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

The Legislative Gay Marriage Movement

"You have said one of your best friends is a lesbian. So, what do you think?"

Hey folks,

OK. What is my take on the "Gay Marriage Movement across the country?" Honest question. I give you an honest answer. It is a farce. It is an attempt by a very small group of people to dictate to everyone else what they will and will not accept. They are saying that you WILL accept it, regardless if you believe in the lifestyle or not. It is not a real movement. It does not involve the "People." It is an attempt to circumvent the "People."

Of all the States that have allowed Gay Marriage to be legal, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa, now Maine, with New Hampshire appearing to be next, NONE of them were voted on by the "People." Of the States where Gay Marriage WAS on the Ballot, including California, the "People" Voted NO.

A true movement is someone, or a group of someones, going out and talking to people. They go out and promote their cause. They inform the public why they feel their cause should be recognized and it ends up being Voted on. The "People" either vote for or against. If this someone, or someones convince enough of the "People", their cause succeeds. If not, the cause fails. The "People" have the power.

That is not the case with the "Gay Marriage Movement." My problem with all this is that it is not up to the "People." It is being legislated into law, and forced, by law, to be accepted. Even places where they have tried this, have been over turned when the "People" get their legal say. Hence, Prop 8.

Now my honest opinion on the issue itself is not really relevant here. The actual issue of Gay Marriage is not really the issue for me. It is the way it is being done that I have a problem with. If the "People" in Florida {My home State} were to have voted it in this past Election, I would have accepted that this is what the people wanted, it would have become law, and it would have been the way things are. But they didn't. They voted against it.

When you start allowing a small group of people total control over the rest, and then start using laws to control people, taking away their Rights, and dictate to them what they have to accept morally, you enter into dangerous territory. That is NOT America. That is not freedom.

Will this stand in these States? Maybe, maybe not. I would be willing to bet, that they will do everything in their power to keep this FROM the "People." They will fight this being put up for a REAL Vote on an actual Ballot. Because history has shown, when it is, the "People" chose NO.
Peter

Gays and Lesbians Starting To Feel Screwed By Obama

You Voted for him, he feels ya, but he is just to busy right now.

Hey folks,

Do you remember way back on March 2 2008, Obama sent an open letter to the Gay and Lesbian community?

Here are some of the highlights.

“In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees,”

“And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

The letter goes on to say that if elected president he would use the bully pulpit “to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws.”

“I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment.”

“I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.”

“Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate.”

“While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.”

Obama also said that he supports the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

The open letter was released as Obama prepares to run ads in four major LGBT newspapers in Texas and Ohio in advance of Democratic Party primaries.

It worked. The gays came out in support of Obama and threw Clinton under the bus.

But you have to also remember that Obama Said THIS on November 8 in one of his little Town Hall style meetings.

"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm not in favor of gay marriage."

The People voted on Prop 8, and other ballot measure of the same nature in various states. They all passed, in essence Banning Gay Marriage. We still await the California Supreme Court's Decision, but it is expected that they will uphold the Will of the People. Some are already planning protests. Where is Obama?

What about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? Well, he seems to just be too busy to worry about that right now. Sorry. According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who appeared on "Fox News Sunday," no change is likely in the near future.

Gates says both he and President Barack Obama have "a lot on our plates right now." As Gates puts it, "let's push that one down the road a little bit."

So what happened to Obama being this Super Gay Advocate? Oh yeah, he got the Votes. That's all that really matters. Right?
Peter

Sources:
OPNTalk - Hillary Is Not Lesbian Enough
OPNtalk - Gays Targeting Wrong People
AP - Gates: No change soon on `don't ask, don't tell'

The Will Of The People, Verse The "Right" To Marry

California awaits California's Supreme Court decision.

Hey folks,

Happy Monday to you. Here is something I have been following pretty closely. As you know, we had a little thing called an ELECTION. During that election, there was an amendment on the ballot for the PEOPLE to vote on. It was called Prop 8.

Prop 8 in California was similar to other Ballot initiatives in other States. It calls for a Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage by defining Marriage as between one Woman and one Man. Every State that had this initiative on it, passed. The People voted it into law. In California, it was voted FOR by 70 percent of the African American voting population. It was CLEAR that the People in California WANTS this.

Then the radical Liberal Kook Gay Activists took to the streets. They starting protesting Churches and entire Religions. I pointed out that they were targeting the WRONG people. Even, then, President Elect Obama said he was against Gay Marriage. He said this.

Obama: "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm not in favor of gay marriage." November 8, 2007 Gays Targeting Wrong People

Enter our 2008 Idiot of the Year Award Winner, California Attorney General Jerry Brown. Jerry filed a brief saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is Unconstitutional. He says it deprives gay couples of a fundamental right. Idiot Of The Year Award For 2008

As I said back then.

WRONG! On so many different levels I might add. One, there is no Right to Marry. There are laws put forth to limit it. But there is NO Constitutional Right to Marry. Second, THE PEOPLE VOTED and nearly EVERYONE sees Marriage as a Union between one Man and one Woman. Third, actually there is no need to discuss further than THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRY.

The people Voted. It is a done deal. But this IS the NEW Liberalism folks. Jerry said he wants the Will of the People thrown out. He said Vote, because everyone, including myself, thought it would be voted down. But it was voted IN. So now they are saying "Yeah you voted, but SCREW YOU. This is the type of thing you have to look forward to and have SEEN with Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. You do not want Abortion? SCREW YOU. You do not want oppressive taxation? SCREW YOU. You do not want Government run Healthcare? SCREW YOU. You do not want the Government telling you what to drive, the temp you keep your house, what you can and can not do, in the name of saving the planet that is? SCREW YOU. Amnesty is coming folks. Make no mistake about that.

