Federal Judge Rules California's Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[unbiased]

The judge who ruled on this case is gay himself, so this ruling comes as no suprise.  I just wonder if it opens the door for polygamy, since marriage isn't one man and one woman.

[true_blood]

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, whenever an activist judge overrules the will of the people, then something is seriously wrong.

Very true. I don't know what's worse, the judge spitting in the eye of the American people whom voted against this or the gays marrying??

[JLO]

You see, it is a manner of calling out the gays for the dysfunctional manner of their chosen existence: Dysfunctional WRONG spelling equates to Dysfunctional WRONG lifestyle.

Oh, I didn't know...

[Godot showed up]

The judge who ruled on this case is gay himself, so this ruling comes as no suprise.  I just wonder if it opens the door for polygamy, since marriage isn't one man and one woman.

Why stop at number? Why not species? Why would it even have to be the same kingdom? What if I want to marry a bacterium? Or bacteria--talk about your polygamy! Actually, I've been getting that warm tingly feeling for the fusobacteria--ohh, those gums--but trachoma has been giving me the eye and I'll admit to getting cold feet.

And why are only living things entitled to the benefits of matrimony? Come to think about it, what about man and woman's love for the guy buried next to their father?  Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, so why can’t my neighbor marry Venus or Mars? What they do in the privacy of their own Solar system is their business, say I. That’s what makes America great.

And what about abstractions? And who says that humans have to be one party to a marriage? Maybe Purple has a secret thing for Viscosity. And has anyone seen the way Time has been looking at Conceptualization? Those two are made for each other, and it’s just heartless and mean that we’re standing in the way of true love.

All this might be too expensive to budget for. We’d be ripping the national debt a whole new event horizon, although I admit that even as I write that I can see that ripping the national debt a whole new event horizon has been married to the Democrat Party for some time, and we wouldn’t want to be adulterer(s). The judicial branch (who I just heard has proposed to Moderately Humid and Ethel the frog, the little minx) would be overrun by marriage applications; their other legitimate functions, such as securing the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and eleventy-th Constitutional rights of terrorists and preventing illegal Mexican migrants from being overrun by stubbed toes or American citizens from walking freely in America, could be severely compromised. I suggest that the cost-effective approach would be for the universe to marry itself.

But I’m drawing the line at parallel universes! Now that’s just sick.

[Godot showed up]

But my brain’s gut feeling is that it’s age that the anti-Western thought elite will attack next. It’s what they in their depraved, doctrinally against-all-decent-human-behavior ethos probably instantly regard as “bourgeois,” or, even worse offense to them, Middle-American, middle-class mores. Look for age-of-consent laws to be the next target. They’ll probably spin it out in a complicit media as “wouldn’t it be better for these unmarried and pregnant 13-year-old girls to be married to their 20-year-old lovers than throwing the guy in prison for the rest of his life? Let him support her, and not be any further drain on the taxpayer.” That’s how they’ll start. Most likely In Hawaii.

[Eupher]

I find it absurd and completely undemocratic that a judge can overturn a popular vote. That being said, I think we have much more important things to worry about than gays getting married. I mean, if you just let them have "civil unions" or something, they would shut up and we wouldn't have to hear about this crap anymore. Just saying, we have some issues closer to critical mass than this one.

I'm not an attorney and I'm no student of law, but I'd be willing to bet my next paycheck that the law does not require a judge to look at a "popular vote." Far from it. The law requires that a judge look at the law and then interpret that law.

There have been plenty of examples where a judge - any judge - has ruled against popular opinion. That's the crux of the legal system - judges aren't supposed to be bound by politics and the feeling du jour about any issue.

The real outrage in this particular case, from a legal perspective at least, is that this particular judge is an openly practicing peter puffer. He should have recused himself, imho, because his own interpretive ability is subject to his own biases apart from the law.

Regarding other more "critical mass" issues, your own sense of urgency on this is purely subjective and is relative to your own opinion, which is perfectly fine to express here. Others have commented as to the ramifications of this decision down the pike, should the decision stand, which most definitely are alarming.

Godot - great posts.  

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I'm not an attorney and I'm no student of law, but I'd be willing to bet my next paycheck that the law does not require a judge to look at a "popular vote." Far from it. The law requires that a judge look at the law and then interpret that law.

