Thursday, August 5, 2010

Are You Surprised?

I'm not.

A gay activist judge has struck down the California gay marriage ban.

Pervfest should be even more jubilant than usual this Sunday.

Why is it that when a question is put to the people, and they overwhelmingly go one way or another, does it always end up being legislated in the court system?

Apparently the votes of Californians don't matter in their own state of California.

Just wait til this ends up in the Supreme Court. This'll be one for the history books.

Just think on this: Obama has had two appointments in roughly two years in office. Pray to God no conservatives leave the court before we can throw der Fuhrer out on his ass in 2012.

That would be a catastrophe.


Anonymous said...

So if most people want to ban the latin mass, it is ok because most would have voted for it?

A non reader

The Rockin' Traddy said...

Huh? Most would have voted for what? What does the Old Mass have to do with gay marriage? Is the Old Mass up on the ballot somewhere? Do you make silly comments?

Anonymous said...

They're saying since you said the mass state vote should have been listened to over the federal, that if there was a mass vote to get rid of the old mass that should be listened to, too. You prolly understood that though and were just being difficult ;) Cuz yes, it's one of those red herring arguements.

And no, that was not me posting above acting as someone else!!

- L

Justin Vacula said...

Traddy, "anonymous" is calling you out for special pleading; you note that most people don't want the "old mass," so should taking away the old mass be the accepted standard?

Anyway, legal rights don't come down to a vote of the people. We certainly can't vote on racism, slavery, womens' rights, etc. People have rights and "that's it."

The issue with prop 8 was whether or not is was unconstitutional...and the courts ruled that it was.

Let same-sex couples marry. It's a no-brainer! People who have same-sex attractions will be much happier, they will have the same rights as opposite-sex couples, etc. Prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying is nothing more than discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Rockin' Traddy said...

No one sees how an openly gay judge deciding on a gay marriage case is a conflict of interest?

Judge Walker followed the progessive path and misinterpreted the 14th Amendment and overturned the decision of 7 million + voters who spoke with a resounding "NO!" at the only place they have a voice - the ballot box.

Now it seems their voice will not be heard by the ruling class.

Real Change is coming, folks.

Be prepared.

Anonymous said...

"No one sees how an openly gay judge deciding on a gay marriage case is a conflict of interest?"

No. That's like saying if the judge is divorced or married or anything along those lines can't vote on anything to do with family law/marriage. Or if he's white he can't vote on cases involving white people.

- L