“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

Defense of Marriage Continues Despite Judicial Activism

Today U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled against marriage in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case over Proposition 8, California’s marriage protection amendment passed by a majority of Californians in 2008.  This came despite the fact that homosexual activists and apologists made a weak case during the trial, supplying little more than emotional arguments and anti-moral contempt.

According to a release from the Family Research Council, president Tony Perkins said:

“Marriage is recognized as a public institution, rather than a purely private one, because of its role in bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race and keeping them together to raise the children produced by their union. The fact that homosexuals prefer not to enter into marriages as historically defined does not give them a right to change the definition of what a ‘marriage’ is.

“Marriage as the union between one man and one woman has been the universally-recognized understanding of marriage not only since America’s founding but for millennia. To hold that the Founders created a constitutional right that none of them could even have conceived of is, quite simply, wrong.

Well put.  Homosexuals have the same right to get married as heterosexuals do, subject to the same specifications: not a close relative, someone of the opposite sex, etc.  They do not have a right to hijack a societal institution of profound importance and rob it of its unique value and distinction.

If homosexuals don’t want to get married, that’s their business, but they don’t get to call whatever they do want to do by a title that is not merited.  I don’t get to call an empty gum wrapper a $20 bill, and homosexual activists don’t get to demand the value of marriage for a sexual act that has none of the legitimacy and positive function of marriage.

As for judges: they don’t have the power to redefine nature, they don’t have the authority to manufacture law that doesn’t exist, and they don’t have the jurisdiction to override those who do have the authority to make law.  They are not oligarchs, and they are not kings–no matter how much they might like to believe so

A release from the Alliance Defense Fund promises the decision will be appealed:

“In America, we should respect and uphold the right of a free people to make policy choices through the democratic process–especially ones that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the foundation of the country and beyond,” said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum.

“We will certainly appeal this disappointing decision. Its impact could be devastating to marriage and the democratic process,” Raum said. “It’s not radical for more than 7 million Californians to protect marriage as they’ve always known it. What would be radical would be to allow a handful of activists to gut the core of the American democratic system and, in addition, force the entire country to accept a system that intentionally denies children the mom and the dad they deserve.”

Again, this is simple common sense. But then, those who would counterfeit marriage are unswayed by and uninterested in common sense.

The Heritage Foundation‘s blog, The Foundry, points out how this ruling is an assault on democratic as well as societal foundations:

Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. The people of California, and the United States, have made clear in numerous ways that they have not consented to the redefinition of marriage. For the past two decades they have considered the arguments advanced by some for overturning marriage as it has been understood in our country. In state after state — 45 in all – they have chosen to reaffirm the meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. They have done so because they understand that establishing same-sex marriage would transform the institution into a set of private interests rather than buttress it as a multi-generational reality binding mothers, fathers and their children biologically, socially and legally.

The ruling is really not that big of a surprise. Our court system has for several decades demonstrated repeatedly, with some exceptions, that it is hostile to normality, common sense, traditional values, and American principles.  Why should this case be any different, especially when it involves a ruling by a judge who is widely accepted to be a homosexual?

Never mind that our bodies were obviously designed to be utilized sexually in a heterosexual fashion.

Never mind that, despite some limited tolerance toward homosexual behavior in some cultures, no civilization in recorded history has embraced the insane concept of homosexual “marriage;” (history, morality, and nature aside, you cannot “marry” or “join” two people whose bodies were obviously NOT designed to be joined together sexually).

Never mind that marriage is the ideal environment for the creation of children and the development of those children in a stable, balanced setting where male and female behavior and complimentary interaction between the sexes is modeled–while homosexual behavior is a moral and literal perversion of all these things.

Never mind that monogamy–even among supposedly committed homosexual couples–is a rare state, and even considering the too-high divorce rate still makes a mockery of the committed state that marriage is to be.

Never mind that the state has, for all the aforementioned reasons and more, a compelling interest in preventing the critical institution of marriage and family from being hijacked and counterfeited.

Never mind that the people of California (and most states in the union) have overwhelmingly stated they do not want this important institution undermined–even in a liberal state such as California.

Never mind that homosexual activists have repeatedly shown their complete contempt for the values most American hold dear, including the right to govern ourselves and not be subject to the whims of an unbalanced but vocal minority.

