Prop 8 Constitutionality To Be Decided Today

Only one problem as I see it.

Hey folks,

There is SO MUCH I want to talk about. Seriously. It has been a busy News Week, and it's only Hump Day. The US Senate Shelved Cap and Tax, Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel, the Congressional Black Caucus playing the Race Card against Democrat Leaders, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said Screw You Obama, we WILL check Legal Status, Virginia's Obamacare suit will proceed, and much more.

But today is a day, where what the PEOPLE have decided, Voted on and a State Constitution was Amended, will stand or not. This is a CLEAR example of some attempting to justify AGENDAS over the Will of the People. Of course, I'm talking about Prop 8 in California.

The People Voted. The VAST Majority Voted FOR Prop 8, which Amended to Constitution to declare that Marriage was between one Man, and one Woman. Once that passed, some activists went nuts, protesting Churches and following typical stereotypes. Problem is 70 percent of MINORITIES. Mostly in the Black Community Voted FOR Prop 8. It was not the Right. It was not Churches. It was Minorities and everyday people that Voted this into Law. I do not remember seeing them go into the Projects to act like Idiots. Did you see them Protesting in Little Havana? Did you see them go to Minority Businesses a attempt to Boycott them? Did you? {Smile}

So of course, since the Liberal Agenda failed in the arena of Ideas, they did what the always do. SUE to attempt to FORCE their point of view, agenda, and belief, on everyone.

Well, today is the day that a Federal Judge will issue his Ruling on this whole thing.

According to LA Now - Federal judge to rule on whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry [Updated]

A federal judge in San Francisco will decide Wednesday whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who presided over a trial earlier this year on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, will release his long-awaited ruling Wednesday on whether the 2008 ballot initiative violates the U.S. Constitution, a court spokeswoman said. [Updated, 5:50 p.m.: His ruling is expected to be released between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m.]

Walker, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, heard myriad witnesses testify about the history of marriage, the nature of homosexuality and the degree of power gays and lesbians possess in the political system during the 2 1/2-week trial in January.

Most of the testimony favored marriage rights for homosexuals. Walker’s decision is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A Los Angeles-based group funding the litigation hired former Solicitor General Ted Olson, a conservative, and noted litigator David Boies, who squared off against Olson in Bush vs. Gore, to represent two couples who are challenging Proposition 8.

The California Supreme Court ruled 4 to 3 that gays and lesbians were entitled to marry under the state Constitution in an historic ruling in May 2008. Voters passed Proposition 8 six months later, amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Walker will decide whether California’s ban on same-sex marriage violates equal protection and due process rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

-- Maura Dolan in San Francisco

The only problem I see is this. I do not believe that there is a Constitutional Right to Marry to begin with. Marriage is not a "Right." I've said this before, I do not think that the Government should be in Marriage to begin with. Remember back when we were talking about this, Historian D. S. Harford told us that it was originally to prevent Whites and Blacks from Marrying. It was also to prevent the spread of disease.

Marriage is now, and has always been, two people committing to themselves, in a ever bidding agreement before God, to become one forever. Government has no place in that. The Constitution does not mention Marriage at all. Gay or otherwise. There is no "Right" to Marry.

But it should be interesting to see what this Judge has to say. Of course, no matter what he says, this is going all the way to the Supreme Court. The Liberals would have it no other way, and neither should those speaking for the PEOPLE.
Peter