PROP 8 UPHELD BY COURT

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Breaking!!! Police have started arresting rioters in front of the San Francisco city hall

Don't think it's over yet

The 18,000 "gay marriages" already performed (including the non-marriage marriages illegally performed by Gavin Newsome, I assume) are here to stay. And opponents are already scheming to seek a "comprimise" civil marriage bill with hidden wording that they will twist into gay marriage.

A spokesman for Governator Backstabber said that he was "hoping it would go the other way. But it didn't, and he will uphold what they have to say. ... He's always said it's not his job to impose that upon others, so he believes that someday soon, either the courts or the people will give same-sex individuals the right to marry. But it's his duty as governor to carry out whatever the Supreme Court says he needs to do."

Protesters are blocking traffic freely in San Francisco, Palo Alto, and Sacramento without any police interference.

Carlos Moreno was the only judge to vote against the people's right to control their constitution.



COMMENT FROM WHO IS JOHN GALT?:

I am very glad that the California Supreme Court saw fit to uphold the democratic action of the people. To do anything else would have been judicial tyranny and the people would have removed some or all of those justices from office (as we did the incompetent Grey Davis).

But I am not happy that they made it clear they were doing it “with the gun pointed to their heads,” figuratively speaking. And I am not happy that they took the words “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” to mean that only the gay marriages performed during the loophole they so idiotically/subversively opened (depending on what you believe their motives were) will be valid and recognized by the state.

No, the State Supreme Court did not uphold the will of the people today; they caved on one point to save their worthless hides, while showing their true colors on the second. Their decision was not a compromise, it is a rebellion and an expectation that “gay marriage” will soon be legalized again anyways. I would still be in favor of repealing some of those liberal hacks. Goodness knows, all branches of the California government need shaken up and aired out.



1 comments:

I am very glad that the California Supreme Court saw fit to uphold the democratic action of the people. To do anything else would have been judicial tyranny and the people would have removed some or all of those justices from office (as we did the incompetent Grey Davis).

But I am not happy that they made it clear they were doing it “with the gun pointed to their heads,” figuratively speaking. And I am not happy that they took the words “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” to mean that only the gay marriages performed during the loophole they so idiotically/subversively opened (depending on what you believe their motives were) will be valid and recognized by the state.

No, the State Supreme Court did not uphold the will of the people today; they caved on one point to save their worthless hides, while showing their true colors on the second. Their decision was not a compromise, it is a rebellion and an expectation that “gay marriage” will soon be legalized again anyways. I would still be in favor of repealing some of those liberal hacks. Goodness knows, all branches of the California government need shaken up and aired out.

Post a Comment

 
 
 

Save the Constitution

Declaration of Liberty

In memory of our God, our Nation, our Religions, our Freedom, our Peace, our Families and our Fallen Dead;

WE THE PEOPLE declare that We will Never Yield to those who would place us in bondage. We will live for the Constitution and we will die for the Constitution, for we know that it was inspired of God for all of his Children.


http://digitalnetworkarmy.com
 
Copyright © 2009-2010 Good Sense, All Rights Reserved.

Articles, quotes, comments, and images are the exclusive property of their respective authors, who own all rights to their use. Articles do not necessarily represent the views of Good Sense or its contributers. All copyrighted materials appearing on this site and not derived by contributing authors are protected by and used according to “Fair Use” as described in sections 107 through 118 of the U.S. Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code).