Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:29 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:52 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:31 pm
Posts: 3475
Likes: 0
Liked: 6
GAY JUDGE KNOCKS DOWN PROP 8 IN CA
http://drudgereport.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:09 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:09 am
Posts: 990
Location: Yuba City, CA
Likes: 4
Liked: 3
Why am I not surprised :x :roll:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:26 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 4153
Likes: 307
Liked: 525
Remember today's date. Today is the day the Democrats definitively lost the 2010 elections and took a huge popularity hit for 2012. Just like in 2004.

Why should any of us even bother having referendums on laws? Why not just ask the judges to get together and tell us what laws they'd like us to live under?

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:30 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:31 pm
Posts: 3475
Likes: 0
Liked: 6
"The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay." -- SF Gate

The pro-gay legal community is smart...they made sure a favorable judge would get the case. Expect this to go to the Supreme Court.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:46 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:31 pm
Posts: 3475
Likes: 0
Liked: 6
Just moments ago, a federal judge in San Francisco declared “unconstitutional” California’s voter-approved constitutional amendment protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorneys are litigating the lawsuit together with lead counsel Charles J. Cooper and ADF-allied attorney Andrew Pugno, who represent the official proponents and campaign committee of California’s Proposition 8, enacted by 7 million voters in the November 2008 election.

We plan to appeal today’s outrageous ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In May 2009, attorneys representing two same-sex couples who sought marriage licenses in California filed the Perry v. Schwarzenegger lawsuit and challenged the constitutionality of the Proposition 8 amendment. The trial took place earlier this year.

The impact of today’s decision in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California could be devastating to marriage and the democratic process. This radical decision threatens to allow a handful of activists to gut the core of the American democratic system and could eventually force the entire country to accept same-sex “marriage,” which intentionally denies children the mother or father they deserve.

This battle is far from over, and the Alliance Defense Fund and our allies will persevere in the defense of marriage. With the stakes so high, we will engage the opponents of marriage at every level.

Within the past month and a half, the Supreme Courts of New Jersey and Wisconsin both rejected legal challenges to marriage. Thanks to Ministry Friends like you, and by God’s grace, ADF has won more than 40 marriage cases litigated to completion (John 15:5).

To successfully defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman, ADF urgently needs your help to appeal this alarming decision. Please give as generously to the defense of marriage as you can.


DONATE - https://www.alliancedefensefund.org/sdo ... al=WM0810A


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:47 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:50 pm
Posts: 2363
Location: Iowa
Likes: 51
Liked: 211
It's called judicial tyranny, folks. Unelected officials are becomming the voice of America and not we the people or those they choose to represent them.

_________________
"We fought, we dreamed, that dream is still with us."
Ronald Reagan, 1976


TEAM HUCK IOWA
http://www.facebook.com/TeamHuckIowa


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:48 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
No surprise and just the begining.

What judges like this fail to realize is that they are destroying the basic principle of constitutionalism needing the consent of the governed. The majority will not simple yield to these robed god-kings. Especially when they attempt to declare 7,000 years of history null and void and Christianity, in effect, a religion which promotes bigotry.

The effort to equate homosexual behavioral rights with human civil rights, and especially the American Civil Rights Movement, is both false and unpersuasive still to a large majority of Americans.

What the homosexual lobby believes is that they only need to win in the courts and the population will bow to their definitions and values. They believe this especially because of a very truncated and inaccurate view of how de-segregation came about. This history romaniticises the role of the Court and fails to recognize that American's nationally had favored equal rights for freedmen since 1868. They had simply lacked the will to overwhelm the minority still imposing its will in many regions of the nation.

When the Court acted in 1954 they were using the moral authority of the Court to compel the minority of the nation that still wanted to preserve segregation to yield. While this did frustrate some understanding's of state's rights and the 10th Amendment, it was completely in keeping with the broader concepts of democracy and the evolving social contract. That was especially true because the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments had so clearly been an effort to resolve issue Constitutionally but had been stymied by Southern intransegence from the 1870's to the eve of the Court's decesion to intervene.

Brown was controversial but it was NEVER nationally unpopular. That is a myth used to increase the sense that whatever the Court rules will eventually be reflected by popular sentiment no matter how unpopular at the time (tell that to Dred Scott)

When Brown came down Gallup found it supported by 55% to 40% opposed. That is a significant majority. Those number stayed strong thoughout the decade of adjustment that followed.

