US

Update: Gay California Judge’s Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld

Update: Gay California Judges Same Sex Marriage Ruling UpheldSAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday upheld a gay judge‘s ruling to strike down California’s same-sex marriage ban, noting that his fellow jurist could not be presumed to have a personal stake in the case just because he was in a long-term relationship with another man. We originally covered this story yesterday.

In a 19-page ruling, Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware said former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker had no obligation to divulge whether he wanted to marry his own gay partner before he declared last year that voter-approved Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.

Ware called it the first case in which a judge’s same-sex relationship had led to calls for disqualification. He said there probably were similar struggles when race and gender were the issues.

The ruling does not settle the legal fight over Proposition 8. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is considering whether Walker properly concluded that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry violates their rights to due process and equal protection. For more information on Proposition 8 and its impact over California, watch the CNN clip below:

In his ruling, Ware cited previous cases dealing with women and minority judges in concluding that his predecessor had acted appropriately.

“The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or personal characteristics with other members of the general public, and that the judge could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding in the same way that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification,” he wrote.

Lawyers for backers of the ban argued at a hearing Monday that Walker should have recused himself or disclosed his relationship because he and his partner stood to personally benefit from the verdict.

Walker publicly revealed after he retired in February that he is in a 10-year relationship with a man. Rumors that he was gay had circulated before and after he presided over the trial in early 2010.

Ware crisply rejected the idea that judges who are members of minority groups have more of a vested interest in the outcome of civil rights cases based on the U.S. Constitution than anyone else.

“We all have an equal stake in a case that challenges the constitutionality of a restriction on a fundamental right,” Ware wrote. “The single characteristic that Judge Walker shares with the plaintiffs, albeit one that might not have been shared with the majority of Californians, gave him no greater interest in a proper decision on the merits than would exist for any other judge or citizen.”

Many legal scholars had not expected Ware to overturn Walker’s decision. They said having a judge’s impartiality questioned because he is gay is new territory, but efforts to get female judges thrown off gender discrimination cases or Hispanic judges removed from immigration cases have failed.

Walker did not attend Monday’s hearing on the matter.

Comments (113)

1 2
  • rcw1120
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:34pm

    Im glad that his decision was upheld. Just because he is gay doesnt make him a bad judge.

    Report Post » rcw1120  
    • pjgroff61
      Posted on June 15, 2011 at 10:09am

      Really? So when you have a vested interest in the outcome, real or perceived you can make an objective ruling? This isn’t what the founding fathers had to say. Read Federalist paper #10. I might further add that people want Justice Thomas to recuse himself from the supreme court case comming on health care, because his wife has worked against Obama care, and that is ok?? With those who oppose conservatives they can rationalize any thing, they want. Yeah the broad coalition of those who oppose conservatives will do any thing to make their cause law, and that my friend isn’t freedom that is tyranny. Check out #10 of the Federalist papers and read and re-read till you understand it. Better yet buy the Glenn Beck book and find it a bit easier reading.

      Report Post » pjgroff61  
  • TeaPartyPatriot
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:29pm

    The obvious question: HOW GAY is lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist activist judge Ware ?

    Report Post » TeaPartyPatriot  
  • Eddie Willers
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:25pm

    Politics are the steam baths of the 21st century.

    Report Post »  
  • let us prey
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:13pm

    Interesting that a group of people want to demand the acceptance of a deviant behavior.
    What group is next nambla?

    Report Post » let us prey  
  • vtxphantom
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:12pm

    Vote California out of the union. Don’t need their debts or their perversions.

    Report Post »  
    • PatriotSmith
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:33pm

      Well actually they’re the 8th largest economy in the world….

      Report Post » PatriotSmith  
  • Teleologicus
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:06pm

    Both of these judges have weakened respect for the judiciary and the rule of law. The failure of Judge Walker to recuse himself is inexcusable. Not being a lawyer, I do not know the precedent, if any, for such things. But it is simple common sense to realize that he could not possibly be impartial in this matter. Americans simply will not buy the arguments proposed by the appellate judge, sound as they may be in strictly legal terms. It is impudent nonsense to assert that Judge Walker should be regarded as unbiased in this matter, regardless of what the law may say. One immediately begins to wonder about the impartiality of the appellate court. It is a very, very grave mistake to allow judges to behave in a fashion that brings respect for the court and law into question. Even the appearance of impropriety or bias should be avoided. I had assumed -wrongly- that judges above all knew this simple and obvious truth. These judges have acted badly. They have done great damage to the necessary trust of the citizenry in the impartiality of the judiciary.