No, none of this matters to judicial activists who insist on pushing an immoral and unhealthy agenda to turn society upside-down.  All that matters is winning.

The defense of marriage will continue, however, all the way to the Supreme Court if need be–and I’m sure the homosexual activists and their “useful idiots” will settle for nothing less, even as they refused to accept not only the judgement of nature (the correct use of our sex organs is obvious) but the lawful decision of the majority of California voters in 2008…and the majority of voters in 2000. Again, what is right is not important, what is natural is not important, what is best for children is not important; all that is important is winning…and that elusive sense of validation and affirmation homosexual activists seek but never really find.

Nevertheless, we must not tire in doing what is right, never ceding what is important even to a persistent enemy.  The stakes are too high–too high for children, too high for individuals, and too high for society.


Try us out at the new location: American Clarion!


43 Responses to “Defense of Marriage Continues Despite Judicial Activism”

  1. Well said, Bob.

  2. You are too funny, You should do standup.

  3. Assaults on marriage and the family are no laughing matter.

  4. Since I'm able to see such things, I see that the rabid homosexual activists are already targeting Bob's well-written and true article. You would think they would be having orgies in the street with ecstacy over this homosexual judge's unconstitutional ruling. But, no. They feel the need, because of their extreme and correct insecurity, to attack the truth-tellers, even when they got their wicked ruling.

    No matter what happens when this issue finally makes it to the high court, homosexual marriage will NEVER be right or legitimate or even possible. Only the last day, the day of the Lord, will show every person who has ever lived what the truth is.

  5. This is only the tip of the iceberg, Gina. Since the court ruling came out, I've surfed the blogosphere and am utterly appalled at the contemptuous, sardonic, vile comments of the homo-activists, who WON in this battle, toward the vast majority of those who support real marriage. It's almost as if Satan were unleashed to have full reign in these degenerates, without any restraint in displaying threatening derision. There are ostensibly facetious remarks about forcing homosexual relationships on normal people, purportedly mocking a supposed position we have taken, but the underlying threatening tone is somewhat alarming and demonic.

  6. We seem to see the absolute worst from homosexual activists, whether in victory or defeat.  Remember the appalling behavior displayed by many after Proposition 8 passed (if you don't, there are links in the article)?  It's like seeing Romans 1:18-32 lived out, illustrated and proved true.

    Sad, very sad. But the fight for what's right goes on regardless.

  7. MK – If you're referring to the line “I don’t get to call an empty gum wrapper a $20 bill” then I agree with you. But if (as I suspect) you're saying you think the article is so wrong it's funny, what is your basis for saying so? If you personally don't like the basic facts behind what the article says, do you really think that's enough to justify your dismissing it?

    Keep in mind you're talking to people who, at some point, have looked reality in the eye and say “I'm wrong, and I have to change” regarding something unhealthy that dominated their lives (Bob about alcoholism, me about porn addiction). Come back and talk to us when you've had the courage to do the same — to be true to what's right, rather than to what you think you want.

  8. Spouse, you nailed it–it really is demonic. I've seen it for years, the “look” these people have in common. I fully believe they are indeed “inhabited,” if you know what I mean. Thus, their hellish behavior.

  9. My understanding of what happened was that the Judge made his decision on what is called a ' Fact Based Case '. He ask each side to present FACTS on why homosexuals should or should not be allowed to marry. Not emotional arguments, but facts. Daivid Boies and Ted Olsen presented study after study and witness after witness after witness which stated and showed that society would not suffer or gain if homosexuals were allowed to marry.

    The defense served up only a few studies and witnesses that said same sex marriage was harmful to society.In a Fact Based Case, they didn't offer much in the way of fact. One of their experts was even the NARTH people whose main man recently had to step down because he is homosexual, plus it was shown where their studies had so many faults.They apparently got slammed on cross exam.

    Emotional arguments such as 'if gays are allowed to marry, then that demeans my own marriage' fell deaf on the Judge's ears

    It was a slaughter because Boies and Olson presented so much evidence showing that this group of people( homosexuals) getting married has no true or proven deleterious effect on society. You and I might disagree with thie evidence, but apparantly it was a massive amount compared to what the defense could come up with.

