Search
Forum Home | Login
dan_l
dan_l
Join Date 05/2010
+4

All of your marriages are belong to the gay 'agenda'...

August 5, 2010 12:28:49 AM from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

What a great day to be an American. Yeah, the crazy types will take it to the SCOTUS, but let's be realistic: the 'battle' has been over for years. The moment the issue was taken seriously enough generate opposition----it was over.

Funny thing about wingnutistan: anytime there's a legal ruling that doesn't go in the favor of the mouthbreathing masses, they're out complaining about 'activist judges'. LGF:

LGF reader Gus 802 points out that Judge Walker was originally nominated to the court by Ronald Reagan, but not confirmed — because he was, ironically, seen as insensitive to gay issues. He was nominated again by George H. W. Bush, and this time confirmed: Vaughn R. Walker.

A Reagan nominee?!?!?!?!? And then an HW nominee?!?!?!!?!?!? DOH!!! Stupid 'stealth' 'activist' judge! He tricked'em twice!

Locked Post
Search this post
Advanced Search
Subscription Options
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
dan_l
Basmas
Join Date 05/2003
+3
Reply #1 August 5, 2010 2:57:09 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Oh, don't forget that it will not be because he is a left wing nut job it will be because he is one of those them fags who sin against the lord and make their skin crawl

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
dan_l
Island Dog
Join Date 06/2003
+1048 sdemployee
Reply #2 August 5, 2010 8:07:22 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Funny thing about wingnutistan: anytime there's a legal ruling that doesn't go in the favor of the mouthbreathing masses, they're out complaining about 'activist judges'. LGF:

 

Anytime there is a vote that doesn't go in favor of the lunatic left, they run to the courts to reverse the peoples vote. 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
dan_l
Basmas
Join Date 05/2003
+3
Reply #3 August 5, 2010 3:13:43 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Sorry, does it not matter when a state tries to do something against federal law?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
dan_l
lulapilgrim
Join Date 01/2007
+46
Reply #4 August 5, 2010 9:19:49 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

The decision of one judge negates the votes of more than 7 million California voters!

Is this America..the land of "We the People"?

 2 points on Professionalism and ethics....As an open homosexual, he should have not ever accepted this case to begin with.

Since marriage policy is not established anywhere in the federal Constitution, defining marriage, according to the 10th Amendment, is an issue reserved for the states. Judge Walker never should have accepted this case in the first place.

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
dan_l
Basmas
Join Date 05/2003
+3
Reply #5 August 6, 2010 5:12:05 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Quoting lulapilgrim,
reply 4
as an open homosexual, he should have not ever accepted this case to begin
 

Does that mean a judge who pays taxes should not rule on tax cases, or a judge who drives a car rule on matters affecting car drivers?  Or an openly christian judge rule on matters concerning the church?

 

And well the ruling was that it did have something to do with the constition and that the prop was wrong.  If 53.8% of people who voted voted on a ruling that christian should not marry would that make it legal?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
dan_l
lulapilgrim
Join Date 01/2007
+46
Reply #6 August 6, 2010 1:22:01 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

as an open homosexual, he should have not ever accepted this case to begin

Does that mean a judge who pays taxes should not rule on tax cases, or a judge who drives a car rule on matters affecting car drivers? Or an openly christian judge rule on matters concerning the church?

Public authorities from judges to town councilors and school board members who in one way or another have a stake in the matter, must  recuse themselves.

If a town councilor has stock in GE and a case concerning GE comes before the town council, then he must then recuse himself.

As a practicing homosexual, Walker should have recused himself from taking this case becasue his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity and his decision besides being wrong was biased in favor of granting homosexuals "super rights" and against the political will of over 7 million voters. 

The judge needs to be impeached.

 

.......................

 

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
dan_l
lulapilgrim
Join Date 01/2007
+46
Reply #7 August 6, 2010 1:44:10 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

And well the ruling was that it did have something to do with the constition and that the prop was wrong.

No, not well the ruling because Marriage policy is not established in the federal constitution. Under the Tenth Amendment that issue is reserved for the states. All Walker did with the Constitution is trample it.

The people went by the letter of the law and amended the California Constitution limiting marriage between one man and one woman. On two separate occasions, California voters declared traditional marriage as the law of the state -- once as a state statute and then as a constitutional amendment. How was Prop 8 wrong?

 

If 53.8% of people who voted voted on a ruling that christian should not marry would that make it legal?

Marriage isn't something that can be manipulated and played with. Marriage, the real deal,  has always been between a man and a woman. No amount of people can ever change or redefine marriage.  They can think they change it but what they end up with is counterfeit marriage.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
dan_l
Basmas
Join Date 05/2003
+3
Reply #8 August 6, 2010 4:07:24 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

That doesn't answer the point.  If 53.8% of people in CA voted that it is ok to shoot the french on sight it doesn't stop it breaking the constiution.

 

The judges decision was that the 14th trumped the 10th.  If he was wrong then it will get turned over.

Public authorities from judges to town councilors and school board members who in one way or another have a stake in the matter, must  recuse themselves.

So do you therefore agree that any christian judge can not sit on cases that impact on the church?  Eg was a church is allowed to do?  What about a judge that pays tax?  Or is being gay a different case?  Has the judge said in any way shape or form what his personal views on gay marriage are?  Or is it just that he is gay that you think that?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
dan_l
dan_l
Join Date 05/2010
+4
Reply #9 August 7, 2010 12:53:41 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

I like how----based on lula's other perfectly rational opinions like 'feminism is trying to make a gender neutral society' and "making the SPLC hate list twice doesn't make somebody a hate monger", she's also an expert in jurisprudence up to and including under what circumstances a federal judge should recuse himself. 

 

I also wonder, Lula: 

Could a Christian rule on this case?  No doubt, Christians have a stake in 'protecting marriage'.  So can you have a Christian judge?  Or would you prefer an atheist one? 

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
dan_l
lulapilgrim
Join Date 01/2007
+46
Reply #10 August 7, 2010 6:48:15 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

including under what circumstances a federal judge should recuse himself.

 



I also wonder, Lula:

Could a Christian rule on this case?

Why not? The case concerns the practice of homosexuality not the practice of religion.

We don't know what religion, if any, Judge Walker practices. Judge Walker's ruling was not about religion but about furthering the homosexual agenda to equate homosexuality with married heterosexuality. 

My comments that Walker should have recused himself stand.

........................

No doubt, Christians have a stake in 'protecting marriage'.

All of society has a stake in protecting marriage between one man and one woman for it is after all, the very thing that undergirds it for the reproduction of the human race.

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
dan_l
dan_l
Join Date 05/2010
+4
Reply #11 August 7, 2010 9:25:36 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

------

Why not? The case concerns the practice of homosexuality not the practice of religion.

We don't know what religion, if any, Judge Walker practices. Judge Walker's ruling was not about religion but about furthering the homosexual agenda to equate homosexuality with married heterosexuality.

-----

 

So really:  by your logic a straight person couldn't really rule on this case either?  Do we need asexual judges? 

 

And actually, it really is about the practice of religion.  It's not the atheists who are against gay marriage Lula. 

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
View all recent posts
Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top
Stardock Forums v        Server Load Time:   Page Render Time:
Facebook Twitter YouTube Google+