    Report Post »  
  • RationalJames
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:55pm

    I think the people here have some anger problems to work out. There doesn’t seem to be much thought at all going into anything said, only pure and sloppy emotion.

    Report Post » RationalJames  
    • ClockKing
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:26pm

      Well, when you rule by fiat and Nazghul, people tend to get angry, no matter how good it is for them.

      Report Post » ClockKing  
  • lawrench
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:53pm

    While I am more libertarian on this subject, I do have to state some real concerns.

    While traditionally marriage is a religious ceremony, I have no problems if two men or two women can find a church to marry them. What I object to most is the audacity that government has to involve itself in a religious ceremony. And to top it off, government wants to involve itself into marriage when it wants to take Christianity out of everyday life, but it is alright to allow Islamic, Jewish, Hinduism, Buddaism, and other non-Christian activities. While I do not want to infringe on other peoples religious activities, I do not want others to infringe on mine.

    Why does government want to involve itself into a traditional religious ceremony? Because the government collects fee’s for that ceremony.

    Report Post » lawrench  
  • HippoNips
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:48pm

    The notion that hispanic judges are “illegal” and would personally gain from a immigration ruling or that a female judge has anything to gain from a harraasement judgement is retarded.

    The gay judge DIRECTLY benefits frm his ruling . That’s the difference. DIRECT BENEFIT

    Report Post »  
  • RationalJames
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:39pm

    Most awesome news indeed! :D

    Report Post » RationalJames  
  • Joseph28
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:35pm

    This is such a conflict of interest but then the leftists dont care. I don’t think corruption like this will be solved until we have another revolution.

    Report Post » Joseph28  
  • StandUpPatriots
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:31pm

    There really is a simple scientific solution to homosexuals participating in society’s heterosexual unions called marriages, if we tone down the passionate opinions. First, if homosexuality is genetic then it stands to reason, when viewed through the lens of “natural selection”, that nature has targeted their genes as “undesirable” and thus restricted them from “desiring” to procreate and instead, has created an attraction for a same sex partner and removing them from the gene pool and there by unlinking them from any concern or vested interest in the healthy continuation of a society or civilization itself. That is nature’s way of removing “undesireable and deviant” genes. Secondly, if homosexuality is a choice, then those that choose to “deviate” from societal norms, for whatever reason, may have a concern or vested interest in the continuation of a society or civilization, but with a vastly different, immoral, deviant (remember, they are the ones choosing to deviate, hence the term “deviant”) direction than the one that more traditional “marraige minded” members of society hold. That being said….live and let live. Let them have their civil unions and tax benefits, but NO children adopting, since it probably is a “choice” and letting avowed deviants influence kids is CRIMINAL.

    Report Post »  
    • garylee123
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 9:29pm

      You can be as homosexual as you want, but you CHOOSE to do an act of homosexuality.

      Report Post »  
    • Tammy_Beth
      Posted on June 15, 2011 at 3:38am

      you posted this nonsense in the other thread and i answered it there but to repeat myself, “inborn” /= “genetic”

      it might be genetic, it might also be some other non-genetic condition which produces a “birth defect” – or it might be one way for some and the other for others.

      If it arises from some pre-natal event – as many birth defects do – then evolutionary forces are not acting either way.

      Report Post » Tammy_Beth  
  • SREGN
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:26pm

    Rumble, rumble, swoosh, gurgle, gurgle.

    Report Post »  
  • gdbhusker
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:23pm

    in respect to Californicatia….I will use the words of the enlightened members of the band TOOL…..”learn to swim, learn to swim”, and I will explain my position from Arizona bay!!!!!

    Report Post » gdbhusker  
  • encinom
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:23pm

    Why not, what happens between constenting adults is not the business of the government.

