Once Again - A Federal District Court Judge Claims to Know Better Than the People
The disastrous ruling today by U.S. District Court judge Walker on the "constitutionality" of Prop 8 once again shows that there is a disconnect between agenda driven politics and the rule of law.
The proposition passed by the people of California simply recognized what has been known and understood since time immemorial - that marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. Period. End of statement. There is nothing in the law that prevents any person of legal age and capacity from getting married. The person only need follow the prescription that preceded the law and comes from nature. The person must marry a person of the opposite sex. Otherwise it is not marriage. Plain and simple.
Unfortunately just as we have jurists who have no sense when it comes to biology and the conception and development of the human person, so we have a judge (who just happens to be homosexual himself - so how was this case assigned? hmmmmm?) who cannot reason his way out of a paper bag and comes up with the most idiotic statements concerning the constitution.
Does he honestly believe that John Adams, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson, to name a few of the founders thought buggery and sodomy were constitutional rights, let alone that one could include in the definition of marriage that two of the same sex could enter into such a state?
Of course not. Indeed he should have recused himself as a biased person. Given his interim rulings, it was apparent that he was prejudiced against the defenders of the Amendment. I am only surprised that the defendants' attorneys did not strike him for cause in the beginning of the proceedings.
The absurdity of today's ruling and the reaction of the media are simply additional reasons why this Congress must have a thorough cleansing come November.
The proposition passed by the people of California simply recognized what has been known and understood since time immemorial - that marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. Period. End of statement. There is nothing in the law that prevents any person of legal age and capacity from getting married. The person only need follow the prescription that preceded the law and comes from nature. The person must marry a person of the opposite sex. Otherwise it is not marriage. Plain and simple.
Unfortunately just as we have jurists who have no sense when it comes to biology and the conception and development of the human person, so we have a judge (who just happens to be homosexual himself - so how was this case assigned? hmmmmm?) who cannot reason his way out of a paper bag and comes up with the most idiotic statements concerning the constitution.
Does he honestly believe that John Adams, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson, to name a few of the founders thought buggery and sodomy were constitutional rights, let alone that one could include in the definition of marriage that two of the same sex could enter into such a state?
Of course not. Indeed he should have recused himself as a biased person. Given his interim rulings, it was apparent that he was prejudiced against the defenders of the Amendment. I am only surprised that the defendants' attorneys did not strike him for cause in the beginning of the proceedings.
The absurdity of today's ruling and the reaction of the media are simply additional reasons why this Congress must have a thorough cleansing come November.
posted by Jakubczyk on Life | 7:59 PM
