PDA

View Full Version : Federal Judge Vaughn Walker is truly a Visionary by Pat Buchanan




bobbyw24
08-10-2010, 06:24 AM
Federal Judge Vaughn Walker is truly a visionary.

Peering at the 14th Amendment, Walker found something there the authors of the amendment never knew they put there, and even the Warren Court never found there: The states of the Union must recognize same-sex marriages as equal to traditional marriage.

With his discovery, Walker declared Proposition 8, by which 5.5 million Californians voted to prohibit state recognition of gay marriage, null and void. What the people of California voted for is irrelevant, said Walker; you cannot vote to take away constitutional rights.

If the Walker decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court, homosexual marriage will be imposed on a nation where, in 31 out of 31 state referenda, the people have rejected it as an absurdity.

This is not just judicial activism. This is judicial tyranny.

This is a perversion of what the authors of the Constitution wrote and what the states approved. Through such anti-democratic means, the left has imposed a social and moral revolution on America with only the feeblest of protests from the people or their elected leaders.

Thus, the Supreme Court purged Christianity from the public schools and public square of a nation whose presidents from Wilson to Truman to Carter declared her to be a Christian country.

Thus, the Supreme Court peered into the ninth amendment and found a constitutional right to engage in homosexual acts and procure abortions, both of which had been crimes.

Walker says the only motivations behind Proposition 8 had been "biases" and "moral disapproval," and "moral disapproval ... has never been a rational basis for legislation."

But what else is the basis for laws against polygamy and incest? What else was the basis for the Mann Act, which prevented a man from taking his girlfriend across the state line to a motel?

What is the basis for prohibiting prostitution, a free exchange of money for sexual favors, if not "moral disapproval"?

What the judge is saying with this opinion is that the majority cannot define morality, and, even if it does, it cannot impose it. We are defenseless against what we believe to be moral decadence.

More

http://townhall.com/columnists/PatBuchanan/2010/08/10/the_solomon_of_san_francisco

TonySutton
08-10-2010, 07:30 AM
So is Pat saying we should get rid of prostitution, polygamy and incest laws? If so, I agree :)

Stary Hickory
08-10-2010, 07:35 AM
Well it was the only silver lining that I saw, is that it undermined the "supposed" will of the majority, which has been used to fleeced and destroy this nation for awhile now. However gay activists are simply using the state to enforce THEIR moral beliefs on others. They are in fact worse, because they use the same tactics yet reject even a majority decision which at least satisfies the most people.

Gay activism is worse than those they claim to oppose. It is my hope that this gets overturned in CA. And then a real solution is offered that does not enforce morality at all on people.

Rothbardian Girl
08-10-2010, 08:39 AM
Well it was the only silver lining that I saw, is that it undermined the "supposed" will of the majority, which has been used to fleeced and destroy this nation for awhile now. However gay activists are simply using the state to enforce THEIR moral beliefs on others. They are in fact worse, because they use the same tactics yet reject even a majority decision which at least satisfies the most people.

Gay activism is worse than those they claim to oppose. It is my hope that this gets overturned in CA. And then a real solution is offered that does not enforce morality at all on people.

I am having sort of the same hangup here regarding gay rights. It is true that the majority should never have the right to restrict freedom of the minority, which I see happening in this Proposition 8 from these anti-gay marriage people, but then I feel that BOTH factions are trying to push an agenda, and they're using the wrong medium to do it (increased involvement of the government in daily life).

I just say scrap the whole thing, get rid of the controversy, and privatize marriage. I'm not terribly familiar with this issue, and a quick Wikipedia search revealed nothing TOO major in the way of disadvantages, so I will stand by my viewpoint here. :o

bobbyw24
08-10-2010, 04:26 PM
Right get Govt out of marriage altogether

Kylie
08-10-2010, 04:31 PM
Right get Govt out of marriage altogether



THIS.


If the .gov hadn't stuck it's nose in this to begin with, then we wouldn't be having this discussion now.