Gay Judge Overrules Prop 8, Voter Definition of Marriage in California

Prop 8 California Gay Marriage

Who get's to decide if gay relationships can be recognized by the state of California as marriages? The people it will affect? Nope. They overwhelmingly voted it down. An activist gay judge invented constitutional the right of anyone to marry anyone they want today. Open the gates to polygamy, "open" marriages, marrying children and animals, etc. If it makes you's good enough for everybody!

Who gets to decide if the traditional definition of marriage, in place since the dawn of humanity, will now be drastically changed to accommodate the feelings of a troubled minority who really don’t fit the age-old description. The government? The people? Judges and lawyers? We live in what kind of republic again?  What’s the purpose of marriage again?

No one who knew anything about this case didn’t see this coming. The openly gay judge Vaughn Walker ruling on Prop 8 harassed lawyers defending the voters of California during the whole trial, and at one point tried to force them to release the names of the citizens who donated to the National Organization for Marriage so that they could be harassed and intimidated as we saw around the time Prop 8 passed in California, by about the same margin as Obama was elected president. He only backed down when the ACLU (supporter of gay marriage) no less said he was violating the rights of the defenders of traditional marriage and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed and censured him for his actions!

Judge Vaughn Walker’s court has been a sham from the beginning. Now, on to the Supreme Court!

A federal judge on Wednesday overturned a California ban on same-sex marriage, ruling that the Proposition 8 ballot initiative was unconstitutional.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaugh Walker, one of three openly gay federal judges in the country, gave opponents of the controversial Proposition 8 ballot a major victory.[…]

Defense lawyers called just two witnesses, claiming they did not need to present expert testimony because U.S. Supreme Court precedent was on their side. The attorneys also said gay marriage was an experiment with unknown social consequences that should be left to voters to accept or reject.

Former U.S. Justice Department lawyer Charles Cooper, who represented the religious and conservative groups that sponsored the ban, said cultures around the world, previous courts and Congress all accepted the “common sense belief that children do best when they are raised by their own mother and father.”

In an unusual move, the original defendants, California Attorney General Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, refused to support Proposition 8 in court.

That left the work of defending the law to Protect Marriage, the group that successfully sponsored the ballot measure that passed with 52 percent of the vote after the most expensive political campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.

[Fox News]


Leave a comment

Filed under Gay Marriage, Homosexuality, Marriage, Parental Rights

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s