Federal judge tosses California voters under bus : Rules they cannot define marriage being between 1 man, 1 woman
Quote:
A federal judge in California who is reported to be living a homosexual lifestyle today tossed the state's voters under the bus, ruling that they cannot define in their own state constitution that marriage is between one man and one woman only.
The ruling was based on the U.S. constitutional provisions for due process and equal protection, and came from Judge Vaugh Walker.
|
Quote:
|
The court's opinion, which traditional marriage supporters have asked be stayed pending appeal, said the homosexuals "have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement…"
|
First off, Homosexuals are not suffering Constitutional violations. As pointed out in the article, nothing in the Constitution provides that marriage is a Right.
The 14th Amendment, Section 1 - due process & equal protection rights.
Quote:
|
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
|
Secondly, California is not depriving Homosexuals their lives (no executions thus far), nor their liberty (they are still free and not enslaved), nor their property (they still have their property).
Thirdly, California is not denying Homosexuals protection by state laws equal to others. The law does not force Homosexuals to marry. Expanding on this, California is not refusing for example to protect Homosexuals from assault or harassment by hate groups, California's law enforcement is not refusing to provide the same services as they would non-homosexuals.
Fourth, the Judge is abusing the 14th Amendment by twisting it from its original purpose.
Quote:
|
And despite enemies of man-woman marriage trying to morph the Constitution's references to 'liberty' and 'equal protection' into a declaration of homosexual 'marriages,' these words in the post-Civil-War 14th Amendment are about giving former black slaves the same legal rights as white freemen – it's not at all about marriage or even about couples," he explained.
|
Overall, this is another Liberal Judge Legislating from the Bench and twisting the Constitution and adding things that are NOT in the Constitution. No different than the Liberal Judge non-sense of "Separation of Church and State"; which is not in the Constitution nor Amendments too.
The "
Separation of Church and State" was a incorrect extrapolation out of a concept in the Constitution. In fact, Judges pushing the "
Separation of Church and State" are in direct violation of the point of the 1st Amendment "
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". Granted a Judge is not Congress, but a Judge isn't supposed to be legislating by creating "
Separation of Church and State" in the first place.