  10. So the facts mentioned in this very article didn't come up?

    What were the facts that were brought up by Boies & Olsen? Or were the “studies” and “witnesses” just appeals to authority — i.e., “This authoritative-sounding source says it so it must be true”?

    Just curious, because all the actual facts I'm aware of show that only a union between a man and a woman is deserving of marriage benefits. Actually, far too many of even those unions these days don't rise much above the level of “gay” partnerships — which may be why so many people don't really see the difference anymore.

  11. I had many of the same thoughts as you about the witnesses , the experts and studies and their validty as well. Can't really comment because I haven't read all these studies or heard these 'experts' myself. But apparently Boies and Olson overwhelmed the defense lawyers.

    The final ruling is about 140 pages long and the Judge specifcally mentions 80 separate examples of this 'fact based evidence' showing that same sex marriage didn't harm society, that the defense simply couldn't rebut. Haven't read the ruling yet, but curious to read these 80 separate examples he used to make his decision.

    I may be wrong, but this didn't have anything to do with gay activism making emotional claims, but it had to do with one group of lawyers making mincemeat of and outsmarting another group.

  12. Wait, wasn't this the case where the judge was homosexual and refused to recuse himself due to conflict of interest (as would have been appropriate and should have been required)? Doesn't sound like the group of lawyers in question had to do much “outsmarting.”

  13. DCM

    What if the Judge had been heterosexual ? Wouldn't it have been appropriate for him to recuse himself, since it might be a conflict of interest. Don't think that bird or line of reasoning is gonna fly.

    Apparantly Boies and Olson kept presenting witness after witness and study after study to the court and the defense just couldn't match it or even come close and then on cross-exam, witnesses for the defense ,like NARTH, got dismantled. They got terribly outlawyered and if it had been a prizefight, they might have stopped it in the first round !

  14. That's odd. I heard the opposite–that the plaintiffs presented a very weak case.

    The judge being homosexual was the very reason the case was shopped to him, Brian. The destruction of marriage is the goal of these people, whether you understand it or not. They already have “civil unions,” and can get ALL the same “benefits” of marriage, but that's not good enough for them. That's not the point for them.

  15. Gina

    You need to read the ruling where all the factual evidence each side produced was laid out. Compare the two sides yourself and their THEN decide for yourself. Boies and Olson simply outlawyered and out informationed the defense. We shouldn't rely on any of the news sources these days for unbiased truth and I mean that.We should read and research things ourselves, like this case's ruling, and then decide for ourselves..

  16. Brian, in lieu of reading the details of the activities in the court case, I would simply ask, how does a FEDERAL judge overturn the will of 7 MILLION voters of the state of California, who voted on a state constitutionally approved ballot amendment?

    This is NOT about homosexual marriage. This is about states' rights, my friend.

  17. I know where you're trying to go with your recusal argument but it doesn't fly. While a case could be made that a judge should recuse himself from a shoplifting trial if he was a habitual shoplifter, or that he should recuse himself from a bad-check case if he had a problem with writing bad checks, or that he should recuse himself from a spousal abuse case if he had a problem with abusing his spouse…no sane case could be made in favor of demanding the recusal of of a judge trying a shoplifting case who did NOT have a shoplifting problem, the recusal of a judge trying a wife-beating case who did NOT have a problem with beating his wife, etc. In other words, it would be insane to hold a bias against normal and proper behavior.

    Regarding your second paragraph, from what I read of the trial, it was exactly the opposite. The homosexual lobby had almost nothing beyond emotionalism and a few biased “studies” they tried to pass off as “science.” Meanwhile, the marriage defense had logic, science, and thousands of years of historical reinforcement behind them, and made mincemeat out of the pro-homosexual witnesses on cross.

  18. That “factual evidence” in the ruling seemed pretty one-sided to me; it didn't mention the many times the pro-homosexual witnesses got caught up short, and didn't give proper credit to all the logical and factual points scored by the marriage defenders. In fact, it sounded rather like a homosexual activist had written the ruling. Imagine that.