    Report Post »  
    • katiefrankie
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:52pm

      Yes, but they want to involve the government by getting married. Ergo, the government is now involved.

      Report Post » katiefrankie  
    • Tammy_Beth
      Posted on June 15, 2011 at 4:01am

      and once the government is involved, it is obliged to treat everyone equally before the law unless compelling reason can be shown why it must discriminate. in all the ranting I’ve seen on conservative sites, what I’ve yet to see is that compelling reason spelled out.

      Report Post » Tammy_Beth  
    • joe1234
      Posted on June 15, 2011 at 9:32am

      tammy: apparently some people are more equal than others in your worldview. gay marriage would necessarily limit the freedom of religion and speech of christians who oppose it. we all know the left would never say anything to the muslims, and we all know why.

      as far as compelling reasons…REAL marriage has obvious benefits for society…gay marriage, none at all. so why should rights be taken from people for a special right for a few that has never existed in the history of the world? and gay marriage has a deleterious effect upon real marriage…as Kurtz has written about in the case of the netherlands. When real marriage is weakened it harms children…and we all know what happens with fatherless children and the effect upon society.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • Bhaub
      Posted on June 15, 2011 at 7:26pm

      Hi Joe! Despite you being certifiable, I’ll try to help you understand the situation. It’s really easy, so just take a breath first and calm down.

      Freedom of religion means that you can practice your religion privately and in limited public displays. This is the case with all religions, not just YOURS. No, the government isn’t supporting Muslims- it’s just not supporting your hatred OF Muslims. The government is required to remain nonsupportive of all religions. It can never, ever claim that one is correct. There is absolutely nothing in gay marriage which would force Christians to be unable to be Christians or to speak out against it. You can put up billboards, get a megaphone and shout out your hatred for gays. It’s still allowed. Please clarify EXACTLY how gay marriage would stop you from being able to speak or to practice, privately, your religion.

      You claim that “real” marriage has benefits for society while gay marriage does not. I strongly disagree. If you want to suggest that man-woman marriage promotes reproduction, then I’d point out that it is legal for infertile women and sterile men to marry. You have no issue with that, right?

      I’ve pointed out before that gay marriage IS noted in history. I can do it again here if I need to.

      Report Post » Bhaub  
    • katiefrankie
      Posted on June 15, 2011 at 9:06pm

      Bhaub, nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it grant citizens the right to “limited” religious speech. Nowhere. However, it does say the following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      It is fascinating to me that the first right mentioned in the First Amendment is the right to religious freedom, indeed, the “free exercise thereof.” It is also fascinating that after the right to freedom of religion comes unabridged freedom of speech. Religious speech is also unabridged.

      It would be well of us to remember that while no official religion has been or will be established by Congress, the right of men and women to unabridged freedom of speech and assembly is enshrined in the United States Constitution as the hallmark of the Bill of Rights, and that this right is NOT abridged for those persons who ascribe to religious beliefs.

      Report Post » katiefrankie  
    • joe1234
      Posted on June 16, 2011 at 10:33am

      @bhaub; despite your obviously limited intellectual ability I’ll try to speak s l o w l y so even you can understand.

      thats not what freedom of religion means at all…only in your fascist little world does it mean that. where does the constitution say that? oh thats right it doesn’t. how do you know I hate muslms? another ASSumption on your part. You are unable to get beyond talking points, no surprise, if you had any intelligence you wouldn’t be a democrat.

      the government is not required to remain ‘non-supportive’ of religions…Jefferson used federal money to pay christian missionaries to native americans and build churches…but don’t let facts get in the way of your hatred, bigotry and stupidity….you never do.

      as far as how gay marriage would restrict religious liberty…I have already talked about the catholic charities on MA…thats just one case…why don’t you try to do a little research on your own? oh I forgot that would take intelligence….

      gay marriage is NOT noted in history….nice try.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • joe1234
      Posted on June 16, 2011 at 10:55am

      @bhaub: oh as far as strongly disagreeing that REAL marriage has benefits for society…why don’t you visit chicago sometimes or LA and see the results of fatherless children for yourself? of course the breakup of the family leaves children more vulnerable to gangs, drugs, sexual predators, etc…why do you want things like that bhaub??

