« | »

Walker: Same-Sex ‘Marriages’ Can Resume

From a joyous Reuters:

California gay marriage can resume next week: judge

By Dan Levine Thu Aug 12, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – A federal judge ruled on Thursday that gay marriages could resume next week in California while his landmark ruling last week that overturned a ban on same-sex matrimony is appealed.

The order to allow gay marriage will take effect at 5 p.m. PDT on Wednesday.

We are so surprised. Who would have thought that a openly homosexual activist judge would have ruled this way? We had been on pins and needles all week.

That will give an appeals court time to consider "in an orderly manner" whether the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, should be left intact while appellate judges weigh the merits of the overall case, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled.

Late on Thursday, defenders of Proposition 8 filed papers asking the appellate court to block same-sex marriages for the duration of the broader appeal.

Both sides expect the case eventually to be appealed right up to the U.S. Supreme Court, giving the California legal battle national importance. The case against Prop 8 marks the first major challenge in federal court to a state law barring marriage between same-sex couples…

Thursday’s ruling left neither side completely happy.

Even those the Prop 8 opponents have gotten everything they wanted. Obviously, there is no pleasing the ‘gay’ crowd. (Who are as badly mis-named as ‘Joy’ Behar.)

San Francisco City Hall’s steps were lined with gay couples hoping for a green light from Walker to wed and their supporters

What exactly is the rush? We are pretty confident that these aren’t ‘shotgun weddings.’

Walker ruled last week that Prop 8 violated due-process and equal-protection rights under the U.S. Constitution.

More precisely, Mr. Walker ‘ruled’ that people only opposed same-sex marriage because they are ‘homophobes,’ or because they want to feel morally superior.

Which means that, given his oft-stated opposition to same-sex marriage, Mr. Obama must be a homophobe. And Mr. Obama must want to lord it over same-sex marriages.

On Thursday, [Mr. Walker] wrote that proponents of the ban had failed to show any irreparable harm that could arise from allowing gay weddings to go forward while the matter is under appeal

Allowing people to ‘marry,’ when these ‘marriages’ might very well be voided in the near future won’t cause confusion and tie up the courts down the road?

Mr. Walker is the perfect embodiment of everything that a judge should not be.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, August 13th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

10 Responses to “Walker: Same-Sex ‘Marriages’ Can Resume”

  1. The Redneck says:

    Allowing people to ‘marry,’ when these ‘marriages’ might very well be voided in the near future won’t cause confusion and tie up the courts down the road?

    This is exactly what Walker wants. Expect stories in the coming weeks about those poor, deprived, pitiful homosexuals who only want to share each others’ lives (and use government power to punish any Christian who dares dispute the legitimacy of their chosen lifestyle, which is what the “gay marriage” movement is really all about), who joyfully joined in the vows and bonds of ‘matrimony,’ and began to create a new life… but are paralyzed with fear that the Supreme Court will actually uphold the Constitution and snatch it all away from them.

    Not paralyzed enough to stop demonstrating, or making vicious anti-Christian statements, but otherwise–absolutely paralyzed.

  2. proreason says:

    Words and phrases that have become obsolete in recent years:

    – mandate
    – transparent
    – work
    – fair
    – racism
    – one person one vote
    – patriotism
    – promise
    – rule of law
    – war
    – honor
    – consensus
    – hope
    – job
    – is
    – marriage

  3. misanthropicus says:

    No, Walker, Nero’s, Caligula’s and Heliogabalus’ mating arrangements aren’t an example humans should follow, no matter how diverse they were.

    A single judge CANNOT, and SHOULD not reverse with a partisan decision based on some bizzare studies, more than 3000 years of planet-wide tradition, sound tradition derived from this collective experience as to what is proper and benefic for offspring and group as a whole. A family = woman + man + children.

    Justice by fait accompli – the liberal coup goes on. Walker’s abusive ruling is another lowering of the judicial integrity bar in America, enterprise mightily applauded by the MSM and the Democrat/ liberal establishment. The liberal destruction of America has been a quiet, engulfing act, now and then having crocodile-like, rapid moves – now, with “judge” Walker’s last week’s INSTANT ruling (of grotesque reasoning, of course), we just saw one of these crocodile-like dashes and lock on its prey. “Judge” Walker’s insolent decision remarkably resembles his chum’s Ronald George (of Calif Scotus), both as absurd ratiocinating, AND gross application of an anyway wrong judicial decision.

    This affair is another confirmation of the fact that Walker and his leather & chrome & flogger, 9th Circuit president Kozinsky are utterly unfit for the job of judges.

    But why wonder, from the very beginning it was clear that prop-8, which had been voted for by a sound majority of Californians was doomed in this court – the proceedings in this matter have been grossly distorted. “Judge” Walker, a gay dude himself, should have recused himself from the anti-prop-8 action yet he slyly (isn’t this guy a Central Casting, negative apparition?) remained in the game – the MSM of course, diligently wallpapering his proclivities and activistic views on the matter he was supposed to rule with objectivity – and now we see the consequences.

