Yeah, we're already hearing from the left; "Well can't a BLACK judge hear a discrimination case? Can't a FEMALE judge hear a divorce case?"

Sure they can. But SHOULD a judge, a member of the KKK, hear a discrimination case? Should a judge, a member of the Aryan Nation, decide such a case? Should a judge, a card-carrying member of an anti-abortion or pro-choice group, decide the abortion issue?

You can always count on liberals to ask the WRONG question.

if a straight, married fundamental christian judge had drawn this case would the left be so understanding ?
.
.
.
crickets ....

Inflamatory yet instructive. This is a real issue. Judicial limits with regard to the established, constitutional mechanism to create, amend and overturn laws.

Texas Tom,

Yes, it is an "established, constitutional mechanism to create, amend and overturn laws."

However, those are state laws, and have to be valid under the U.S. constitution.

Whether you agree, or disagree with this ruling, states cannot pass laws which are contrary to the U.S. Constitution, and if a court finds that they are unconstitutional, they get struck down.

Since every law enacted, is voted on either by the public, or their duly elected representatives, every law is created through "established, constitutional mechanism". You seem to be arguing that no judge should ever overturn any piece of legislation.

Barry rule's by fiat as well as this as clown of a judge. ( iIn more way's then one ) I might add.

Activist liberal judge's have been making up law by their preference for years.

Barry can only hope he has time to 'rig' the system to stay in power before his Kommierades take the fall in November. That's why end arounding the electoral college seem's like such a wet dream for the leftist's. Only problem is, they are going to need 10,000,000 fake vote's just to get within striking distance.

10 million? Why does that # ring a bell? Job's lost??

Since every law enacted, is voted on either by the public, or their duly elected representatives, every law is created through "established, constitutional mechanism". You seem to be arguing that no judge should ever overturn any piece of legislation.

Sure. The problem is that the definition of "marriage" has always been left up to the states. Judge Walker has upended that 230-year understanding with a very poorly reasoned, very unfounded, very stupid decision.

California has decided what a "marriage" is. No one in California has been denied the right to have a marriage in California. Judge Walker, confusing the concept of "equal protection" with "definition" has decided a minority of people get to change how "marriage" is defined. That is not supported by the Constitution.

I do disagree with Rick's cartoon. If this decision is upheld, the pan on the left of the balance should read "Everyone in all 50 states" because gay marriage will be, by judicial fiat, the law. Welcome to the future of America.

All because of one dumbass judge. Oh, is using "ass" to describe a gay person OK?

That scale is the Statue of Liberalty to progressive's.

Gee, what a shame our founding fathers created a third branch of government called the Judicial Branch.

Socialists.

"Gee, what a shame our founding fathers created a third branch of government called the Judicial Branch."

No, the greater shame is that the judicial branch has become infested with advocates rather than deliberative judges due to the highly-politicised nomination/confirmation system.

Gee, what a shame our founding fathers created a third branch of government called the Judicial Branch.

Which, of course, misses the whole point that the decision is weak, stupid, and unsupportable.

Uh-huh, Jay.

Let's see: Either -

a) All those judges nominated by Reagan, Bush 1, the centrist Bill Clinton with the GOP approving, and Bush II have all been reprogrammed by Leftist mind-control or

b) the Right is as wrong about the Constitution now as it was during the Civil Rights era

I'm gonna go with B.

I also note that the Right has no problem with Activist Judges even overrulling state's rights, as long as that rule is in the Right's favor. Isn't that interesting?

"Uh-huh, Jay."

False choice. You're babbling. Better luck next time. Try again soon.

Perhaps the most interesting point is that the liberals really complained about the federal courts' interpretation of the Constitution for the 2000 election, but now they seem to think that federal courts are really cool when they overrule the majority regarding gay rights.

The difference being that Bush v. Gore was decided on valid Constitutional grounds, whereas Perry v. Schwarzenegger is a pile of shit.

"Try again soon."

Please don't encourage the bullshitter.

The cartoon should read "Gay conservative Judge". Walker is a conservative, appointed by GW Bush.

Sorry, it Bush Sr who nominated Walker for the federal bench.

Walker was first nominated by President Reagan, but the nomination was blocked by Pelosi and other Democrats because they perceived Walker was discriminatory towards Gays.

Funny that none of the right wing media sources are reporting on that. Funny.

Sure they can. But SHOULD a judge, a member of the KKK, hear a discrimination case? Should a judge, a member of the Aryan Nation, decide such a case? Should a judge, a card-carrying member of an anti-abortion or pro-choice group, decide the abortion issue?

Exactly what group membership are you alleging applies to the judge? Is he a member of a gay bridge club or something?

You can always count on liberals to ask the WRONG question.

Go re-read your post. The question that you answered didn't come from any liberals. It came from the voice inside your head.

I agree with the premise of this post that justice was redefined. Though it didn't just happen yesterday. The change that allowed for yesterday's decision happened a long time ago.

The problem is that the definition of "marriage" has always been left up to the states.

Wrong.

the greater shame is that the judicial branch has become infested with advocates rather than deliberative judges

"Advocate": A judge with whom you disagree.
"Deliberative": A judge with whom you agree.

the decision is weak, stupid, and unsupportable.

We look forward to reading your detailed legal analysis of how those findings are weak and unsupportable.

The judge made a poor decision, incorrect on the law in my estimation, but I don't get a vote. Still, the argument that the institution of monogamous heterosexual marriage is purely a religious one is ridiculous.

Monogamous and heterosexual marriage has quite a long and successful secular history, irrespective of religious beliefs (to which I do adhere).

It was this institution which enabled human civilization. The primal, animal instinct is for men to impregnate as many females as possible to ensure perpetuation of their genes. This left women raising children alone, which was a disastrous situation for the species and for civilization: not only was child mortality high, but also women struggled to survive as they had not only to feed themselves but also their children with little help. Women tended to give the children as much food as possible, even to their own demise, as the instinct again is to perpetuate the species.

The institution of monogamy brought huge and unprecedented benefits, as the division of labor became more efficient. More women and children survived, and in the end this also promoted the men's genes. It enabled civilization itself once the primary animal needs for food, shelter, and procreation were more readily handled.

Now, I'm all for the right to contract between adults. But the state gains nothing by extending the benefits of marriage to gay couples, because they cannot reproduce. The benefits heterosexual married couples draw can be recouped with interest in their contribution of children to society, something same-sex couples just can never do. So the benefits granted to same-sex couples can never be a productive investment for society, as the money must be taken from others to pay the benefits with no hope of return.

That, in a nutshell, is the secular argument against same-sex marriage benefits bestowed by the state.

the state gains nothing by extending the benefits of marriage to gay couples, because they cannot reproduce.

Ergo, the state should deny marriage to elderly couples, infertile couples, vasectomized men, etc.? The state should deny divorce to heterosexual couples with children?

Not to mention, gay people can't reproduce? Or adopt? And the state gains nothing by gay couples taking abandoned children out of group homes and raising them in a loving environment?

The "marriage is for reproduction" argument has been shredded so many times, I'm almost embarrassed for you that you trotted it out.

That, in a nutshell, is the secular argument against same-sex marriage benefits bestowed by the state.

And that's why it has no legal merit. But don't just take my word for it. Take the word of the attorney arguing on your behalf:

At oral argument on proponents' motion for summary
judgment, the court posed to proponents' counsel the assumption
that "the state's interest in marriage is procreative" and inquired
how permitting same-sex marriage impairs or adversely affects that
interest. Doc #228 at 21. Counsel replied that the inquiry was
"not the legally relevant question," id, but when pressed for an
answer, counsel replied: "Your honor, my answer is: I don't know.
I don't know."

The State has a profound interest in people taking care of and being committed to each other, rather than becoming burdens on the state. It also has an interest in encouraging people to adopt children who would otherwise be unwanted or orphans. Families take on many forms, and gay families are another form of family. From a judicial point of view, this isn't about a law in California. It's about the Constitution, which guarantees equal justice and due process under the law. Granting a right or privilege to one group of consenting adults and not another violates basic constitutional rights.

"Granting a right or privilege to one group...and not another violates basic constitutional rights."

So 'veteran preferences' in hiring is another form of discrimination?

Wit. Remember the spartans. They gayed thems selves into oblivian.

False statement, Jay. The babble is in your ideology.

No, the greater shame is that the judicial branch has become infested with advocates rather than deliberative judges due to the highly-politicised nomination/confirmation system.

Completely unsupported conspiracy theories may make you feel better. But they do this by covering up the pain of having your ideology be in direct conflict with reality - rather than confronting that pain.

What happened here was that a judge correctly ruled a law unconstitutional.

This is not because of some "highly politicised confirmation process" - that has been dominated by the GOP for the past 30 years, by the way. This is because you conservatives tend to want things that are unconstitutional.

Don't blame me. Take a look at your ideology.

"Whether you agree, or disagree with this ruling, states cannot pass laws which are contrary to the U.S. Constitution, and if a court finds that they are unconstitutional, they get struck down."
#4, Rance.

States can and do pass laws that are contrary to the U.S.C. It is up to the SC to adjudicate the constitutionality of said law if it is challenged. The claim of unconstitutionality does not in it self make it so.

Ron,

The Spartans had very strong Heterosexual marriages. They tended to treat women better than their counter parts in Athens. Spartan law only allowed from male - female marriage.

At the same time Sparta also accepted and promoted homosexual behavior. The society lasted for close to 800 years out lasted Athens fought the Persians and remained independent when Macedonia attacked and defeat all the other Greek City states.

You can claims many things about Sparta but they did not gay themselves out of existence.

To all others
Note that though Homosexuality were accepted in Athens and Sparta homosexual marriage was not.

Were the Greeks suffering Homo Phobia?
From Christian Guilt?
Historically gay marriage has not occurred. Normally marriage is between a man and women. In some society it might be multiple men and a women, or one man and multiple women.

To pretend that the definition is man - man and woman woman is dishonest.

Therefore it is up to the people to make and shape the law not a single judge.

SO MISLEADING is the cartoon -- it wasn't one judge overturning the will of a bunch of Californians, it was the Equal Protection Amendment, passed in the 19th Century and never repealed that did the overturning. An amendment that EASILY had prior to becoming law the support of a majority of elected officials across the country, not just one state.
If the conservatives have no problem with the antiquated Second Amendment being used by activist judges to thwart the will of the denizens of Chicago and D.C. regarding the carnage caused by guns, then these conservatives should have no problem here.

"If the conservatives have no problem with the antiquated Second Amendment being used by activist judges to thwart the will of the denizens of Chicago and D.C....."

You're so full of shit it's pathetic. It's not the "denizens" who are afraid of the 2nd Amendment, it's the politicians.

Just ask His Highness Richard Daly how well his anti-gun laws have protected the citizens of Chicago so far.

I was unaware that Constitutional amendments had the ability to speak and write. I was taught that it took the judicial branch to interpret and apply the laws -- including the Constitution.

Civics 101: Legislative branch makes the laws, Executive enforces them, Judiciary interprets them.

Someone better inform the judge in this case that someone forged his name on a decision issued by Mr. 14th Amendment, Esq.

J.

Oh cool, another thread about gay marriage; another thread where nobody produces an interesting argument as to why it oughtn't be permitted, apart from "People don't like it"; and another thread where people who understand the role of marriage in society, and the role of the constitution of the United States, make opponents of gay marriage look foolish and totally outclassed.

Nice work john. (#23)

"another thread about gay marriage; another thread where nobody produces an interesting argument as to why it oughtn't be permitted"

It's interesting OVER THE ENTIRE EARTH, that the same structure has evolved over time. Man + woman, MOST monogamous in nature. Every society somehow coming to the same conclusion.

Must be coincidence.

They, the left and gay activists, don't believe or care that the gays have a right to marry; they believe that you and I do NOT have a right to think otherwise.

Advance the agenda! Raaaaaaaaaaacist, Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigots! Epithet of the Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

There is no more discussion with you Hyper. I won't pretend there is one anymore.

"and another thread where people who understand the role of marriage in society."

Thats you alright.

"False statement, Jay. The babble is in your ideology."

You should really try getting out of your parents' basement more often.

Ah, whatever Jay. YOu should try actually using logical arguments. But that's up to you. Tell your mom I said hi.

Can someone explain to me how making gay marriage illegal is NOT an impingement on their rights? I'm seeing a lot of bluster about how the judge went beyond interpretation and legislated from the bench, but I don't see anyone putting up a solid argument that he was...ummm...wrong.

For the record, I think the gay community should have shot for civil unions to keep the the more genteel folks from spazzing out, but what are ya gonna do?

Can someone explain to me how making gay marriage illegal is NOT an impingement on their rights?

One has to have a definition of marriage:
In societies marriage has always either been implicitly or explicitly defined as a union between male and female, where by society allows for the procreation of the species and confers certain rights, such as property , legitimacy of offspring, transfer of titles, and transfer of land.

In the past society has put limitations on marriage such as age. When can someone consent to marry? States do regulate the age of consent.

Since marriage has always been between man and women even n cultures with acceptance of homosexuality the meaning was not question.
When Gay marriage debate came up many states needed to look at there laws to see if marriage was explicitly defined as between man and woman.
CA voted and the people decided marriage was between man and woman. So any man and woman of legal age can marry which satisfies equal protection.
If we said Black man cannot marry a whit woman or Hispanic man cannot marry an Asian woman then we be in violation of the 14th.

Now that marriage has been so is marriage now two people who want a union? Man-woman, Woman-woman, or man-man. There are societies in that have one man and multiple wives. There are also societies that have one wife and many husbands. If they want to marry in the USA will the 14th be used for them?