There have been plenty of examples where a judge - any judge - has ruled against popular opinion. That's the crux of the legal system - judges aren't supposed to be bound by politics and the feeling du jour about any issue.

Agreed

The real outrage in this particular case, from a legal perspective at least, is that this particular judge is an openly practicing peter puffer. He should have recused himself, imho, because his own interpretive ability is subject to his own biases apart from the law.

Disagree, because if he had been hetero and ruled in favor of Prop 8 the same argument could be used in reverse.

Here is the real outrage: the judge ruled based on the findings of sociologists and other researchers.

First, sociology is debatable as a form of science. Sure, it has insights but it isn't bound by hard facts like like math and chemistry.

Second, even if sociology etc were solidly established it matters not one wit. We are a republic, not a technocracy who must ask our scientific masters leave whenever we wish to establish laws for our own governance.

If the people wish to forbid the marrying of red heads to brunettes it doesn't matter how ridiculous the law is the fact of the matter remains as soon as we demand scientific imprimatur on our laws we lose the freedom to govern ourselves.

[true_blood]

We are a republic, not a technocracy who must ask our scientific masters leave whenever we wish to establish laws for our own governance.

BINGO! Very well said.

[Peter3_1]

Judge is a gay ACTIVIST and certainly should heve recused himself. Well, now, do the Mormons and the Moslems get their 5 wives now? Can "BI" peolpe marry one of each? Can 2 three four and more loving couples have round robin marrages? This is utter stupidity. Marage is not a "right" as you must have the willing conscent of another. Without it, no marrage. Further, Hamurabi's code refered to a man and a woman as marrage partners, no mention of 2 men or2 womem, it is what works, and trying to change it to satisfy a multitude of peversons is STUPID!

[Eupher]

Disagree, because if he had been hetero and ruled in favor of Prop 8 the same argument could be used in reverse.

I thought about exactly your point after I posted and yes, you're right, the same argument could be used in reverse. What I actually meant, but failed to express, is captured in Peter3_1's post next above.

All judges are human at the end of the day, but there are instances when a judge should recuse himself because of the obvious conflicts of interest that are either there or perceived to be there.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Judge is a gay ACTIVIST and certainly should heve recused himself. Well, now, do the Mormons and the Moslems get their 5 wives now? Can "BI" peolpe marry one of each? Can 2 three four and more loving couples have round robin marrages? This is utter stupidity.

If the community elected leaders that campaigned in favor of polygamy and then passed their agenda according to constitutional parameters, then, yes they could.

But Judge Walker has deprived such legislators and their constituents of their power and surrendered it to a collection of research projects.

[vesta111]

Judge is a gay ACTIVIST and certainly should heve recused himself. Well, now, do the Mormons and the Moslems get their 5 wives now? Can "BI" peolpe marry one of each? Can 2 three four and more loving couples have round robin marrages? This is utter stupidity. Marage is not a "right" as you must have the willing conscent of another. Without it, no marrage. Further, Hamurabi's code refered to a man and a woman as marrage partners, no mention of 2 men or2 womem, it is what works, and trying to change it to satisfy a multitude of peversons is STUPID!

Well now Peter, I have been doing something dangerous for me, I have been thinking,    about this.

Marriage is between a male and female--but there are sub-depths of requirements for even this to be allowed.

You Peter are not allowed to marry a 6 year old female.

You Peter are not allowed to marry your sister even if you are 100% sterile.

Is some states you cannot marry your 1ST. or 2ND cousin. Even if one of you are adopted and no blood relation, having the same parents can cause problems.

When the SCOUS  gets this and has to make a decision will it be considered that anyone regardless of sex or relationship of one to another, anyone can marry anyone they please.??    Can brother marry brother, sister marry sister.?  What if identical twins want to marry and adopt a child, or the sisters want to become pregnant  with the same man.

Peter, are you old enough to have heard the song, " I AM MY OWN GRAND PA'?"

This whole question on same sex marriage just opens up a bucket of worms.

[Peter3_1]

vEST...,
Indeed I am more than "old enough"...just cements my point. The "gays" are asking for special, not equal, rights. Civilizations, for the last 5,000 years have found that marrage between a MAN and a WOMAN, are what works best, so the DEFINITION has been that. Not to pretend affairs, cheating, the "down low", etc were niot happening, but that the definition and associated laws workes best for the scociety as a whole.

And BTW, we are no different that our ancestors, we just have  MUCH nicer toys.....