>>>Isn't that exactly what Boosh has been trying to do with his Supreme Court appointments? Violate the Constitution and destroy democracy. Quit your sniveling.

That would be unconstitutional in the fact that your personal liberties do not exceed the same equal liberties of all women 5'7 and taller. Your rights end at the threshold of infringing upon another's "equal" right of liberty. Thus, you can only have pursuit of your individual happiness as long as it does not subvert another's equal right to the same state of pursuing their happiness, life, or liberty. A simple concept and "guaranteed" not by law, but by decree of the Creator, as all three are deemed to be "unalienable" (no law can prohibit such). And our entire legal system was founded upon this simple concept. Its not as hard to understand as the pragmatic liberals would have you believe that accepts a doctrine of "relative" truth....or one that is to be judged pragmatically as to what each individual holds as truth. And this can certainly be evidenced by the fact of the lack of any standard of calibration of law and punishment. A case in point would be one that was in in the news just several weeks ago, one concerning the actor Wesley Snips. Why did he receive jail time for the exact same crime that the country singer Willy Nelson was charged and only fined? Was an example "pragmatically" made of the "black man" that evaded income tax? One can only guess because there is no cognation to any logic that can be found in having the same punishment for the same crime, just what indeed was the difference found to be? Can anyone answer? Enough ranting, but anyone can see where allowing different judges to pass out different judgments on the same law can lead.... to favoritism based upon the judges personal life experiences and not law, and certainly not equality. I hardly believe this was the example that our founding fathers had in mind upon conception of this nation. Justice is said to be blind, unless one is Christian, A black or white male with no money or social status nor celebrity, then it seems to gain 20/20 bigoted vision. And this court in CA. seemed indeed to have far superior vision than the voters as apparently they knew better than those that passed this law, I for one would like to see just what precedent was used in making such conclusion. BD

The judges here "made" law while they are only supposed to interpet it.
They clearly defied and overturned the will of the majority of votors.
While I am empathetic towards gay people an would be for civil unions.
we had a vote and they lost.
Maybe the next step is pologamy or maybe someone wants to marry a
horse.What next.The will of the majority must prevail .Otherwise our votes
mean nothing

The California Supreme Court or the US Supreme Court. I had not read their decision at the time, but in their rational for the decision they did explain the delema. The case is similar to the Mixed Race Marriage decision that may be incorporated into the California state Constitution.

These judges were all appointed by Republicans.

Even though conservtive judges ,they chose to ignore the will of the public
and actually made law.Thes judges need to be recalled!Given the chance to vote the issue again I am sure it would again be banned.

All I ever ask is for "everyone" to follow the precepts of our Common Constitution of guaranteed rights. If not, why bother with the sideshow....the state of California seems to believe that they do not have to consider the US Constitution nor the rights of the people to make law. It seems they continually go from the 9th article of the Bill of Rights right to number 11, just what ever happened to the 10th, it has not been quoted or used sense early in the 20th century. They just ignore its presence. Go figure. BD

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So far what I've seen in this thread mostly amounts to ad hominems and non sequitors.

Homosexuality has always been, and always will be, a natural part of the human race. Uncommon, certainly, just as green-eyed people are, but natural never the less. Depending on which side you talk to, anywhere from 3% to 10% of the human race has always been bi- or homosexual, and there is no reason to believe this millenia old trend will change.

Most of the current anti-gay equality movement is biblically motivated, and our US Constitution forbids laws based soley on religious doctrines at the Federal AND State levels.

The Justices did the right thing, fowarding the ideal of equality in a Nation Founded on that principle.

And for you who do not like the idea of gay-marriages, don't have one. Problem solved.

That indeed is a strange statement and certainly not inerrant, falsely assuming that laws based solely on religious doctrines are forbidden. When our entire legal system was drafted upon the principles set forth by Blackstone's theory of law. (Mainly used by the US Supreme Court of the United States well into the 20th century to establish precedent). You profess the same old misdirected ideology from the left that tries to steer people away from the true knowledge of history actual. Our legal system indeed was based upon religion, not only religion but the specific religion found only in the Jeudo-Christian faith. The very first two principles found in Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law are as such. 1) Man shall make NO LAW that directly contradicts any decree from the Creator of nature...aka God. 2) Exception...where the scriptures are silent and such decree can not be found in contradiction the Legislature has scope to draft their ideology of law. For instance man can draft no law that would make murder legal as this is a decree from the Creator however if there is no decree such as considering the import export of cotton etc....the legislature has scope to make law. This history is very easy proven, however it seems the liberal institutions of learning have not taught these principles from the early 1920s, about the same time as the 19th amendment was drafted....Go figure. And as far as the practice of homosexuality, that 3% does not make the practice NORMAL it makes it a deviation form the 97% that is NORMAL and capable of procreation, the driving force behind all nature, and nature indeed has a way of correcting DEVIATION as it mandates that it dies out in the very same generation that gestated this anomaly by making no means of continuing the abnormal bloodline. If nature by physical mandate rejects the practice thereof...why indeed should man accept such NORMAL. It simply is a Mental ailment, and should be addressed as such, and not accepted as normal for indeed it is anything but. BD

Commentaries on the Laws of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tucker's Blackstone: Contents

Blackstone's Commentaries

Our modern law and legal system is not based on morals or religious doctrine, but upon secular principles of utilitarian philosophy enunciated by Jeremy Bentham and his folliowers. See Jeremy Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789); cf., William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-69). Bentham was one of the great moralists of his time; but he realized that the law could not be based on morals or religious precepts. Both English and American jurisprudence have sided with Bentham’s positivism, and rejected the moral based doctrine of Blackstone; and his writings have further influenced the constitutions and laws of many European countries and the Americas. Indeed, we were fortunate to have adopted his philosophy sooner rather than later. Surely we wouldn’t want to have a legal system that sanctioned imprisonment for debt, where the punishment for every felony was death or transportation, and the law made no distinction in the case of minors.

Yes of course, our legal system nor government has absolutely nothing to do with Religion nor God. That's way it was mandated to place one's hand upon the Holy Scriptures before making sworn testimony, or why "In God We Trust" is scripted upon our "legal tender". That's why we have examples such as these in the recordings of our "HISTORY ACTUAL". 1) "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or to often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." {Patrick Henry} 2) "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." {George Washington} 3) "Our Laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are "EMPHATICALLY" Christian." -- {Supreme Court ruling 1883, Richmond v. Moore, Ill} 4) "We have stacked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have stacked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves...according to the Ten Commandments of God." -- {James Madison}
5) "The principles of all genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations are to be drawn form the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be assessory to all public disorders which society is doomed to suffer." -- {Noah Webster}. There are "MANY" more easily proven examples of just how indeed the laws of this land were based upon and drawn upon Blackstone's Theory of Law and Always referenced by even our Supreme Court until just recently in history. Liberal thinking people indeed like to be pragmatic...until it comes to the very pragmatic examples that history offers. But more precisely "WHO WILL COME TO THE AID OF THE WIDOW'S SON?" Can anyone say "FREE MASONS"? The true founders of this nation. BD