Judge Says Calif. Can't Ban Gay Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter mommy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
gilliam:
Why, heck, you can’t tell people they have a right if you don’t define what the meaning of the word is, can ya? 😉
If the meaning is open, some might argue that it doesn’t exclude homosexuals.

Also, court decisions do not have to define every term they employ. Some terms might be presumed to be common knowledge.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Also, court decisions do not have to define every term they employ. Some terms might be presumed to be common knowledge.
Like marriage 😃
 
Can someone tell me what “rights” regarding marriage gays do not share with heteros?
 
Well if gay marriage is legal, how long before we have child brides, and polygamy, marrying you cat ect. If anyone thinks that once the wakoos get gay marriage they are going to stop there they need to get their heads examined.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Can someone tell me what “rights” regarding marriage gays do not share with heteros?
I can’t help but notice that you didn’t get any takers on this one.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Can someone tell me what “rights” regarding marriage gays do not share with heteros?
Well let’s see, I’m straight, and I can’t marry a woman either. So we’re equal there.
 
The Loving decision was based on ANTI DISCRIMINATION. The statement that marriage was a fundamental right was with respect to race being used as a way of prohibiting certain races from this right.

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Thus while marriage was called a fundamental right, the point was that a trivial issue such as race should not be used to prohibit certain persons from marrying. I do not think you can extend the Loving case to ANY person. So far there is no right to homosexual “marriage” that would not also grant the right to marry a sibling, parent, three people and a hat.

I am frankly so disgusted but what do you expect in the state of Californication?

Lisa N
 
Lisa N:
I am frankly so disgusted but what do you expect in the state of Californication?

Lisa N
Patience. This is a process. My understanding the decision was based upon the State constitution. So eventually it will get to the Calif. Supreme Court. Don’t panic until they rule.
 
mommy,

Thank you. Obviously, you made my point. There is no discrimination against gays. A gay man can marry a woman, a lesbian woman can marry a man…same as heteros…that simple point seems to escape most people.

🙂
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
mommy,

Thank you. Obviously, you made my point. There is no discrimination against gays. A gay man can marry a woman, a lesbian woman can marry a man…same as heteros…that simple point seems to escape most people.
🙂
You can always count on Mommy 🙂 - It’s similar to a point I’ve made in some conversations on this subject. It’s so obvious that it’s often overlooked.
 
40.png
gilliam:
Patience. This is a process. My understanding the decision was based upon the State constitution. So eventually it will get to the Calif. Supreme Court. Don’t panic until they rule.
Unfortunately, this judge just overruled the people who VOTED against same sex marriage. Isn’t it funny how when the people speak to want euthanasia they should be listened too but if they speak and say they don’t want same sex marriage they are overruled?

BTW I am not panicked but I am very very angry. We’ve got the tail wagging the dog in this country.

Lisa N
 
It seems to be common in California for the judges to overrule what the voters want. It’s pretty sad.
 
The judge said:

“no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners.”

That means that according to this judge, an overwhelming majority of the country is irrational!!!

This is judicial tyrrany. The revolution in 1776 is now revealed to be a failure! We may have to resort to revolution and overthrow of the judiciary!!!

The next thing that we will see is that the judges will mandate that we all bow to them and swear our allegience to them. We need some governers who have moral guts to ignore this tyrrany. It should start with Governor Bush in Florida who should ingore the judges in the Shiavo case.
 
Lisa N:
Unfortunately, this judge just overruled the people who VOTED against same sex marriage. Isn’t it funny how when the people speak to want euthanasia they should be listened too but if they speak and say they don’t want same sex marriage they are overruled?

BTW I am not panicked but I am very very angry. We’ve got the tail wagging the dog in this country.

Lisa N
What’s scary is how easily so many people acquiesce to the whims of activist judges or turn a blind eye to the corrosive effect of their folly? God helps those who at least attempt to help themselves.
 
mommy,

It seems that clear and obvious point escapes many judges too.
 
40.png
SHEMP:
The judge said:

“no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners.”

That means that according to this judge, an overwhelming majority of the country is irrational!!!

This is judicial tyrrany. The revolution in 1776 is now revealed to be a failure! We may have to resort to revolution and overthrow of the judiciary!!!

The next thing that we will see is that the judges will mandate that we all bow to them and swear our allegience to them. We need some governers who have moral guts to ignore this tyrrany. It should start with Governor Bush in Florida who should ingore the judges in the Shiavo case.
How about the studies that show that the best environment for a child is a loving family comprised of a father and a mother? Guess this little judge doesn’t get out much.
 
The “Smoke of satan” is filling the corridors of the inept American judicial system.

Jurists should read this:

"Vatican glossary classifies gays as abnormal" 4/1/2003
"VATICAN CITY - A new Vatican glossary of sexual terms says homosexuals are not normal and that countries that allow gay marriages are inhabited by people with "profoundly disordered minds.

Italy’s gay community immediately condemned the glossary of nearly 900 pages, which hit the bookstores yesterday, as part of what they called a new anti-homosexual crusade.

The glossary, prepared by the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family, covers themes such as sexuality, condoms, abortion, birth control and genetic manipulation.

*A section on ‘Homosexuality and Homophobia’ says homosexuality stems from an ‘unresolved psychological conflict.’ *(emphasis my own)

It says those who want to give homosexuals the same legal rights as heterosexuals ‘deny a psychological problem which makes homosexuality against the social fabric.’

The ‘Lexicon On Ambiguous and Colloquial Terms about Family Life and Ethical Questions’ sparked some outrage.

It said leaders of some countries favoring gay marriages ‘shows a profound disorder in the minds of these countries’ "

Homosexual prohibitions found in the Bible (quotes from the N.A.B.)

1
.) Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination."

2.) Leviticus 20:13 “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.”

3.) Romans 1: 26-27 “Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the males like wise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.”

4.) 1 Corinthians 6:10 "*as the testimony to Christ was confirmed among you, 7 so tht you are not lacking in any spiritual gift as you wait for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ. **8 *He will keep you firm to the end, irrreproachable on the day of our Lord Jesus [Christ] 9 God is faithful, and by him you were called to fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord."

5.) 1 Timothy 1:10 *"WARNING AGAINST FALSE DOCTRINE **10 *"the unchaste, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching, "

6.) 1 Romans 1:24-25 *"**24 **Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. **25 **They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. *

7.) Deuteronomy 23:5 *"**5 *A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s dress; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the Lord, your God."

8.) Judges 20:22 The Outrage at Gibeah "While they were enjoying themselves, the men of the city, who were corrupt [literally ‘sons of Belial’ indicating extreme perversion] surrounded the house and beat on the door. They said to the old man whose house it was, "Bring out your guest, that we may abuse him.’ "

------------------------------
 
I hate judicial activism…thats what this is…judges saying what they think rather then what the constituation says.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top