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • let us prey
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:53pm

      More agenda pushing and the vote was already in . The judge has pushed his own agenda on this and it was not by accident.
      Did thefirst vote not count? This guy should not have been involved with the case.

      Report Post » let us prey  
    • binge_thinker
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 11:38pm

      Was there ever any doubt? California is owned by homosexualists. The seven million Californians who tried to stop that socialist pit’s slide into depravity are just casualties of this culture war. There is no hope for California: time would be better served immunizing the rest of the country against following the Left Coast into oblivion.

      Report Post » binge_thinker  
    • Tammy_Beth
      Posted on June 15, 2011 at 4:06am

      I never cease to be fascinated at the number of people who insist that California is on an irreversable slide into depravity and yet they….don’t move.

      If the place is one big pit of degeneracy, in your opinion, isn’t it your duty to head to Texas or South Carolina or Tennessee or something?

      Report Post » Tammy_Beth  
    • RationalJames
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:55pm

      Yessir. :D

      Report Post » RationalJames  
    • RationalJames
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:01pm

      Aaah, that was meant to be a reply to Encinom. My bad.

      Report Post » RationalJames  
    • Ham
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:40pm

      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:50pm
      Why does no one here have any understanding of seismic activity?

      We do, That’s the point. By By

      Report Post » Ham  
    • ClockKing
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:28pm

      Then why the push to have the government recognize their marriage? Hmmm?

      Report Post » ClockKing  
  • BurntHills
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:22pm

    well, let’s put it this way, if obama’s muslim agenda gets put thru, the homesexuals are history.

    Report Post » BurntHills  
    • RationalJames
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:48pm

      What Muslim agenda?

      Report Post » RationalJames  
    • Bhaub
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:55pm

      The obvious Muslim agenda to get gay people married in America, because it’s outlawed in Muslim religions. And… uh… well, that’ll be good for them somehow. See?

      Yep. It’s definitely the liberal atheist Muslims voting on gay marriage in America. *adjusts tinfoil hat*

      Report Post » Bhaub  
    • rangerp
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 9:36pm

      @BurntHills
      “well, let’s put it this way, if Obama’s Muslim agenda gets put thru, the homosexuals are history.”

      Not exactly so. While Muslims will not necessarily condone homosexuality, it runs rampant in many Muslim nations. I spent time in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Saw numerous times where the actual police had kidnapped young boys, and raped them.

      Southern Afghanistan is notorious for it. They actually teach that women are not clean, but young boys are. They are a sick twisted people. Generally young homeless boys, or boys from impoverished families are the victims.

      Some of the military leaders in both countries have what we called “chi boys”. These would be young males who looked and acted feminine. These males would “see after the leaders various needs”.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • Bhaub
      Posted on June 15, 2011 at 7:19pm

      Sort of a Catholic Church thing, then. Man, religious sects LOVE little boys.

      Report Post » Bhaub  
  • Christian Kalgaard
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:21pm

    God will judge America this year, and harshly so…

    Report Post » Christian Kalgaard  
  • Benetto
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:15pm

    Being from California this makes me so agree that the once again the will of the people means NOTHING! We vote and the judges decide that we the people don’t get what we want! This happens over and over in this state! This judge should have never been given this case, since he has a hidden agenda.

    Report Post » Benetto  
    • dtcomposer
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 7:19pm

      While I don’t agree with the Judges decision, there is great danger in just going by the will of the people. There has to be a check to pure democracy. That is the whole reason for a Republic, and specifically our system in the US.

      What if all the people voted that Baptists were unsavory and had to leave the state and lose all possessions or be incarcerated? In that case I would want the courts to intervene. The hope is that by the time a case gets to the supreme court it will be decided impartially. Wbhile the system can get annoying it is essential.

      Report Post »  
  • NickDeringer
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:14pm

    “Slouching Toward Gomorrah” great book, but painfully true.

    Report Post » NickDeringer  
  • zorro
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:13pm

    I can’t keep up. Haven’t the people of California voted against gay “marriage” on mulitple occassions? Why do the courts keep over-turning the will of the people?

    Report Post »  
    • sWampy
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:21pm

      Liberals don’t give a crap about the will of the people, they all are selfish pigs that put their own selfish self interests above all others including, but not limited to, their own offspring.

      Report Post »  
    • PER100
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:26pm

      laws and voters really dont matter much to some people. they also keep asking why some people still care about the constitution, its old. and if its not one group trying to force their opinions its another. ever hear of global warning? Green peace? NOW? Obama?

      Report Post »  
    • Tammy_Beth
      Posted on June 15, 2011 at 3:34am

      because a majority vote to deny any minority equal rights is, by definition, unconstitutional (to say nothing of unAmerican and unChristian)

      Report Post » Tammy_Beth  
  • harumph
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:12pm

    His boyfriend told him not to recuse himself.

    Report Post » harumph  
  • Ethereal
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:11pm

    Unless I am reading the article incorrectly there is a clear conflict of interests so why in he!! is this judge presiding over such a case?? I am at a loss for words….Is this kind of stupidity on purpose??? Who is in charge of selecting judges for cases?

    Report Post » Ethereal  
    • cheezwhiz
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:03pm

      What the new wingnut judge is saying is that the conflict of interest of the previous wingnut judge
      QUALIFIES him to benefit from his own ruling

      Report Post » cheezwhiz  
    • Tammy_Beth
      Posted on June 15, 2011 at 3:32am

      would you also disqualify a Christian judge since he might face the possibility of ruling against his conscience? if not, your claim has no merit because you have a double standard.

      Report Post » Tammy_Beth  
  • Blackhawk1
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:10pm

    Big surprise here. A liberal Judge upheld another liberal judges ruling. Come on San Andreas fault.

    Report Post » Blackhawk1  
    • ZOMBIE JESUS LOVES ME
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:09pm

      Blackhawk1, you are an evil, evil SOB. A magnitude-8 rupture along the San Andreas fault would kills hundreds of millions of people.

      You’re one sick F.

      Report Post » ZOMBIE JESUS LOVES ME  
    • Colonial Revolutionary
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:16pm

      Zombie,
      You are an idiot. The entire population of California is only 37 million. That’s from from hundreds of millions.

      Report Post » Colonial Revolutionary  
    • ZOMBIE JESUS LOVES ME
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:35pm

      That’s from from? Is that a new word? From-from?

      Hey, Colonial D-bag. Your mom ate cream cheese off my “from-from” the other night.

      Report Post » ZOMBIE JESUS LOVES ME  
    • Colonial Revolutionary
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:57pm

      zombie thinks California has hundreds of millions of people and Hollywood is cool. That’s all I need to know. Go back to Huffpo and hang out with your ******* friends, you are not welcome here.

      Report Post » Colonial Revolutionary  
  • nomercy63
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:10pm

    Lets put Charlie Manson in charge of murder trials! Gays are not impartial they have an agenda DAH!!!!

    Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:21pm

      So do Mormons and Chrisitians as is evident from their opposition, so I guess members either of these groups shoul dalso be banned from hearing the case.

      Report Post »  
    • HippoNips
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:50pm

      Enicom , it’s not just Christian and morons.
      Everyone with common sense is against homosexuality, knows it’ anti nature ,and that “samsex interactions among species” are “homosexuality”

      Report Post »  
    • M-Theory
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:44pm

      @ENCINOM – side note: Mormon’s are Christians, just different kind of non-Protestant Christians
      @HIPPONIPS – side note: “…it’s not just Christian and morons.” Rude and uncalled for – name calling is so petty, especially when MorMons are not the underlying issue. They were an easy target in CA even though the majority of those who voted “yes” on Prop 8 were black Christians. It was apparently more acceptable to go after peaceful turn-the-other-cheek religious folk than the black folk, which would have been soooo un-PC of them. Statistically Mormons were 1% of the “yes” vote. “I feel the conflict within you. Let go of your hate.”

      Report Post » M-Theory  
    • cheezwhiz
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:54pm

      nomercy63
      Lets put Charlie Manson in charge of murder trials!
      —————-
      Hey we have Obama in charge of our National secrets and nuclear codes already :-(

      Report Post » cheezwhiz  
  • ozchambers
    Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:08pm

    If govt had stayed out of marriage from the get-go this wouldnt be an issue.

    Report Post » ozchambers  
    • fastfacts
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:20pm

      The court system is a failed system under the Clintonian/Obamian judges, we need to stand up against them: http://tiny.cc/dm22e.

      This was bias, everyone knows it and everyone know it would not be overturned because ITS CALIFORNIA.

      Report Post »  
    • HippoNips
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:40pm

      Non-sense moron.
      Marriages are a needed social contrust that the government should record

      Marriages ARE FOR THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN. Not the married people
      Children NEED to know who their father is , the father needs to know who he is the father of , and society needs to know who to go after for financial support of their own offspring
      Marriage was not made up out of the blue just to give wedding planners employment.

      Report Post »  
    • TomFerrari
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:42pm

      EXACTLY correct – Govt has NO business being in the marriage business. PERIOD.

      The Fari Tax / falt tax would eliminate tax deductions, including those related to marriage and children.

      Then, govt has no need to be involved.

      Churches are free to marry whomever they please.

      As for atheists – we could still allow ship’s captains, judges, etc. to perform ceremonies, or they could get married in a Church if a clergy were willing to perform the ceremony for them, and they didn’t mind. Of course, I’m not sure any athiests would even want to get married. I’m sure there are some that want to commit to a lifelong relationship..

      Report Post » TomFerrari  
    • cheezwhiz
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 5:59pm

      “The single characteristic that Judge Walker shares with the plaintiffs, albeit one that might not have been shared with the majority of Californians, gave him no greater interest in a proper decision on the merits than would exist for any other judge or citizen.”
      ————
      Translation :
      The judge is gay, so are the plaintiffs.
      The majority of Californians can vote all they want . This is the right judge to overturn the voters because he is gay like the plaintiffs

      Report Post » cheezwhiz  
    • ZOMBIE JESUS LOVES ME
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:01pm

      Dammit! I never thought about having a sea captain marry us! That would have rocked. Much better than the Wiccan priestess we found.

      Hey, Tommy! Why wouldn’t atheists want to get married. All marriage is only “till death do we part.”

      Report Post » ZOMBIE JESUS LOVES ME  
    • Jediusetheforce
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:18pm

      The people of California voted for Marriage between one man and one woman(Prop 8). Screw the federal judge and the 9th circuit court. Another system that is broken in the USA. Take the bastards out!!!!

      Report Post »  
    • Sound The Trumpet In Zion
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:22pm

      I would check to see if Ware is **** too. Also check to see if he and Walker had a “thing” going on at any time. Another possible conflict in judges.

      Report Post » Sound The Trumpet In Zion  
    • Water Man
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:33pm

      Someone please answer this question. Why should I even bother voting for any referendum when said referendum can simply be overturned by a judge? What happened the “ will of the people”?

      Report Post » Water Man  
    • cheezwhiz
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:43pm

      Water Man
      Someone please answer this question. Why should I even bother voting for any referendum when said referendum can simply be overturned by a judge? What happened the “ will of the people”?
      ————–
      Remember Prop 187 ?
      It was voted in, because the CA voters didn’t want CA to go bankrupt .
      Then a few judges overturned it .
      Now CA is bankrupt.
      The voters were right, but here is no accountability for these sold out judges even after their rulings ruined the state

      Report Post » cheezwhiz  
    • chazman
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:45pm

      Hey Californians! What’s the use in voting for anything in your state! Liberal Marxism will just strike your vote down if it doesn’t please them! There is only one thing left for you to do. If you can’t vote them down by making your vote count, then the last resort is to use force. The day is here. It’s time for you to act. It’s time to outlaw LIBERAL MARXISM!

      Report Post »  
    • Stuck_in_CA
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 6:55pm

      You who don’t live in CA are lucky…Guess I’ll have to go down with the ship. This was a wonderful place to live, once. Sad

      Report Post » Stuck_in_CA  
    • Water Man
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 7:07pm

      @ cheez. You are right. Look at Oklahoma and the sharia law amendment. Regardless of where one stands on gay marriage, the people voted and their voice was heard. That should be the end of it, unless the will of the people changes and they vote it out. No judges needed in this case. NO MORE JUDICIAL LEGISLATORS!

      Report Post » Water Man  
    • rangerp
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 7:58pm

      To the liberals, deviants, immoral, and other assorted folks that say the gov has no place in defining marriage between a man and a woman.

      Without a doubt, the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong, and that God punishes nations that condone it. I know, I know, many of you do not believe in my Bible, or my God. If that is the case, then explain this to me. World history (without exception) shows that every nation that ever accepted, or condoned homosexuality as normal and natural, crumbled within two generations. There is no exception. Rome, Greece, Babylon, Persia…. The family is the most basic unit of leadership, government, education… When you destroy the family, you destroy the nation. Homosexuality is an act against the family.

      Study the Center for Disease Control stats regarding homosexuals (the CDC is not a right wing Baptist organization). Homosexuals have much higher suicide rates, way higher drug abuse, alcoholism, shorter life expectancy, 70% of AIDS cases for males, 60% of syphilis, and their rates for molesting children and sexual assault is through the roof when compared to heterosexuals. They are a sick and twisted group. If our government allows them to marry, and accepts homosexuality as natural and normal, we will fall just like the other nations that accepted it.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • American Soldier (Separated)
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 10:15pm

      I bet you love all your tax deductions and other benefits for being married though, don’t you?

      Report Post » American Soldier (Separated)  
    • American Soldier (Separated)
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 10:18pm

      I’m not sure if many of you who clamor for Government out of marriage understand that if that were the case, homosexuals would be getting married left and right. Without Government restrictions, they could be wed by anyone who was willing to perform the ceremony.

      Some of you secretly, most even opening, loves the notion of government intervention in this case, as long as that intervention would prevent homosexuals from being able to marry. Big government intervention is good as long as it benefits you.

      Report Post » American Soldier (Separated)  
    • freeus
      Posted on June 14, 2011 at 11:44pm

      @CHAZMAN
      I live in SoCal. It is sickening to have the will of the people overturned by activist judges.
      Sodomites rule one way or the other here.

      Report Post »  
    • Tammy_Beth
      Posted on June 15, 2011 at 3:53am

      @RangerP – “Without a doubt, the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong, and that God punishes nations that condone it.”

      no, not really – despite what your preacher probably told you. God judged nations under the OLD covenant, he judges PEOPLE under the new covenant. That’s a big part of why Jesus came. Further, the verse which say it’s wrong all have to be understood in context.

      “I know, many of you do not believe in my Bible, or my God. If that is the case, then explain this to me. World history shows that every nation that ever accepted, or condoned homosexuality as normal and natural, crumbled within two generations.”

      that’s not actually true, but for the sake of argument – correlation is not causation. (oh, and I do believe in God and the Bible – when read properly)

      “Study the CDC stats regarding homosexuals…(they) have much higher suicide rates, way higher drug abuse, alcoholism, shorter life expectancy”

      high suicide, drug and alcohol rates can be DIRECTLY linked to being social outcasts. It derives from the bigotry of the hetero population.

      “70% of AIDS cases for males, 60% of syphilis, and their rates for molesting children and sexual assault is through the roof when compared to heterosexuals.”

      When the whole world around you, including your own friends and family, spend your whole life telling you that people like you are “freaks” and “perverts” who are bound for hell, you tend to end up with a damaged psyche. What else would

      Report Post » Tammy_Beth  
    • rangerp
      Posted on June 15, 2011 at 6:42am

      @Tammy_Beth

      Not so.
      2 Peter 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned [them] with an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly

      If you build a house from sub standard building materials, it will not last. A nation is no different. Once again, every nation in recorded world history that has turned to homosexuality, has not lasted. they all fell.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on June 15, 2011 at 6:40pm

      TomFerrari Govt has NO business being in the marriage business. PERIOD.
      As for atheists – we could still allow ship’s captains, judges …

      I don’t know if anybody ever told you this before, but judges are part of the government.

      Report Post »  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love