PROP 8 OVERTURNED — Page 5

Thanks for sharing that, romantico. I'd never heard of this Cenk Uygur fellow, but I'm definitely a fan now.

I like Jefferson. He used to say he'd rather have a newspaper but no government rather than a government with no newspaper.

Here's to the overturn and rights for all!

Well Ghostlight, the "papers" are a bit diminished when you can not believe a word they say.

You obviously did not read the documentation in the link. Jefferson predicted that the courts would over-step.

Hey, you could apply for a job on Matthews or Maddow.That's how they construct their propaganda every night. Ignore the facts and argue embarrassing, raw emotion.

As Jefferson foresaw, unelected jurists who enjoy lifetime tenure act today not to enforce the Constitution in accord with the Founders' intent, or to adjudicate laws and legislation consistent with lawmakers' intent, but chose to impose on the law interpretations that advance the interests of liberal ideological agendas. And to interfere in matters on the local and state levels that exceed federal courts' authority.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yCWVnQ_u84

---

Cute: Count's still pretending to be a Democrat even though he seems to lean Republican on every issue...

The current stay is short-term. Both sides have to submit their arguments to Walker by tomorrow (Friday, 8/6). Judge Walker will probably decide shortly thereafter.

Note: if Walker lifts the stay, I THINK that the prop 8 proponents could petition the Circuit Court (the next appellate level) for a stay.

---

As for activist judges, Jefferson would probably be astounded at the actions of the Roberts court. Granting individual rights to corporations is far beyond the Constitution, and the epitome of judicial activism. As for Judge Walker, protecting the rights of a minority from being taken away by the majority is clearly one of the primary functions of the judicial branch. Rights are not subject to voting or referendum.

---

This was posted on Facebook by a friend of my niece, a man who is a self described Conservative, Republican Christian:

"I have to view this proposition and every other gay marriage action in light of the three main parts of who I am:

1. An American
2. A Christian
3. A Republican

As an American, I seek to ensure that this Nation is today as free as or even more so than it was yesterday. We declared our independence upon that great philosophy that every human is endowed by a creator with the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The first two are self explanatory. The last, that of pursuing happiness, is one upon which I most often fall.

If I, as an American, want to protect my own right to pursue happiness within the bounds of respect for my fellow patriots, I must protect that right for everyone. The notion that two Americans of the same gender make each other happy is not one that I understand, but a pursuit which I cannot but protect.

As a Christian, I am taught by Jesus himself that there are three things that I should do, above all others.
"'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind' - this is the great and foremost commandment, and there is a second like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'. The whole Law and Prophets hang on these two commands." (Mtt 22:37-40, Mrk 12:28-34).
There are many theological debates on the issue of homosexuality, and I have, at one or another time in my life, argued both sides. I have come to rest on these beliefs: I am no theologian, I have no idea if homosexuality originates in the DNA or by choice, and it does not matter. I am commanded by the man whose life was sacrificed for my own to love my neighbor as myself. Not after my neighbor passes a test, or agrees with me on all the issues. I am just to love him as myself. Taken to the next level, if I am to emulate Christ, I should love my neighbor more than myself, regardless of his lifestyle.

As a Republican, I have come to the conclusion that the argument does not stick. I am a Republican because I believe the idea of limited government and fiscal restraint are the best avenues of government. History, in that regard, is in our favor. Somewhere along the line, Republicans got saddled with the idea that we MUST be the party of only one homogeneous person.

We have been slipping since. I cannot be an advocate for limited government across the board - except in that one area. Either we limit it, or we don’t. I vote for the former. Therefore I most easily reconcile being a (truly) conservative Republican with the fact that it is none of Uncle Sam’s business who I marry, so long as that person is an adult.

In conclusion, the one event in my life that cemented these three beliefs was when I married my wife. I cannot tell you what manner of trouble I would have raised if we had been prohibited from marrying, nor the lengths I would have gone so that she would be my wife. I refuse, as an American, to deny someone the pursuit of happiness with a spouse that makes them as happy as my wife makes me. I refuse, as a Christian, not to love everyone equally. I refuse, as a Republican, to lose another election because we are on the wrong side of this issue."

So there is hope.

---

Updated On: 8/5/10 at 09:56 PM

The Obama elite versus the American people. "Specifically Judge Walker overturned the California Marriage Protection Act after concluding, as a matter of fact, that the majority of Californians who voted to protect marriage were bigots who had no rational basis to define marriage on their own terms." He essentially said that marriage exists because heterosexuals have been homophobic and practicing discrimination since the beginning of time. "Here are just some of the 'facts' Judge Walker found: * Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians. * The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships."

This is what he "found," and the reason he found this is because the only testimony he took was from advocates, and this is what they said. None of this is legal. None of this is law. This is all political. This is all social. And so the social demands, the political beliefs of the opponents of Prop 8 have now been codified into law by one of their own, a judge. "The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian." That's not been codified as law. It's no different than the judge down in Arizona deciding on the basis of hypotheticals to overturn the Arizona law on illegal immigration. Judge Walker found "The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child's adjustment outcomes."

I don't know what that is but that's not law. There's no precedent. There is no law for any of this that this judge found or cited. Some of the other "facts" that the judge found: "Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted. How did Judge Walker arrive at these 'facts'? By agreeing with everything the same-sex marriage proponents' 'experts' said while ruling that the traditional marriage witness was 'unreliable' and 'provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate.'" So we don't even have case law. We don't have law, period. We have leftist activism that a judge sided with in the form of testimony.

That has now been codified into law. "According to Judge Walker's reasoning every single one of these Americans is a bigot whose opinion on marriage has no place under Judge Walker's Constitution. From the beginning, it was clear that Judge Walker was more interested in making a political statement than upholding the rule of law. That is why after Judge Walker ruled that the trial could be broadcast live, the Supreme Court took the remarkable step of overturning his decision, writing in January: 'Not only did [Judge Walker's court] ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue.'" This judge wanted liberal activism disguised as testimony broadcast nationally so as to buttress and back up what everybody knew would be his decision.

Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and views on the matter.

God Bless the USA.

Most people are not silly enough to suggest that sexual behavior is determined entirely by genetics. Nor are most people silly enough to suggest that sexual behavior is entirely a function of free will. Both factors are involved. And that is why, in a free society, both positions must be afforded constitutional protection.
In the end, reasonable people will have to decide for themselves which factors exert the greatest influence on human sexual behavior. The debate must be won by the party with the strongest argument. It cannot be “won” by the party that controls the government.
The State of Georgia seeks avoid the suggestion that gays can become ex-gays by demanding that Christians become ex-Christians. Oddly, by suggesting that Christians have free will and gays do not, they deprive only the latter of their humanity.