Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Quack Liberal California Judges!

If this don't beat all! They must just be handing out judge robes and qualifications to every loon that walks out of a liberal college.
Another quack judge decides that the people of California have no rights to decide things for themselves whether or not they want Rod and Todd getting government benefits and a recognition from the state for their odd union. Judge Richard Kramer says that Californians "Can no longer limit marriage to opposite sex partners..." Can you believe that wording?? Anyone can marry anything under that and call it marriage now. I'm going to move to California and marry my hamster because liberal judge man said it was ok. Or maybe someone with a dual personality could marry themself...Oh but if they had multiple-personalities they'd have to get married in Utah where bigamy isn't as big a deal.

Why are we allowing the left to insert activist judges?? Why aren't we getting up and fighting the insanity?! It's so true, Liberals CAN NOT win issues any longer the democratic way. Why are we still calling them democrats? They should have to change their name to judge-o-crats, or maybe I-hate-the-system-o-crats, or maybe just commies.

All I know is that California is gonna need to put an amendment in their constitution banning gay marriage quick..This is getting crazy. How can one judge's opinion block the wishes of the people? Democrats claim that morality should not be legislated. That's a lie. They love to legislate morality as long as the "morality" is their own twisted agenda.

Democrats..Do you support using the courts to block the the majority opinions of the people?

8 comments:

Mac said...

Judge Kramer's informed decision cannot just be written off as another "activist judge." Case law from the mid-19th century, providing access to marriage for our burgeoning immigrant population of differing color and creeds, effectively removed the first barriers to the then taboo hot-button issue of interracial marriage.

Using that law to resrict a citizens's access to the institution of marriage was wrong, and it looks like I'm married again, though we've never stopped being spouses for life, and have had our marriage affirmed within our faith community.

I missed your biographical qualifications to label any judge a "quack." Have you even a law degree? Best stay in your cave.

Aaroncoal said...

Sexuality has nothing to do with race. We aren't denying marriage to different colored people. This is the mistake of the left. They compare the desire of a preference to that of the permanant color of one's skin.

Man and woman of any race or creed should be able to join in union legally recognized by law..But the line must stop there.

But, beyond that....California Judges seem to have the idea that the constitution contains anything about marriage in it. It doesn't. One judge deciding that an entire people's opinion isn't valid is definetly activism.

Aaroncoal said...

I forgot to add a side note to my above comment..I wanted to point out that more republicans voted for The Civil Rights act of 1964 then did democrats. If you look back at history republicans have done more to mend race relations than the democrats ever did. Granted even I would have been a democrat prior to the election of JFK..but that party left us.

John said...

The imbalance of power towards the judicial system is a huge problem. I don't mean to plug my own blog here, but it is on subject. I've got an article I think would interest you called "judicial tyranny". http://www.stoptheaclu.blogspot.com

Eye Doc said...

Unfortunately this judge was actually appointed by a Republican (Pete Wilson I believe). Four of the most activist Supremes (O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy and Stevens) were all appointed by Republican presidents. My point being, sometimes you don't really know who you're appointing, or sometimes judges change over time.

If you read the statements of this California judge in this case it's pretty obvious that he just made up the law as he went along. It doesn't matter what you believe about gay marriage, no judge has the right to do that.

Anonymous said...

It was this (Republican) judge's obligation to overturn the will of the majority if the majority's law violated the California Constitution. The judge's duty is to interpret the law, not endorse the majority view. Our system of checks and balances is specifically counter majoritarian. We cannot oppress a minority of our citizens just because we can. That is un-American, and apparently un-Californian. If a majority of people voted to have your silly ideas banned, the Federal and California Constitutions would stop the majority from doing that. Important advancements are sometimes tough for folks like you, but before you are old the reality of two married men will not shock you, bother you, or even seem remarkable. Embrace the future amigo.

Aaroncoal said...

There is nothing in the California constitution that says that the Californians can't ban gay marriage.

Anonymous said...

Sure there is. The Constitution guarantees equal protection.