So now California awaits California's Supreme Court decision. I know what you are thinking. They are the ones the WROTE the Same Sex Marriage thing. So this is a done deal. The People's Will will be thrown out in the name of "fairness." Not so fast. According to Time.com - Gay Marriage: Is California's Supreme Court Shifting? By Michael Lindenberger – Sat Mar 7, 1:30 am ET

The prospects of same-sex marriage in California grew dimmer Thursday, when two Supreme Court justices who helped create the right for gays to marry in last year's historic decision expressed deep reservations about attempts to strike down a statewide referendum passed last fall to ban the practice. "You would have us choose between these two rights: the inalienable right to marry and the right of the people to change their constitution," said Justice Joyce L. Kennard, one of those two key judges. "You ask us to willy-nilly disregard the right of the people to change the constitution of the state of California. But all political power is inherent in the people of California."

That's right, the People Voted. Now THAT is an actual and Constitutionally PROTECTED Right.

The justices created the right to marry same-sex partners in California last year in a sweeping 4-3 decision. But in November, Californians went to the polls to amend the constitution to prohibit gay marriage. The amendment passed with 52% of the vote, but protests spread throughout the state in the days immediately after the vote. Several groups sued, arguing that stripping away the right to marriage amounted to such a serious change to the constitution that it should require more than a simple majority vote.

Not true.

Chief Justice Ronald George, the Republican justice who authored last year's opinion, appeared to agree that the barrier to constitutional amendments is far too low in California, noting that the Golden State has seen fit to amend its constitution no fewer than 500 times since 1911, while the U.S. Constitution has survived more than 200 years with just 27 amendments. But like Kennard, who had also voted with the majority to establish the right to gay marriage last year, George seemed to suggest Thursday that until the people of California raise the barrier for amendments, the court has little power to overturn their decisions.

Try really NO power whatsoever. The People VOTED. The Will of the People MUST be upheld.

That line of thinking was exactly what Kenneth Starr, the former Whitewater independent counsel who is now dean of Pepperdine Law School, had in mind when it was his turn to argue against overturning Prop. 8. Starr is serving as counsel to supporters of traditional marriage who received permission to argue on the initiative's behalf when it became clear that Attorney General Jerry Brown would most likely support efforts to strike down Prop. 8. "The issue before this iconic court has to do with the sovereignty of the people of California," Starr said. "We have heard a lot about individual rights and suspect classification ... But the Attorney General's office points to one inalienable right, the right to marry. But the people, too, have an inalienable right to change their constitution."

{Laughing} Cute. Did you catch the hidden meaning here? Kenn Star? Clinton's old Nemesis. See, it's those evil Republicans out to get you. {Smile}

When questioned, Starr conceded that his view of the state constitution would permit a simple majority of the voters to repeal any right enshrined in the state constitution, including the right to free speech or a prohibition against racial discrimination. "While it is unthinkable," he said, "... the people do have the raw power" to make whatever changes they desire, so long as they do not alter the basic structure of government. Changes that violate the U.S. Constitution, he added, would of course be struck down on federal grounds, but so far no federal appellate court has ruled that the U.S. constitution protects gay marriage.

Because Marriage itself, in any form, is NOT Constitutionally Protected. It just isn't.

The court can take up to 90 more days to issue its ruling, and questions during oral arguments do not always accurately reflect the thinking of individual justices. But Thursday's three-hour session did indicate that the primary argument advanced against Prop. 8 faces big hurdles in the court. Even the lawyers who are asking the court to declare Prop. 8 invalid because it is more like a constitutional revision - which would require approval by lawmakers as well as by voters - conceded, when asked by the court, that there is essentially no precedent in the court's history that directly supports their position. "We have a pretty well established body of law pertaining to what is and what is not a revision, and those decisions do not give strong support to your position that the people couldn't do when they did when they invalidated or disagreed with one aspect of the marriage decision," Kennard said. "Our past decisional law doesn't support the argument that the people couldn't do what they did."

But a second argument, advanced by Attorney General Brown, {Idiot of the Year} is that the most important rights found in the constitution are inalienable and not subject to changes by a simple vote of the majority, because they are too important. That argument, too, seemed to suffer under scrutiny from some justices, who asked how the court was supposed to figure out how to draw the line between rights that can't be taken away and those that are subject to amendment.

The hearings did offer hope for the 18,000 or so same-sex couples who have already married. Starr argued that the language in Prop. 8 means that no gay marriages, even those performed when the practice was legal, can be recognized by state authorities. That argument brought a bristling reply from several justices, who said such a ruling would violate basic notions of fairness.

"Fairness" {Sigh}

Still, such opposition doesn't guarantee that the court won't strike down the existing marriages. Given that three justices voted against gay marriage in the first place, it may be that all Starr needs to win on that point is to convince a single justice that Prop. 8 should be applied retroactively.

Now I'll tell you the truth. As I have said MANY times in the past, I wish Government would stay out of Marriage all together. I would hate to see the Government come swooping in and stripping those that LEGALLY Married after the Courts made it Legal. But then again, I'm not sure how you would start saying OK, this couple gets State and Federal Benefits, but this one doesn't and there will be no more. I would not want to be sitting on the Court for this one.

But the bottom line is really this. The People Voted. Period. The Court needs to do the right thing here and UPHOLD the Will of the People. It really IS, just that simple.
Peter

Sources:
Time.com - Gay Marriage: Is California's Supreme Court Shifting?