Quote:
Historical Reactions to the Brown v. Board of Education Decision

Immediately following the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, Gallup asked Americans if they approved or disapproved of the Supreme Court ruling that racial segregation in all public schools is illegal, meaning that all children, no matter what their race, must be allowed to go to the same schools.

The initial results, from a May 21-26, 1954, poll, found that 55% of Americans approved of the decision, and 40% disapproved. The results remained essentially unchanged in two additional polls conducted in 1954, including a June poll with 53% approval and a late December poll with 52% approval. Between 1955 and 1961, the percentages rose slightly, with roughly 6 in 10 Americans approving of the Brown v. Board of Education decision.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/11686/race-e ... ation.aspx

What we have here, however, is the Court attempting to assert a moral authority to compel the majority of the nation to reject majoritarin democracy, their faith, and history.

We will see what the national polls say in response to this ruling, but thus far Court promouncements have been met by hardening majorities opposed to homosexual marriage and the umbrage of the Court thinking it can rule without the consent of the governed.

The Gallup numbers have thus far been a mirror opposite of those from the Civil Rights era:

Quote:
PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' views on same-sex marriage have essentially stayed the same in the past year, with a majority of 57% opposed to granting such marriages legal status and 40% in favor of doing so. Though support for legal same-sex marriage is significantly higher now than when Gallup first asked about it in 1996, in recent years support has appeared to stall, peaking at 46% in 2007.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/major ... riage.aspx

Pride goes before a fall, a haughty spirit before destruction.

These judges increasing think that they have been set over the people to rule them and not to refect them. They also think that the Civil Rights epic empowered them to overcome even the majority when they judge that majority unjust. Good luck on that. History shows that our majorities will not long be denied their right to Vox Populi.

The Judicial branch is on a collision course with the basic belief of Americans in the sovereignty of We The People.

Next: the nutty Ninth.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:59 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
PrinciplesMatter wrote:
"The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay." -- SF Gate

The pro-gay legal community is smart...they made sure a favorable judge would get the case. Expect this to go to the Supreme Court.


Of course, you rarely heard the MSM bring up this very important point. It was never in doubt that this arrogant judge would rule the way he did. This case was always headed to the Supreme Court, regardless of how this judge ruled. I think we will win it there, my only concern is that they refuse to hear the case due to some states rights reasoning. Hope that doesn't happen.

I'm writing a check to the ADF to help them fight this ridiculous ruling and hope many others do the same.

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:01 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:48 pm
Posts: 2617
Location: Indiana
Likes: 77
Liked: 183
This just released from Liberty Counsel:

http://lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=960
Quote:

August 4, 2010

California Judge Strikes Down Prop 8 Marriage Amendment


www.LC.org

San Francisco, CA – Today U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that Proposition 8, defining marriage as the union of one woman and one man in the California Constitution, violates the U.S. Constitution. Every court until today has rejected the argument that there is a “right” to same-sex marriage under the U.S. Constitution. In November 2008, California voters amended their state constitution by passing Prop 8, and the California Supreme Court upheld the marriage amendment.

Although Liberty Counsel has defended the marriage laws in California since the battle began in 2004, the Alliance Defense Fund, representing the Prop 8 initiative, opposed Liberty Counsel’s attempt to intervene on behalf of Campaign for California Families. The California Attorney General did not oppose Liberty Counsel’s intervention, but ADF did. Liberty Counsel sought to provide additional defense to Prop 8 because of concern that the case was not being adequately defended. After ADF actively opposed Liberty Counsel, ADF presented only two witnesses at trial, following the 15 witnesses presented by those who challenged the amendment. Even Judge Walker commented that he was concerned by the lack of evidence presented by ADF on behalf of Prop 8. Liberty Counsel will file an amicus brief at the court of appeals in defense of Prop 8.

The California Supreme Court previously stated, “The right of initiative is precious to the people and is one which the courts are zealous to preserve to the fullest tenable measure of spirit as well as letter.” Moreover, the U.S. Constitution cannot be stretched to include a right to same-sex marriage.

Except for this case, since Liberty Counsel was excluded by ADF, Liberty Counsel has represented the Campaign for California Families to defend the state’s marriage laws since 2004 and has argued at the trial, appellate and state Supreme Court levels.

Mary McAlister, Senior Litigation Counsel for Liberty Counsel, commented: “This is a classic case of judicial activism. The Constitution is unrecognizable in this opinion. This is simply the whim of one judge. It does not reflect the Constitution, the rule of law, or the will of the people. I am confident this decision will be overturned.”


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:11 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
TheValuesVoter wrote:
Remember today's date. Today is the day the Democrats definitively lost the 2010 elections and took a huge popularity hit for 2012. Just like in 2004.

Why should any of us even bother having referendums on laws? Why not just ask the judges to get together and tell us what laws they'd like us to live under?



How sad is it to just hear Michael Medved say that this issue "hurts" the GOP because it takes the focus off of economic issues (i.e. Fi-Cons greatest concern) for the upcoming election. People like him say the same thing about the Arizona immigration law. These issues ARE the issues the GOP should take up and pound the Dems with, but we have this wimp contingent within our party who would rather have pillow fights over marginal tax rates. That's important too, but it's not what gets Reagan democrats fired up to vote for Republicans.

P.S. Hugh Hewitt is now talking about spending issues with some guy from Americans for Prosperity. This is what's important to them on a day when this marriage issue was wrongly decided on. Unbelievable. :x

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:57 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:37 am
Posts: 2017
Likes: 71
Liked: 66
goalieman wrote:
TheValuesVoter wrote:
Remember today's date. Today is the day the Democrats definitively lost the 2010 elections and took a huge popularity hit for 2012. Just like in 2004.

Why should any of us even bother having referendums on laws? Why not just ask the judges to get together and tell us what laws they'd like us to live under?


How sad is it to just hear Michael Medved say that this issue "hurts" the GOP because it takes the focus off of economic issues (i.e. Fi-Cons greatest concern) for the upcoming election. People like him say the same thing about the Arizona immigration law. These issues ARE the issues the GOP should take up and pound the Dems with, but we have this wimp contingent within our party who would rather have pillow fights over marginal tax rates. That's important too, but it's not what gets Reagan democrats fired up to vote for Republicans.

I understand the need to harp on the economy, it is indeed the most significant short term issue of the present time. It is an easy issue to quantify, and to show possible detractors of Obama that he is not doing a good job on the most important issue. Thus, the more we publicize the issue, the worse Obama will look.

HOWEVER, This does not mean that you need to totally disregard social issues. There is no one politician who speaks to the interrelatedness of Social and Economic issues better than Mike Huckabee. This is how a candidate shows that they have a true understanding of the complexities that our country/culture faces. With just an understanding of one of part of the equation, we will continue to see quasi-solutions to the real problems that lie underneath the problems on the surface.

This trend seem to embody the attitude of Mitch Daniels.

_________________
Brett

--Attention Guests--
Join the Discussion!
Click the graphic to join!
Image

:army


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:07 pm 
Offline
General

Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:27 pm
Posts: 1165
Likes: 39
Liked: 41
Again, all these people worry about is whether the Republican Party will lose the "gay" voters or not by bringing up this issue. So sad!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:24 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:50 pm
Posts: 2363
Location: Iowa
Likes: 51
Liked: 211
We had a moderate maverick nominee for President who ignored the social issues and his name was John McCain and he lost. Do these people have a short term memory?

_________________
"We fought, we dreamed, that dream is still with us."
Ronald Reagan, 1976


TEAM HUCK IOWA
http://www.facebook.com/TeamHuckIowa


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:25 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:50 pm
Posts: 2363
Location: Iowa
Likes: 51
Liked: 211
Quote:
HOWEVER, This does not mean that you need to totally disregard social issues. There is no one politician who speaks to the interrelatedness of Social and Economic issues better than Mike Huckabee. This is how a candidate shows that they have a true understanding of the complexities that our country/culture faces. With just an understanding of one of part of the equation, we will continue to see quasi-solutions to the real problems that underlies the problem on the surface.


:like

_________________
"We fought, we dreamed, that dream is still with us."
Ronald Reagan, 1976


TEAM HUCK IOWA
http://www.facebook.com/TeamHuckIowa


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:09 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:50 pm
Posts: 2363
Location: Iowa
Likes: 51
Liked: 211
After reading all of this I am confused. How can a district judge rule this way after the California Supreme Court voted to uphold Prop 8? Will this now go to the California Supreme Court or will it go to the U.S. Supreme Court? Help me out with this legal stuff.

_________________
"We fought, we dreamed, that dream is still with us."
Ronald Reagan, 1976


TEAM HUCK IOWA
http://www.facebook.com/TeamHuckIowa


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:18 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
Iowans Rock wrote:
After reading all of this I am confused. How can a district judge rule this way after the California Supreme Court voted to uphold Prop 8? Will this now go to the California Supreme Court or will it go to the U.S. Supreme Court? Help me out with this legal stuff.


He argues that the details of the argument were different and his interpretation valid.

It goes up the Federal chain now. 9th circuit Appeals. Supreme Court.

BTW: Redstate has yet to post on the subject. It seems the Fiscons have chosen again to break with the Reagan grand alliance. Actually it's just certain self-proclaimed leaders. I'm confident there are millions of conservative voters just as bothered by this issue as the Bush tax cut extention who think we can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time in opposing both.

The Fiscon leadership though is increasingly drawn toward an alliance with social libertarians (too much time hanging out in law school yards and web chat rooms). They will find that amalgam both a thin gruel and a witches brew.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:24 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:50 pm
Posts: 2363
Location: Iowa
Likes: 51
Liked: 211
Southern Doc wrote:
Iowans Rock wrote:
After reading all of this I am confused. How can a district judge rule this way after the California Supreme Court voted to uphold Prop 8? Will this now go to the California Supreme Court or will it go to the U.S. Supreme Court? Help me out with this legal stuff.


He argues that the details of the argument were different and his interpretation valid.

It goes up the Federal chain now. 9th circuit Appeals. Supreme Court.

BTW: Redstate has yet to post on the subject. It seems the Fiscons have chosen again to break with the Reagan grand alliance. Actually it's just certain self-proclaimed leaders. I'm confident there are millions of conservative voters just as bothered by this issue as the Bush tax cut extention who think we can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time in opposing both.

The Fiscon leadership though is increasingly drawn toward an alliance with social libertarians (too much time hanging out in law school yards and web chat rooms). They will find that both a thin gruel and a witches brew.


This may be a stupid question but why does it skip over California's highest court and go to a federal court?

The ficons can dismiss this all they want but what they don't realize that this is more than just a marriage or social issue. It is an issue of activist courts which someday may not just be trampling on the will of the people when it comes to the definition of marriage but they may someday start making rulings on our pocket book.

_________________
"We fought, we dreamed, that dream is still with us."
Ronald Reagan, 1976


TEAM HUCK IOWA
http://www.facebook.com/TeamHuckIowa


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:27 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
The appeal was made on the basis of the Federal Constitution which is why it moves along an exclusively Federal appeal route now. The California Supreme Court has already decided that the changed Constitution of California (after Prop 8 changed it) now can define marriage as exclusively between a man and woman and thereby Prop 8 overturned at the ballot box what they had done in their chambers when they found that the pre-Prop 8 California Constitution had within it a "right" for homosexual marriage.

This Federal judge was hearing an appeal based on a Federal right which would supercede any state statute or state constitution (by means of the Federal Constitutional supremacy clause). This judge has now found (for the first time and surely much to the surprise of both the origianl founders and the drafters of the 14th Amendment were they still alive) that the Constitution protects homosexual marriage as a fundamental right. This is now law in nine western states of the U.S. 9th Circuit. That means any state in that zone now must recognize homosexual marriage as a Constitutional right.

Obviously this will also allow further challeges in other circuits based on this judges ruling. If any of those judges disagree (and some already have failed to find a Constitutional right to homosexual marriage in the Constitution - clearly they needed the "magic penumbra glasses" that found a Federal right to abortion in Roe) you have a conflict which will force even a reluctant Supreme Court to decide. They may take the course strait up from the 9th Circuit Appeals (regardless of outcome) simply to address what has now become such a major issue.

Yes, you are heraring it right. This judge is saying that homosexual marriage is an inalienable right. And yes you are absolutely right that the fiscons ignore this fight at their peril. For if a judge can find this in the language of the Constitution, they can find anything or ignore everything.

Last. While I would mourn the outcome, if the people of the U.S. through their legislatures were destroying marriage (as they have with no-fault divorce), it would have secular legitimacy. This though is just lawlessness and judicial tyranny and all Americans who value constitutionalism and self-government should be outraged.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:50 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:50 pm
Posts: 2363
Location: Iowa
Likes: 51
Liked: 211
Thank you, Southern Doc, you explained it very well. But a judge cannot make law, can he? Just because they rule a law unconstitutional does not mean a new law exists. Why would there be a need for the other two branches of government then?

_________________
"We fought, we dreamed, that dream is still with us."
Ronald Reagan, 1976


TEAM HUCK IOWA
http://www.facebook.com/TeamHuckIowa


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:13 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:56 pm
Posts: 960
Likes: 3
Liked: 58
Hm... well, I'm very concerned about this. But maybe this could push California in a more conservative direction?

This is a liberal agenda being forced down their throats. I imagine even some of those who support same-sex marriage would have reservations against this.

It's horrible, but we should try to be optimistic.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY