. Right now, EVERYBODY can get "married", i.e. have some type of ceremony officiated by anyone you want joining you to another person, place or even thing. As long as you're not hurting anyone, no one from the State is coming to stop you. If you want a marriage RECOGNIZED by the State, with all the benefits/rights/responsibilities that go with it, then you need the marriage to be inline with the laws passed by the elected representatives of the people or via referendum by the people themselves.

And if either of these groups produce a law that says a man can marry another man, then, guess what, people other than heteros are going to be "married", your deep thoughts on "natural law" be damned. I personally would disagree vehemently with that and work to see the politicians that passed such a law are replaced by those that would repeal it, but that is not really relevant.

The most important point is, ONE FREAKIN judge shouldn't be making this decision for the whole state of California. It's a job for the legistlature and/or the citizens. I can't be any clearer.

[Jacquerie]

Quite right.

Scotus can also be removed from appellate jurisdiction in any case “with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Two page pdf: http://www.robertwelchuniversity.org/Lectures/RWU_Curb_the_Courts.pdf

[Ransomed]

I’m Catholic too, and I know the Church will never change about marriage.

The gov’t obviously will change and will try force us to accept impossibilities like “gay marriage” or something worse. It is the nature of gov’t, at least modern gov’t. As a Catholic, I know a piece of paper from the gov’t doesn’t make one married or not, and that marriage doesn’t come from the state. No matter what the state says.

Freegards

[little jeremiah]

So this freak homo-judge from San Francisco gets to re-define the word ‘marriage’ to suit his own faggotry, while overturning not just the voters, but thousands of years of tradition? Like, hell!

-------------------

Exactly so.

[Claud]

And if either of these groups produce a law that says a man can marry another man, then, guess what, people other than heteros are going to be "married", your deep thoughts on "natural law" be damned.

Thanks for the explanation. And I'm sorry this is tedious for you, but what can I say, I completely disagree. If it were just my deep thoughts...you're right..who gives a fig. But they ain't just mine. They are the Founders' deep thoughts, and the "deep thoughts" of the Declaration, Constitution, etc.

Otherwise, you're 100% right...one freakin judge shouldn't be allowed to make this determination.