  19. On your question about how does a Federal Judge overturn the will of 7 million voters who represent California…. etc. It is quite simple.The Federal Courts are in no way beholden to the voters of California in the least. That is why the Judicial branch is set up as it is in the Constitution. It is the one branch that is not beholden to the voters at all !!!!! The Executive and Legislative Branches answer to the public. Not the Judicial Branch, so by Constitutional definition, the voter's will is irrelevant to Federal Judges

    This isn't about states rights because the Constitution is quite clear on this issue. If the Federal courts, even up to the Supreme Court, rules that a states laws are not constitutional then the states are wrong and must back down. This isn't some gray zone battle. It is quite clear–the federal judiciary trumps states legislative actions and functions independant of voters will..

  20. Bob

    Regarding your first paragraoph and recusal, things like spousal abuse, bad check writing,shoplifting are all clearly legal matters and are against the law. If you are homosexual, asexual ot herterosexual, those are all quite legal.To say a homosexual should recuse himself is your right, but it is equally right then to say a heterosexual should also recuse themselves.Both homosexuality and heterosexuality are legal in the eyes of the law, so no need for either to recuse themselves.

    But in the eyes of the law, the homo and hetero sexual are equal and have equal rights thus for those reasons alone, they should never have to recuse themselves because of legal gender preference. Why would one or the other recuse themselves.

    I urge you to read the court text and also the ruling. You will change your mind about the evidence produced. Boies and Olson were overwhelming. They did their homewprk and the defense didn't as far as experts and studies were concerned. The difference in volume of evidence produced was staggering.The defense couldn't rebut it like Boies and Olson did with …say… the Narth groups studies. A slaughter it was.

  21. Leaving aside for the moment that homosexual behavior used to be illegal when society had a better moral compass, it is still illegal for a man to say he's married to another man, so the principle still more than holds.

    In fact, a new and perhaps even more powerful analogy applies. What we have here is akin to a shoplifting judge attempting to set precedent that shoplifting should now be legal, or a wife-beating judge attempting to create law from the bench that wife-beating should be legal. Pathetic from both a moral and legal sense.

    Actually I've read both the ruling and several lengthy accounts of what transpired in court. It was indeed a slaughter…for the homosexual activists. Nothing but junk science and emotionalism.

    This is judicial activism on a scale that may eclipse anything in history. It is not only attempting to create law from the judiciary, and it's not only attempting to overturn the repeatedly expressed will of the people, and a judge attempting to declare a state constitution unconstitutional, but an activist judge attempting to undermine and gut a fundamental human relational institution.

    The hubris is truly staggering here.

  22. This most certainly IS about states rights, Brian! The Federal Constitution does not address the common sense, universally understood definition of marriage; therefore that is an issue that the individual states may determine.

    The homosexual judge is dead wrong, and this is only one more of the countless injustices that are occurring almost daily under this dictatorship that has taken over our country.

    I found this article this morning on WND. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageI

    Bob Unruh makes some of the same points I made. Excerpts from the article:

    “The decision by Walker, which is being appealed, was too much for the tradition-oriented American Family Association, which promptly launched an action alert to its several million supporters.

    The alert asks supporters to contact their members of Congress and demand impeachment of Walker.

    “'What you have here is a federal judge using the power of his position to legitimize what is sexually aberrant behavior,' Bryan Fischer, an analyst for the organization, told WND. 'He's trampling on the will of 7 million voters in California. It's just a gross breach of his judicial responsibility.

    'We think of it as an expression of judicial tyranny, judicial activism on steroids,' he said.

    …'We have congressmen, they actually campaign on the premise these judges are unaccountable,” Fischer said.

    But that's simply wrong, he contended.

    'There is a provision under which they can be held to account. The Framers did not intend for any branch of government to be unaccountable. There are mechanisms for federal judges who are out of control to be called to account,' he said.

    …The AFA argues that since 'marriage policy is not established anywhere in the federal Constitution, defining marriage, according to the 10th Amendment, is an issue reserved for the states.'

    But, 'Under Judge Walker, it's no longer 'We the People,' it's 'I the Judge,'' the action alert states.

    'In addition, Judge Walker is an open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest.'

    'Impeachment proceedings, according to the Constitution, begin in the House of Representatives. It's time for you to put your congressman on record regarding the possible impeachment of Judge Walker,' the alert said.

    Fischer said the goal is that the campaign will put members of Congress on the spot, and on the record, about their willingness to rein in a renegade federal judge.

