Federal Tyranny Proven By Proposition 8 Overthrow

Thursday, August 5, 2010

A liberal judge overthrew DOMA because, he said, federal government can't define marriage as excluding gays. It is up to the states. Not because it is discriminatory but because it is up to the states.

Well, now radical gay federal judge Vaughn Walker overthrows a state constitution that defines the word marriage while affording equal rights to gays. So the message here is that ANYTHING is up to the states.... unless the judge doesn't like how the states handle it.

Judge Vaughn Walker, is gay and close friend to San Francisco gay politicians. Judge Walker ruled in favor of "gay rights" in previous cases.

In 2005, gay judge Walker ruled against Oakland city employees who posted fliers promoting "natural family, marriage and family values." Walker wrote in his decision that the government should push "significant interests in restricting discriminatory speech about homosexuals. . . . a duty under state law to prevent workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

In 1999, he threw out a case against a boy whose teacher made "pro-gay comments" in the classroom (I can't find anywhere exactly what those comments were.)

But this isn't really about gay rights when it comes down to it. This whole thing was about a word- marriage. Civil unions were equal, but the gays (more like the liberals who instigated them) wanted the word marriage, which has previously been religious and sacred. Now it is secular. This is the federal government overthrowing our constitution and the vote of the people. Naturally they first target the family and religious freedoms. With the stroke of his pen, this gay tyrant overthrew the vote of 7 million people, and it will soon spread to all 320 million people in this country.

As we pointed out earlier, the Gay Tyrant even tried to release the list of everyone who donated to the private organization which tried to protect marriage in all this.

1 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Prop 8 issue is about America defining the word MARRIAGE for the 21st century: Can marriage be between people of the same sex? Some say this is a civil rights issue - that the civil rights of any group must be recognized regardless of the “GENERAL WELFARE” and “TRANQUILITY” of the rest. If that is the legal intent of the Constitution I want to ask you some questions - Can marriage be between a human and an animal? And NO, please don't be childish and rant that I am comparing same sex marriage to bestiality because that is not what I am saying. But the question needs to be asked. If a group of people want to marry animals, who is anyone to say that "morals" or "tradition" or "decency" should overrule "civil rights". Second question - Can marriage be between an adult and a child? What if civil rights activists lobby for the age of consent to be moved down over the next 100 years to 12? What if a large group of people in 2110 protest their "civil right" to marry 12 year old children? The POINT is - do we really understand civil rights as laid out in the US Constitution - rights written in an environment that fought to protect the GENERAL WELFARE of the American people. I propose that we grossly misunderstand the American Founders' view of "civil rights".

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).