    An early signal of how far the liberals were (and still are) willing to go to inflict their destructive whims on this nation, was Walker’s and his pal’s Kozinsky gross attempt to distort the proceedings in this case by witness intimidation (having a TV feed from the Court for the Kristallnacht-inclined mob of anti-prop 8), attempt which was also barely, barely mentioned by the MSM – despite the fact that SCOTUS itself HAD TO INJECT ITSELF IN THE MATTER AND ADMONISH THE TWO “JUDGES” TO STOP TRYING TO ALTER THE PROCEEDINGS – situation truly rare in the history of American jurisprudence.

    Of course, Walker’s rule will be immediately contested in the Circuit of Appeals, which, big surprise! will support it, fact that will send this matter to SCOTUS – and from where, finally, it will be shot back to where it belongs – i.e. to the American electorate, who rightly disapprove the idea of homosexual marriage, then, after some agony and hystericals, this absurdity will enter in the decay state it well deserves.

    And the silver lining of “judge” Walker’s parody of reasoning – fewer and fewer people in this country buy the “oppression” and “discrimination” crap, and more and more people are willing to admit that the gay-rights movement is nothing but the gesticulation of an obnoxious, cronically quarrelsome lot which, drunk on privileges, is demanding more and more – and increasing antipathy is the answer, and sure “judge” Walker’s abusive ruling will add more to this feeling. And this mood sure will make the Dems pay dearly at the voting booth. Nice – good job Walker, good job Kozinsky –

    • proreason says:

      “sound tradition derived from this collective experience as to what is proper and benefic for offspring and group as a whole. A family = woman + man + children. ”

      That’s the heart of the matter.

      Collective experience proves beyond any doubt that families are good for humanity.

      If the alternative was painful death for homosexuals, it would be obvious that they should be protected.

      But the alternative is CIVIL UNIONS, which give homosexuals legal rights without making a bold pubic statement that marriage is a malleable thing that can be defined any way any group wants to define it.

      Really, the people who subvert our culture 24/7/365 stop at nothing.
      – religious belief – deny it
      – conception – redefine it
      – marriage – make it meaningless
      – end-of-life – rip it from families and give it to heartless bureaucrats

      Who can doubt that total control of your very ability to live is ouside of their ambition.

  4. Right of the People says:

    This is one issue I side with the jihadis. What is Walker going to do when Kalifornia gets sharia law?

  5. NoNeoCommies says:

    It’s the same strategy as with the illegals.
    Get as many under the wire as possible and show their tear filled faces when they eventually lose.
    Oh how mean spirited can you be to take away their joy?
    It’s like giving your dog a steak only to take it away before he can swallow any.

    It’s like letting people vote, only to nullify their efforts (again and again).

  6. Deserat says:

    I lived in CA for many years – same sex couples have the many of the same rights and benefits as traditional couples – most employers offer ‘partner’ benefits. One can go to a lawyer and ‘formalize’ a relationship through adoption or other means (yes, I’ve heard of that being done). I don’t understand what the issue is with being able to go to City Hall and ‘get married’ means beyond shoving their value system down the throats of those who may tolerate their lifestyle but may not wish to accept it. Again, they already have the rights and benefits available to them that a married couple has, so what gives? I think it’s the universal single finger salute to anyone who doesn’t agree with their lifestyle and a big nya-nya. Unfortunately, this militant approach will only further complicate their efforts towards ‘tolerance and acceptance.’

  7. fallingpianos says:

    Obviously, there is no pleasing the ‘gay’ crowd. (Who are as badly mis-named as ‘Joy’ Behar.)

    I prefer the term “sexually confused”. It rolls off the tongue far better than that clunky “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer” (or Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer if we don’t want to offend the womyn) moniker they’re always throwing around.

    • canary says:

      fallingpianos, I’ve been told lately saying gay is wrong unless you call someone who isn’t gay, gay. I should ask what is the new word, but

      I think “sexually confused” is good if it’s young women who saw their idol Britney Spears kiss Madonna, started copying, and got in over their heads. Try and tell a young girl she might be confused and she will only become more defensive.

      “sexually different” sounds good, because the person wouldn’t have to explain to anyone.

      “sexual minority” should make someone proud, and they will tell how they are growing in number and tell people to try it.

      I don’t have to feel sorry for sexually confused people anymore.
      I think the worst thing of all this is children being raised in such chaos, as life is hard enough.

      Also, this year my son is reading Shakespear about fairies and a young woman having sex with a jack ass, when a fairy spell went wrong. The red fluid spell from the flower represents menstrual blood according to scholars. I think it saying anyone can fall in sexual love with anyone or anything.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »