Friday, August 6, 2010

Couple Of Versions On The Judge That Struck Down The Voter Approved Prop 8 In California

I personally don't have any problems with people who want to be gay or anything, but I believe that marriage should be between a Man and a Woman only. That's the way it has been for thousands of years and it's tradition. It kind of sucks when we have gotten to the point of every time something that gets voter approval - in this case twice - that when people disagree with it, they sue to get their way. And in this case, we got another left winged 9th circuit judge pushing their personal belief in a ruling than actually applying the law and honoring the Democratic process. This is when you know the system is failing the people when you can't even vote on an issue anymore because you know the courts somewhere are going to overturn it.

On a side note, people might actually take the gay community seriously, if they didn't advertise what they are, complain so much and have flamboyant parades. You do have the same rights as other Americans in this country, but it is being pressed upon as if they don't. It does freak people out, unless you live in the Bay Area.


Via Saberpoint:

Drudge Report is reporting that a federal judge has knocked down Proposition 8, which voters approved to ban gay marriage in California. The actual decision has not yet been made public and Drudge bases the report on a source. However, this decision would be no surprise, coming from the Gramscian judges of the Moonbat State.

Drudge reports some of the statements in the decision will be (with the comments in black/bold):

'Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians'...[and people who want to marry dogs and cats...?]

'Stereotypes and misinformation have resulted in social and legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians'...[so therefore we should let them marry? Great logic!]

JUDGE: THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER...[Says who? Where does it say that in the law? This is merely the judge's subjective, personal decision, not one based on law.]

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS DO NOT SATISFY CALIFORNIA’S OBLIGATION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFFS TO MARRY...[Another subjective, personal opinion, not one based on law; the statement has no logical basis]

Isn't it amazing how wrong the many generations of the past millennial have been? They thought it perfectly reasonable to limit marriage to one man and one woman. And if the right to marry protects an individual's choice of spouse regardless of gender, what's next? Regardless of genus or species?

This, of course, will open the door for polygamy to be recognized along the same lines, which will be convenient for the hordes of Muslim immigrants already here or soon to be invited in.

Update: Drudge Report was correct.

Via Beers With Demo

Because supporters of gay marriage wanted so badly for this to be about homophobia, they got exactly what they wanted and as a result this whole ordeal became about intimidation, smearing and undemocratic end- arounds.

Now, before we get into this too deeply, let’s just say that we’re of two minds or more accurately, perhaps, two emotions regarding the issue of gay marriage. Flatly stated, we believe marriage to be that between a man and a woman. Period. Having said that, our passion index for this is relatively low. You won’t ever see us at a Pro Prop. 8 rally (if for no other reason than the fact we might be “outed”. More on this later.) nor will you ever see us in a knock down, drag out argument over the merits or detriments of gay marriage. It’s tough for us to argue against what two consenting adults want to do and how they wish to define it. (The issue of same-sex partners rearing children is another matter altogether that won’t be addressed here.)

However, where our passion index is quite sky-high is when a solitary figure, in this case, U.S. District Judge Vaughan R. Walker, strikes down what the voters of California had clearly stated as to the definition of marriage not just once but twice. It’s a phenomena that is catching, apparently, as just last week, a federal judge struck down a law in Arizona that flanges up with a Justice Department program regarding cooperation between local and federal officers with respect to immigration enforcement – the very same Justice Department that is bringing suit against Arizona for this same law.

Judge Walker ruled that California "has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions” Really? So that explains why the issue of defining marriage has shown up on the ballot twice already. And in the absence of any constitutionally- (State or U.S.) defined state of marriage, the voters, both times, defined marriage as that between a man and woman.

The jurist, a Republican appointee who is gay, cited extensive evidence from the trial to support his finding that there was not a rational basis for excluding gays and lesbians from marriage. In particular, he rejected the argument advanced by supporters of Proposition 8 that children of opposite-sex couples fare better than children of same-sex couples, saying that expert testimony in the trial provided no support for that argument.

"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote.

That’s nonsense. It’s called cultural tradition. A cultural tradition that has existed for thousands of years and which has informed various people and societies around the world, absent any moral or religious bias, that marriage is between a man and a woman. That Walker implies homophobia as the sole reason for believing in traditional marriage, he displays his own narrow-mindedness in this matter.

The trial appeared to be a lopsided show for the challengers, who called 16 witnesses, including researchers from the nation's top universities, and presented tearful testimony from gays and lesbians about why marriage mattered to them.

The backers of Proposition 8 called only two witnesses, and both made concessions under cross-examination that helped the other side.

The sponsors complained that Walker's pretrial rulings had been unfair and that some of their prospective witnesses decided not to testify out of fear for their safety.


When Walker ruled that he would broadcast portions of the trial on the Internet, Proposition 8 proponents fought him all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won a 5-4 ruling barring cameras in the courtroom.

When we said earlier we would worry about being “outed”, this is exactly what we were talking about. The thug tactics of the left resulted in Prop. 8 maps where the names and addresses of Prop. 8 donors were flagged on Google maps. So, congrats, people – your win was aided by previously behaving like a pack of brown shirt goons thus chilling any hopes of a fair hearing by your opposition.

So, this will be appealed to the Ninth circuit court of appeals and from there to the Supreme Court where all indications point to the fate of same-sex marriage in this country resting in the hands of the swing man, Anthony Kennedy.

Previous to this, we had felt that were we ever invited to a same-sex wedding, we would be honored to attend because it was not about us nor how we felt about same-sex marriage but about the happy couple. However, because of the undemocratic and thuggish nature of how this whole thing played out, the results are completely illegitimate in our mind and we now feel we could not attend such an event in good conscious.

Again, Congrats. Hope it was all worth it.

No comments: