tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post5170931532113203137..comments2024-03-24T23:41:23.944-07:00Comments on Talk Wisdom: Tyrannical Judges Redefine MarriageChristinewjchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-18010639189170023802008-05-24T08:21:00.000-07:002008-05-24T08:21:00.000-07:00"As for feeling that "separate but unequal" comes ..."As for feeling that "separate but unequal" comes into play in this case. It doesn't matter how you feel. The courts job is not to make you feel better, to right injustice, to be the enlightened philosopher that decides what laws govern us all. It instead is required to decide cases according to existing law and existing precendent. When the courts decide to actually start following the law, then we will begin to reclaim our country."<BR/><BR/>From Glenn Greenwald:<BR/><BR/>Contrary to this extremely confused argument, a court striking down a law supported by large majorities is not antithetical to our system of government. Such a judicial act is central to our system of government. That's because, strictly speaking, the U.S. is not a "democracy" as much as it is a "constitutional republic," precisely because constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities. This is all just seventh-grade civics, something that ...those condemning the California court's decision on similar grounds seem to have forgotten.<BR/><BR/>The duty -- the central obligation -- of judges faithfully applying the law and fulfilling their core duties is to strike down laws that violate the Constitution, without regard to what percentage of the population supports that law, and without regard to whether it would be "better" in some political sense if democratic majorities some day got around to changing their minds about it. It's perfectly appropriate for, say, marriage equality advocates or political candidates to take into account whether it would be preferable, in some political or strategic sense, to achieve gay marriage incrementally or legislatively, only once there is majority support for it. But that is a completely inappropriate factor for a judge to consider, because the judge's sole consideration is whether the law is consistent with Constitutional protections.<BR/><BR/>Alexander Hamilton, in defining the core function of federal judges in Federalist 78, explained this as clearly as it could be explained (though apparently not clearly enough for some):<BR/><BR/>wherever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.<BR/><BR/>When -- to use Hamilton's formulation -- judges "disregard" a "particular statute" in favor of constitutional guarantees, they aren't undermining our system of government. They're upholding it. The principal purpose of the Constitution is to prohibit the enactment of rights-abridging laws which, by definition (given that they are being democratically enacted), are supported by majorities. Anyone who argues that a court is acting improperly solely by virtue of the fact that it is striking down a popular law is someone who doesn't believe in the American system of government created by the Founders.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-65512696882453712002008-05-22T10:40:00.000-07:002008-05-22T10:40:00.000-07:00That still does not negate the fact that you can't...That still does not negate the fact that you can't explain to me how a Constitutional Republic works.<BR/><BR/>Wikipedia has an excellent article on the topic, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the concept before you begin to argue the "will of the people".Guanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079983043190031994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-50785705724950746242008-05-22T10:34:00.000-07:002008-05-22T10:34:00.000-07:00obviously some strong feelings on both sides. we'...obviously some strong feelings on both sides. we're at an interesting point in america - new wine perhaps trying to break out of old wineskins.<BR/><BR/>but the name-calling and clever put-downs (which, of course, are my normal bread and butter) don't help the debate any.<BR/><BR/>we're at a point where we have to decide whether we take a step in a different direction. do we let sociologists and psychiatrists tell us thirty years from now whether or not it worked? or do we fall back on the time-proven adage that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it?<BR/><BR/>we're done with all the true/false and fill-in-the-blanks questions on our test; it's all essay questions from here...<BR/><BR/>mike rucker<BR/>fairburn, georgia, usa<BR/><A HREF="http://mikerucker.wordpress.com" REL="nofollow">mikerucker.wordpress.com</A>spud tooleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09921322553025339949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-14291388105485201612008-05-22T08:46:00.000-07:002008-05-22T08:46:00.000-07:00Obviously, not every person in the state came out ...Obviously, not every person in the state came out to vote. Not everyone is eligible (e.g. under age 18). Plus, we have millions of illegal aliens here in CA who are not eligible to vote.<BR/><BR/>As for the <B>legal</B> hispanic residents in CA are concerned, many feel the same way about marriage as what Rev. Sam Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference stated. See his quote in one of my previous comments.<BR/><BR/>The real battle here is about the definition of marriage or its redefinition. This is what Prop. 22 was about.<BR/><BR/>It is important to note that the 4.1 (approx.) million who <B>did vote represented 61% of the voters who turned out to cast their votes</B> in favor of Proposition 22. That means that only 39% voted against it. From what I recall in the news reports in the days leading up to that day, the "get out the vote" being led by homosexual activists and their cohorts was very powerful. Yet, they still lost.<BR/><BR/>I was reading <A HREF="http://volokh.com/posts/1211241839.shtml" REL="nofollow">this post</A> today and thought this comment summed up the situation quite well:<BR/><BR/><I>NJRob (mail):<BR/>John and others, <BR/><BR/>it's clear that what the courts did in California was not rule according to the text of the California Constitution, but instead decided how they feel the law ought to be is what is truly important. If the ballot initiative passes, the court would not have the jurisdiction to overrule it according to Federal Law. That would be a case that would have to be decided by the Supreme Court. There was a reason for the separation of the Federal courts and State courts. <BR/><BR/>As for feeling that "separate but unequal" comes into play in this case. It doesn't matter how you feel. The courts job is not to make you feel better, to right injustice, to be the enlightened philosopher that decides what laws govern us all. It instead is required to decide cases according to existing law and existing precendent. When the courts decide to actually start following the law, then we will begin to reclaim our country.<BR/>5.21.2008 7:03am</I>Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-35978041721469978472008-05-22T06:48:00.000-07:002008-05-22T06:48:00.000-07:004 million votes out of 38 million residents?Do you...4 million votes out of 38 million residents?<BR/><BR/>Do you even understand what a constitutional republic is?<BR/><BR/>I think I know the answer but I'd be curious to have you explain what you think it means.Guanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079983043190031994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-41862751662122780992008-05-21T22:20:00.000-07:002008-05-21T22:20:00.000-07:00Mark wrote, "It is no wonder most folks are more c...Mark wrote, <I>"It is no wonder most folks are more comfortable with a lie than the truth - a very strong sign that we are headed not towards reason and debate - but the death of an objective view of what is true. Tolerance has become the new universal moral value, and ironically it is most assuredly the most intolerant to any objective view of truth."</I><BR/><BR/>Yep...<BR/>Just as Scott's comments and insults here have so obviously demonstrated.Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-66904235096207683852008-05-21T22:16:00.000-07:002008-05-21T22:16:00.000-07:00Scott: "Otherwise, you're just somebody who needs ...Scott: <I>"Otherwise, you're just somebody who needs to feel superior to other people and complaining about a word like a silly 4 year old."</I><BR/><BR/>Does that mean that the 4 plus million voters in CA who also believe that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman are 4-year-olds too?<BR/><BR/>How about the millions in the 28 other states that voted likewise?<BR/><BR/>I think it has been revealed who the <I>really childish one is</I> in this discussion.Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-21819677174495592942008-05-21T16:56:00.000-07:002008-05-21T16:56:00.000-07:00Scott says That's kinda tough Christine. You don't...Scott says <I>That's kinda tough Christine. You don't own the word anymore, guess you'll have to divorce.</I><BR/><BR/>To re-define marriage is not the sign of a Govt correcting a wrong -it is clearly making a decree and a moral one at that! Marriage in fact means nothing but whatever the Govt decrees it to mean - the truth has become, in fact, a matter of opinion.<BR/><BR/>It is no wonder most folks are more comfortable with a lie than the truth - a very strong sign that we are headed not towards reason and debate - but the death of an objective view of what is true. Tolerance has become the new universal moral value, and ironically it is most assuredly the most intolerant to any objective view of truth. <BR/><BR/>If the Govt ordered that by law from this day forward an elephant shall now be called a diesel engine - there would be no logical difference. It has rendered the word meaningless.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10281126424462398813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-36981552852915762682008-05-21T16:42:00.000-07:002008-05-21T16:42:00.000-07:00Tell you what Christine. The second you campaign...Tell you what Christine. The second you campaign to ban divorce completely or even better, to rename everyone who's been married more than once's relationship to something other than marriage then I'll believe you're genuine in your arguements.<BR/><BR/>I've shown you what the constitution of CA plainly states, you're choosing to ignore that.<BR/><BR/>Join me right now and we'll start a movement to ban people from having second marriages.<BR/><BR/>Sure, they can have the rights of marriage, but we'll just make them call it something else. How about legal adultery.<BR/><BR/>If you want to go down the road of defining other people's relationships based on what your bible says, lets go for all of it.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, you're just somebody who needs to feel superior to other people and complaining about a word like a silly 4 year old.Guanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079983043190031994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-55315746660626868102008-05-21T16:35:00.000-07:002008-05-21T16:35:00.000-07:00You missed the subtle, but important point of my f...You missed the subtle, but important point of my first comment. Then you entirely ignored my second one.<BR/><BR/>So, just who is <I>really</I> the one doing "rational gymnastics" in this conversation?Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-60318238360467608532008-05-21T16:21:00.000-07:002008-05-21T16:21:00.000-07:00If you can find me a law on the books that uses th...If you can find me a law on the books that uses the word gay I'd like to see it.<BR/><BR/>You're grasping honey. Why don't you just come out and say you don't like the decision because now those icky queers get to call themselves equal to you.<BR/><BR/>I'd at least applaud your honesty. Doing rational gymnastics to hide your bias isn't very flattering.Guanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079983043190031994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-65361311421269991942008-05-21T15:46:00.000-07:002008-05-21T15:46:00.000-07:00Scott wrote: "All I care about is that our state ...Scott wrote: <I>"All I care about is that our state calls me equal under the law."</I><BR/><BR/>A false premise is created when homosexuals try to equate re-defining marriage with civil rights issues.<BR/><BR/>The attack on our marriage laws are false "civil rights" arguments claiming that the common sense definition of marriage is on a par with racial bigotry. Dennis Prager clearly points out this deliberate, deceptive distortion in his article.<BR/><BR/>Rev. Sam Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and advisory board member of the Alliance for Marriage said, "But ... there's nothing in our Constitution or adjudicated at the federal level that has defined marriage as [a] civil right, as [a] right of every citizen."<BR/><BR/>The "civil rights" deceptions are just a ruse being used by those who do not want the American people to be able to protect marriage for the sake of our children and grandchildren.Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-83803301472476417832008-05-21T15:34:00.000-07:002008-05-21T15:34:00.000-07:00So, you wouldn't mind if judges decide to change t...So, you wouldn't mind if judges decide to change the meaning of the word "gay" and force everyone to rename you and all homosexuals as "SAD"?<BR/><BR/>Words do have specific meanings, don't they?Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-55963565904898226952008-05-21T14:35:00.000-07:002008-05-21T14:35:00.000-07:00You're free to call me anything you'd like to, it'...You're free to call me anything you'd like to, it's a free country and I've got a pretty thick skin.<BR/><BR/>All I care about is that our state calls me equal under the law.Guanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079983043190031994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-41926322102450311792008-05-21T13:55:00.000-07:002008-05-21T13:55:00.000-07:00Scott wrote:"Is it ok if I keep calling my pants "...Scott wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>"Is it ok if I keep calling my pants "jeans" or do you prefer dungarees. I don't want to offend."</I><BR/><BR/>Is it OK if I call you a girlie man? Or, instead of "gay" if I label you SAD?<BR/><BR/>I don't want to offend.Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-535744349775590742008-05-21T13:51:00.000-07:002008-05-21T13:51:00.000-07:00Neil wrote:"The "interchangeability" argument is o...Neil wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>"The "interchangeability" argument is one of the most transparently false and contradictory arguments the GLBTQ groups make. How can they argue that one's sex is absolutely paramount when choosing a lover but completely irrelevant when defining parents?"</I><BR/><BR/>Excellent point and question! Makes me think that we should just drop that acronym, "GLBTQ groups" and call them what they are...<B><I>desperately confused!!</I></B>Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-87306739538222772862008-05-21T13:07:00.000-07:002008-05-21T13:07:00.000-07:00So you're having a fit over the word marriage?That...So you're having a fit over the word marriage?<BR/><BR/>That's kinda tough Christine. You don't own the word anymore, guess you'll have to divorce.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I'm going to keep calling my two gay friends who are raising a wonderful child a family if that's alright with you, since what other people call things seems to be so much of your business.<BR/><BR/>Is it ok if I keep calling my pants "jeans" or do you prefer dungarees. I don't want to offend.Guanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079983043190031994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-40532211703841461002008-05-21T11:53:00.000-07:002008-05-21T11:53:00.000-07:00Great article, Christine. That sums it up nicely....Great article, Christine. That sums it up nicely.<BR/><BR/>"That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father -- the sexes are interchangeable."<BR/><BR/>The "interchangeability" argument is one of the most transparently false and contradictory arguments the GLBTQ groups make. How can they argue that one's sex is absolutely paramount when choosing a lover but completely irrelevant when defining parents?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-68411563220348217952008-05-21T11:07:00.000-07:002008-05-21T11:07:00.000-07:00Scott,I suggest that you read this post. You will...Scott,<BR/><BR/>I suggest that you read <A HREF="http://talkwisdom.blogspot.com/2008/05/real-reason-ca-ct-ruled-as-it-did.html" REL="nofollow">this post.</A> You will learn that "Republican" doesn't always mean Conservative.<BR/><BR/>Plus, many voters do not research the ideological leanings of judges before they vote. That is very unfortunate. As that article link demonstrates, Republicans in CA can't be trusted to represent the pro-family advocates. This just shows that we need to do our homework before voting them in.<BR/><BR/>However, when Prop. 22 was on the ballot in 2000, more than 61% (over 4 million voters) KNEW what they were voting for. The majority wanted to keep marriage as the union of one man and one woman as the only recognized definition of the word and the union in California. <BR/><BR/>Twenty-Eight other states have done similar voting to protect marriage and its definition.<BR/><BR/>Your argument does not hold water.<BR/><BR/>Marriage has always been defined as the union of one man and one woman. The court did not interpret the law, they made new law while re-defining what marriage is, and should always be. Four judges are now guilty of inventing homosexual "marriage" out of thin air.<BR/><BR/>Plus the fact that they overruled what the 61% majority voted for regarding this issue. This shows bitter disregard towards the will of the people in California.<BR/><BR/>If the same-sex "marriage" proponents <I>really cared</I> about the laws in this state, they wouldn't be working so hard to keep the CA Marriage Protection Act from being placed on the ballot in November. The reason they are against it is because they know it will be overturned.<BR/><BR/>You are in error regarding that segment of the CA Constitution. You have just as much right to marry as anyone else. Marriage is defined as a union of one man and one woman. You have the same right to marry any woman of your choice.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I don't care who you sleep with, have sex with, or live with. If you are a homosexual male who wants to be with another male, go right ahead. Just don't call it marriage...because it isn't. Make up your own word instead of re-defining ours.Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-9200206559038412382008-05-21T10:44:00.000-07:002008-05-21T10:44:00.000-07:00Dear Susan,Your deliverance is marvelous proof of ...Dear Susan,<BR/><BR/>Your deliverance is marvelous proof of the power of God in our lives. When we are weak - He is strong. When we are faithless - He is faithful - and delivers us from evil.<BR/><BR/>Praise God!<BR/><BR/>Prayer is powerful! I am so thankful to have you, my faithful Christian sister, on the East Coast praying for us here in California!<BR/><BR/>Mr. Prager makes excellent points in his article. This terrible decision will not stand in California. The People will rise up against it in November and have their voices heard...loud and clear!<BR/><BR/>God bless with much love,<BR/>ChristineChristinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-61144139888116008832008-05-21T10:15:00.000-07:002008-05-21T10:15:00.000-07:00Let me get this straight. A supreme court, 6 of 7...Let me get this straight. A supreme court, 6 of 7 judges on it were nominated by Republican governors and confirmed by popular vote are "radical leftist judges"?<BR/><BR/>Their job is to decide whether laws are constitutional or not so when you actually read the CA Constitution, you come to a section that says this:<BR/><BR/><I>(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges<BR/>or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.<BR/>Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or<BR/>revoked.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Looks to me like these "radical left wing activist (fill in the blank)" judges were following the highest law of the state to the letter.<BR/><BR/>Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong.<BR/><BR/>Besides, why do I have to ask your permission to marry the person I am in love with?Guanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079983043190031994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-67078043662448949122008-05-21T09:54:00.000-07:002008-05-21T09:54:00.000-07:00Dear Christine—Thanks for posting this. Having pr...Dear Christine—<BR/><BR/>Thanks for posting this. Having practiced the sin of homosexuality for more than 20 years and also having practiced the sin of drunkenness for more than 30 years; I know God is using you to reveal more and more of His marvelous light. <BR/><BR/>Jesus delivered me completely. I am free today.<BR/><BR/>My prayer is for all to have ears to hear and eyes to see. There is no doubt, these words are precious and I would buy them as gold refined in the fire so I can become rich... (REV 3:18).<BR/><BR/>God bless you this day for continuing to be salt and light for the whole world. Much love to my “little” sister on the West coast... (ss)Susan Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01290399161065548291noreply@blogger.com