From The Advocate:
http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/06/14/Fed_Judge_Won_t_Throw_Out_Prop_8_Decision/
Ahem. Let me just say...
DUH!
Yes, I know some judges personal lives may interfere with their decisions. But in this case, it's just ridiculous. Any judge could be claimed to have a bias one way or the other in a case involving the right of gay people to marry or not. A gay judge, whether or not he/she's in a relationship, would have motive, as would a heterosexual judge.
Solution:
ROBOT JUDGES!!
But then, of course, you have to know who built said robot judge. If it was a gay robot maker, then there's bias there. And if he's a straight robot maker, well...you get the idea.
Judge Vaughan Walker was absolutely correct in his opinion on Prop 8, and this just goes to prove it. The simple fact is this...some people are gay. Some people are straight. Some people want to get married. I know of no gay marriage that has ever hurt or destroyed a straight marriage, unless one of those gay people had previously been in a straight marriage. Capisce?
Sorry, but this is just ONE of my many pet peeves. That, and people who call me a baby killer because I vote democrat, or anti-Christian because I don't really care for fundamentalist Christians who use the supposed word of God to spread hate.
We could sit around all day yelling at each other and calling each other anti-whatever. But why? Why can't we just agree to disagree? If you don't like gay marriage, DON'T GET ONE. Simple as that.
"But our taxes pay for...[insert stupid comment here]."
Uh...no. And even if that were the case, what about MY taxes? Apparently I'm good enough to pay taxes to the federal government, but not good enough to get married?
Hmm...anyone else sense some faulty logic?
Here's what we'll do...I'll stop paying taxes, until I can get married in any square mile of the United States of America. If you want my taxes, better act quick.
(this is a joke, of course...I've NEVER paid taxes...)
Seriously, though, bravo to US District Court Judge James Ware for supporting the CONSTITUTION of the state of California, as well as of the United States.
(For those confused, the CONSTITUTION is that PESKY little document that allows for freedom of speech, religion, assembly, freed the slaves, allowed women to vote, enacted prohibition, then repealed prohibition...not to mention allowed every gun-loving fanatic the right to keep and bear arms...)
So, there's that...
Dude... I hope you know that now that your spouting your opinions online publicly, you're baiting me to respond. Which I won't right now, cuz I should be working.
ReplyDeleteBravo, indeed. I do take issue with the court's assumed role in deciding who gets to marry whom. Honestly, why do we need to get a marriage license. It's just another tax. It's not like you have to be qualified for marriage, besides being of consensual age. It IS just an agreement between two private citizens after all.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the constitution had nothing to do with prohibition or freeing the slaves. Keep up the good work man.
actually, nathan, i was referring to amendment 13, which states,
ReplyDelete"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
and
"Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[2]"
Also, as far as amendment 18, which states,
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
and then, of course, Amendment 21, which states
Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission here of to the States by the Congress."
So, not to argue, but, exactly how does the Constitution not have anything to do with prohibition or freeing slaves?
i'm not sure if i was reading you correctly. couldn't tell if it was sarcasm or not. damn that no sarcasm font.
oh, and mike, yes, i do realize you COULD do that. but also know that if you do start to argue, and you say something i don't like, i can just as easily kick you in the chin. and i don't want to do that. so...peace.
I'm not sure what I meant about prohibition, must have been talkin out my rear on that one. It didn't free the slaves, though, just made slavery illegal. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves.
ReplyDeleteThe Emancipation Proclamation freed SOME of the slaves (those in the Confederacy). The Constitutional Amendment freed the rest. Mixed results, but point Stratton. Lincoln probably overstepped his authority (revoking long-standing property rights) for the good of the war effort, but I won't quibble.
ReplyDelete