    …A long list of other organizations are in agreement. According to Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, 'While it is not surprising that gay activists were able to find a judge in San Francisco sympathetic to their cause, it should be alarm[ing] that any federal judge would overturn centuries of precedent and millions of votes for traditional marriage based on his own personal view.'”

  23. Well, I don't think we will ever agree on certain parts of this case, but I have decided to never use analogies again because I think they are meaningless and full of potholes. And I have used my fair share. Using your analogies, would you not agree that all of us are sinners so if we were judges in the courts , we should recuse ourselves in cases where sin is involved.Obviously we ghoulish sinners would promote sin if we were judges, would we not.

    Of course not, you would try and follow the law.

    Also, I keep reading here that the Judge is an activist Judge, intent on making law himself. Is this complete analysis and character evaluation of this Judge based on this one case or is there real evidence, like a history or rulings for instance. I don't remember anyone calling him an activist Judge prior to the trial.Surely if one ruling that doesn't go one's way, you can't honestly say you have enough evidence to completely characterize a man. .

  24. Well in the general overview this case is about states rights, but that is not the legal question the Judge has been ask to answer. He has been ask to answer if the civil rights established in our Constitution has been violated by a states law/Constitution.the Feds clearly have domain over the states on issues of civil rights.

    It is true that marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution, but civil rights are and in this country individual rights take precedent over 'institutions'. Besides, just because something is an 'institution', doesn't mean it has legal merit or is not anti-civil rights. The Institution of slavery . The Institution of Child Labor .Being an 'institution' in and of itself means nothing in this case so now the question is 'is not allowing gays to have the same rights as straights a violation of civil rights.

    Just because something is an 'institution', has no bearing on whether it violates civil rights like slavery did and like not allowing gays the same civil rights as straihts have, may well also prove to be a civil rights violation.

    Can't wait to see how well the AFA's plea to its members to write their congressman and urge them to impeach Judge Walker goes. Seems like time well spent, but I admire their hearts….

  25. Oh and one last thing, I think the AFA might be better off considering some civics lessons and teaching its members some civics as well. Our founders did not want the will of the public or the public to decide every issue directly. they knew the public was incapable of understanding all the intricacies of Federal Law so the Federal Judiary was set up exactly for the vote or the will of people NOT to enter in on an immediate decision like the California case.
    The founders knew the peoples will couldn't always be truasted. It is the founders that wanted the will of the people NOT to influence or decide every single issue. Take it up with the founders if a Federal Judge doesn't go along with the 'will of the people'. The Federal judges go by the will of the consitution and not the will of the people on a certain day,week, month etc.

    Sorry about the diatribe Gina, but I dislike it when someone like the AFA uses strawman type arguments( peoples will and Federal Courts) that appeal to emotion but not to how the Constitution works.

  26. Analogies hold up quite well and are immensely useful in illustrating larger truths. They only break down when one is more dedicated to avoiding the truth they illustrate than they are to achieving understanding.

    The difference between a garden variety “sinner” being able to serve as judge and the types of people I mentioned is that those with an ongoing acceptance of their own immoral behavior (and homosexual activists are a perfect illustration of such behavior) are demonstrating contempt toward what is right.

    Me? I cuss sometimes; it's a nasty habit I picked up in public school and it combines with my temper to form a moral pitfall for me. I also condemn the behavior–in myself and others. I don't pretend it's moral or normal or legitimate to do. In other words, I pay respect to the standard, and recognize that I am also accountable to that standard.

    Homosexual activists, however, not only deny that they are subject to the standard, they deny the standard altogether. That is what disqualifies a homosexual activist judge from properly adjudicating a case like this: he holds contempt for the very moral standard in question.

    As to Judge Walker's activism, it was known prior to this case and was highlighted (by some) during the case. Of course, those who agree with his activism (such as the “mainstream” media) aren't going to say much about that because they don't want the public to know about that.

  27. You're absolutely right, Brian, that the founders didn't create a democracy but a republic.

    In this case, however, it was perfectly legal and time-honored for the people to speak on public policy in their state–especially when homosexual activists have repeatedly tried to hijack the legal system to impose something never embraced by any civilization in human history.

