Bad decision. 10th amendment. State's rights issue. Due process violation only occurs because of previous 18,000 marriage licenses issued. The appropriate ruling would be to declare null the 18,000 marriage licenses issued and remand the entire matter back to the state court.
Also on issues like this it should just go directly to the supreme court. When a state and a former US solicitor general are squaring off, it's going all the way to SCOTUS no matter what happens in the lower courts. Justice long delayed is justice denied. Supreme court should just hear cases like this immediately through original jurisdiction and spare the legal system 2-3 years of litigation.
Human rights are not states rights. Human rights are human rights. You cannot allow certain citizens while denying others. The last time this happened was when African Americans were denied the right to marriage. That was wrong then just as it is wrong now.
Human rights appear nowhere in the Constitution. You can talk about vague UN statements about how everything from the internet to free condoms is a right. What matters is what the Constitution actually says, and not what you wish it said.
Exactly. Human Rights are not in the Constitution. Because you cannot legislate Human Rights. As the Declaration of Independence states we have the right to, "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Which is the very basis of Human Rights. Something our forefathers understood quite well. You cannot legislate human rights. Banning citizens the right to marriage is wrong. We knew that when African Americans fought for that same basic right.
Dear Judge Walker, Thank you for a guaranteed victory and an extra 5%-7% of the popular turnout in November. Love, Conservatives everywhere. We must ask a legitimate question at this point, however. This is clearly the most heineous example of the runaway activist judiciary in years. At what point do we say, "Let's just stop having legislative branches or voter referendums at all? Just let judges make all the decisions since that's what they do anyways." I guess votes don't matter anymore, just out of control judges.
Shocka! Turns out that the judge who made this ruling is an out and open homosexual. And, whaddyaknow, he finds in favor of himself. Checks and balances indeed!
So tell us Sir Elliot. Why do you think it's important to ban gays from marriage? What is your justification for denying people the right that you have?
Go to the politics page. It should be the 3rd or 4th thread from the top. My OP answers your question. Marriage is not a right.
So... if he were a straight judge and ruled in favor of Prop. 8.. I could make the same claims? What does his being homosexual have to do with his judgment? Are straight judges influenced by their sexual orientation? Doesn't that invalidate any judgment ever made in the history of law? You can do better than that.
WTF?!?! All sorts of things can be denied that are not rights. Such as driving a car, which is not a right but a privilege. Nice try though. I guess.