    Another thing is certain as well: they never intended the judiciary to create law or make stuff up and demand it be revered as law, either (they also didn't intend for judges to redefine fundamental human institutions and ignore some very basic facts about human anatomy and relationships, either). That is exactly what a judicial activist does, and exactly what this judicial activist has done.

    One of the things that makes judicial activism such an abomination is that it is even worse than the mob rule of democracy: it takes the errant and usually illegal agenda of a vocal minority, bypasses the representative process, and creates judicial “law” based on this vocal minority's agenda.

    Absolutely despicable.

  28. Well, at least you learned a few things in public school- cuss words! Funny. I am sure I learned more
    cuss words than Texas history !

    I am going to do a little research on Judge Walker and see what exactly is in his past decisions to see if I can't make some sense of this 'activism charge' that people are tossing around !.

  29. For some more insight on those “facts” Walker seems to like so much, check this out. It contains some links to even more analysis of his activist conclusions.

  30. I agree with much of what you say and agree that the public has a right to speak on public policy. Just think in order to be honest with the people, that groups like the AFA should also mention that the Federal Judges jobs are to not take the public's will into consideration when deciding federal cases.

    When the AFA says the Judges aren't listening to the public will when deciding cases, they do that full well knowing the judges aren't supposed to per our founders!! It is deceitful to me, especially since so many Americans don't realise this about Federal Judges so they are being emotionally taken advantage of.

  31. Brian, the founders would be mortified to see a case like this one actually in the courts. Walker is wrong. Homosexuality is wrong. There is not, and never could be, such a thing as “homosexual marriage.” It's not a “civil right” to demand that your degenerate, perverse behavior be codified into state or federal law.

    It's all wrong and always will be. That's all.

  32. I do also personally feel that marriage should be between a male and female, but for a little different reasons than you. But I just read online where the defense lawyers themselves offically said this case isn't about the Judge, tradition, history….. It is about whether the Constitution grants the right to same-sex people to marry.Quote from the defense lawyers.

    Guess we will see what Roberts et al think, unless the DOMA case gets to them first.

  33. I have come more and more to believe the activists are directly animated by Satan and his demons. There is no other explanation for their wanton embrace of ever-increasing vileness and calling it “good.” Yes, the episodes of hell-inspired rage from the activists after Prop 8 passed was absolutely chilling.

  34. I was just looking at FoxNews.com and they have a poll out asking if you think Prop 8 is unconstitutional or not. It is still going on and I think has around 500,000 responses so far. Around 72% feel Prop 8 is unconstitutional and 22% don't think it is with the rest undecided. Still a large number of peope also believe a marriage is between a man and a woman.

    So if 72% of people feel it is unconstitutional, then that suggests this Judge was not a 'judicial activist'. But here is the real conundrum, A majority of Americans that go online and read FoxNews.com seem to think Prop 8 is unconstitutional, but many still feel marriage is a man-woman institution. Interesting.

  35. I'm not sure whether this poll you're talking about is one that's done reliably and scientifically, but it sounds like one of those that's just posted on their website…where people can email 1,000 of their closest friendly activists to bomb the poll and skew the results. It happens all the time from both the Left and Right, which is why website polls mean next to nothing if they're not controlled.

    But even if 100% of the respondents said they thought the decision didn't constitution judicial activism, it wouldn't change the reality that it actually was judicial activism. Judicial activism isn't in the eye of the beholder, nor is it a subjective thing. It is when a judge acts outside their authority in a way that law and constitution either do not address or are actually contradictory to the judicial opinion. This is a clear case of judicial activism, since both the state and federal constitutions are silent on the subject of homosexual behavior and marriage, and the people voted in accordance with a legally established method of self-government to write into the state constitution what people for the last 6,000 years have had the sense to grasp instinctively utilizing nothing more than a little common sense.

    For a judicial activist, however, none of these things are allowed to stand in the way of the agenda.

  36. Your right about the poll and I would say let everyone quit citing poll statistics when they suit you and as if they are sacred.

    Where I take excepton to is your argument when you say ' It is when a Judge.acts outside their authority in a way that law and Constitution either do not address or are actually contradictory to the judicial opinion'. That is exactly what Fedral Judges are supposed to do. Look at the laws of the legislature and then see if they think they are constitutional. Some Judges see it one way and others see it another

    Leta just accept that is what each Judge thinks is right Constituitionally or legally and not label or persecute him or her because they don't agree with our interpretations.That is what makes us great. A nonconformity of ideas.

  37. Sorry, but judges don't have the power or authority to just declare something to be constitutional or unconstitutional. As I explained, neither the state or federal constitution addresses the issue of marriage and homosexual behavior (used to be common sense until a couple of decades ago), and the people of California utilized a legal method of amending their constitution to stipulate what people have understood for 6,000 years.

    A person doesn't get to come along and throw all of that out simply because their uniform is a black robe. That's tyranny by any other name.

  38. Well,I am sorry to disagree but Judges do have the power to decide what is constitutional or not. That is the the purpose of the the Supreme court– the Judges decide what is constitutonal. You know that

    It doesn't matter that the states or federal constitutions dont discuss or address the issue of marriage or homosexual behavior, because this is a question of civil rights whether you want to hear that or nor.
    Thati s the current argument before the courts–a civil rights question–can we discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.Period. The plaintiffs lawyers have made it a civil rights questuion and the courts must decide it fron a civil rights perspective because that is what they are questioning.

    So look at it from a civil rights argument—–Do gays have the rights to all the civil rights that straights have . Whether I like it or no not. I think our Constitution says they do. All people have equal civil rights.

    Took a while for that to sink in that all people have equal equal civil rights. Women learned it when they were finally able to vote, and blacks learned it when it was decided that separate does not mean equal and I think that since homosexuals are just people that the courts will realise an decide that they have the same rights as heterosexuals or other people by our constitution which is the word and nothing else

    .

  39. They do not have the power to make stuff up out of thin air, which is what this “judge” has tried to do. There has to be a logical and intellectual basis for a constitutional/unconstitutional assertion…and there is none on this issue.

    And this is NOT an issue of “civil rights.” That argument is pure crap. Homosexuals have the same right to marry that heterosexuals have. They simply don't want to exercise that right, but demand the “right” to counterfeit the relationship everyone is entitled to; no one is entitled to call something by a term when that something does NOT match the description.

    So again, we are back to a judge attempting to exceed their authority–their legal authority, as well as attempting to play God with the attempt to redefine a fundamental human relationship and reality itself. No one has the authority to do that, and the attempt to do so under the guise of constitutionality takes hubris to a whole new level.

  40. It seems to me that the jest of your argument is that Judges don't have the authority to just make things up like ' What the meaning or definition of marriage actually is '. Actually in truth, Judges do change 'meanings' and definitions of words all the time. Take the meaning of a Member of Congress in 1804. The meaning was a MALE voted by his state to represent the country. Then Judges changed that 'meaning' or definition to a man OR A WOMAN voted in to represent a state.

    In 1804 the meaning of a voter in the U.S. was a MAN……Now, thanks to Judges and the Courts, the meaning of the word 'voter' is a man AND A WOMEN. You could even say the meaning of a restaurant in the South in 1948 ws an eating establishment that served only whites. Judges changed that meaning or definition as well

    That is why this is a civil rights issue—Do gays, or better still, do all people in the U.S. have equal rights irregardless of their sexual preferences. Adding gays to the meaning of marriage is like adding women to the meaning of voter from a constitutional standpoint. Judges indeed can do that—-change definitions or meanings of words. Supreme court has done it for centuries.

  41. I'm curious: to what specifically are you referring when you say judges “redefined” the meaning of “a member of congress?”

    And I'll say it again (and as many times as I have to): this is NOT a civil rights issue. Homosexuals already have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that everyone else has. They are being denied nothing.

    Homosexual activists want the “right” to counterfeit a fundamental human relationship. When something is counterfeited, the genuine article is fraudulently represented by a fake that does not have the same characteristics and value as the original. People are not allowed to counterfeit money (it devalues the original), nor are they allowed to counterfeit Rolex watches, or to impersonate a police officer, etc. Words have meaning, and without those distinct meanings, the word itself becomes meaningless.

    Judges have no authority to allow the counterfeiting of marriage; not under the fraudulent “justification” of civil rights, or any other attempt at justification. It is both morally and legally beyond their authority.