Blogs
Today's ruling tramples on the will of the people and sadly, it seems judicial activists are determined to advance their personal radical agenda. That's why I believe it's time for a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. That is the only action that will truly protect marriage.
Comments 1-48 of 48
- « First
- < Prev
- Next >
- Last »
-
Jill 4 America
08/14/2010 12:31 PM
Peter,
you don't have to apologize. You know, I can really identify with how you feel and many Americans. We are bombarded with so much negativism now in our country and unfortunately there is so many reasons to be concerned. Sometimes, one just has to back away and give some of it a rest to help keep our sanity. Duties on the home-front always abound staring us in the face.
My goodness, you really do have your hands full with those 3 little ones and one on the way! They must be your priority!
Someone just reminded me today that God parted the Red Sea ... So He is our anchor in the midst of the storm!
I am making note of your email add. Thanks for sending ... God bless ! -
Patriot 4America
08/14/2010 05:30 AM
RE: Jill
I am truly sorry, I am already in not a such good mood. I have decided not to watch the video you posted. I PROMISE I will soon though. How much can we take? I pray and pray for the USA (it's people) to come to knees, pray and repent. I have three children, five and younger, even one on the way! :-D ! I truly do fear for their future in the USA.....how sad!!! Jill, if you want, you can contact me at minnesotaprince@hotmail.com This is my tertiary dot com e-mail address. It would be great to hear from you. GOD BLESS! Peter -
Jill 4 America
08/12/2010 11:38 PM
Peter,
Is Sharia Law coming to a State near you?
http://hiswordfirst555.ning.com/profiles/blogs/nteb-minnesota-under-attack -
Patriot 4America
08/12/2010 01:26 AM
RE:
Jill and Kelly:
I am thankful that you girls enjoyed the songs/videos I posted.
I actualy find a lot of truth in those songs.
May God Bless the USA!
God Bless!
Peter
-
Jill 4 America
08/10/2010 11:28 PM
Kelly Hughart, thank-you so much for sharing your thoughts and perspectives. It is evident that God has definitely blessed you with his wisdom and you will make some children a wonderful mother someday!
Yes, that is a very wise 15 yr old isn't it? I remember of being very patriotic in grade school. We were always singing 'My Country tis of thee' and the National Anthem, etc. I was very much into watching the GOP's presidential conventions on t.v. and I was entertained by all the physical floor fights in those days in both party's conventions. The demo's, as usual ... seemed to have an upper-hand on bullying. Ha! Back then, I think we took an awful lot for granted ... and couldn't imagine the possibility of ever losing our freedoms. We thought that it was all a done deal and we didn't really have to fight and pray to keep them ... But then again, I was just a kid ..
That is a great idea you have about Haggard's song being remade by another talented artist and as we said, the shoe still fits in today's society 40+ yrs. later.
YES, indeed ... the right message and song can be very empowering!!Hoping and praying also that the recent ruling on Prop 8 will be overruled and the will of the majority of the people will stand.
Would love an amendment to the constitution on that but this supreme court is going to have to do an about-face and start leaning to the right for that to happen.
But with God ... all things are possible! -
Los Angeles, Mike
08/10/2010 03:36 PM
Thx,Brian. I grew up playing chess. Some kids in other households grew up playing Go I suppose. Your guess is correct about the board game (see ref below)
cf wikipedia entry excerpt belowGo originated in ancient China more than 2,500 years ago, and although it is not known exactly when the game was invented, by the 3rd century BC it was already a popular pastime, as indicated by a reference to the game in the Analects of Confucius. Archaeological evidence shows that the early game was played on a board with a 17×17 grid, but by the time that the game spread to Korea and Japan in about the 7th century boards with a 19×19 grid had become standard.
-
Hughart, Kelly
08/10/2010 12:48 PM
Jill 4 America, I could not agree with you more! This entire country is going down the toilet. I must say, I'm impressed with the 15 year old you mentioned, being ashamed of his own generation. When I was 15, I wasn't even thinking about political matters. That was way back in 1983. Now here it is 2010, and things are such a mess! I just can't help but take a stand for what I believe in. Having been raised by conservative parents and being a conservative myself, I'm proud to do my part to help get this country back to normal.
BTW, I haven't heard that Merle Haggard song in years. Even though that song is from the 60's, it just speaks volumes about what's happening in today's world. I wish that one of today's country music artists would do a remake of that song and put it back on the radio. It would sure get a message out about how we conservatives feel about the mess our country is in! Songs like that make me feel empowered.
I hope we can get this Prop 8 ruling appealed soon. It just sickens me that this has happened. I'm not a wife or a Mom yet, but when I am, my kids are probably going to ask me where I stood on the marriage debate when they're old enough to understand this whole thing. I want to be able to tell them that I did my part to keep marriage the way God intended. As a union between a man and a woman. Hopfully, this whole marriage debate will be resolved by then, and marriage will permanently be a union between a man and a woman. I was raised as a Christian and a conservative, and I want to raise my kids the same way. I want them to understand that while we hate certain lifestyles, we are not to hate people. Love the sinner and hate the sin.
-
BDS
08/09/2010 06:20 PM
RE: Los Angeles, Mike
08/09/2010 09:59 AMI don't know what the "8 x 8, 19 x 19" metaphor refers to. A game board? If that was an expression of modesty, you're definitely up to the task intellectually, Mike. I've seen many of your other opinions. That's why I initially expressed shock that you appeared to be going easy on Kagan and Graham.
I think I saw the whole thing from a different context, different history, than did you.
-
Jill 4 America
08/09/2010 10:47 AM
Peter,
thank-you for sharing these two videos. Who can't love Merle Haggard ??!! Such a distinct voice. He could sing the dictionary and make it sound good!
These are exceptional quality videos. Most importantly, the lyrics of those songs of the 'sixties' and how pertinent or apropos to what is going on in our country today ... They are "walkin on the fightin side of me" ... Yes, they are !! Running down our country and trampling on our constitution! I guess those radical leftist craZies from the sixties ... are responsible for some of the craZiness that is going on today.... I read the comment there from a 15 yr old (mind you) who said that he was so ashamed by his own generation ... Now, if HE can "get it" ... what does it say about the older generations ?? !!
Have some of today's leaders brains been literally fried and left impaired from the drug use ... that they can no longer reason intelligently ??!! The God of this world has surely blinded them! -
Los Angeles, Mike
08/09/2010 09:59 AM
BDS 08/08/2010 06:23 PM
Dr. David 08/08/2010 02:18 PMThank you guys for helping me wrestle through this issue and fill in some of the gaps. Have to think about your posts some more. I am playing on an 8 x 8; you two are on a 19 x 19.
Indeed, there is a distinction to be made between intellectual capacity and special knowledge and wisdom and integrity. I suppose Sen Graham's behavior impressed me. I guess I have been forced to ask myself what is the job of a US senator and what is it that sets great leaders apart from just good ones or horrible ones.
I also went online to view the Chris Wallace interview with Ted Olson. Interesting that "My Man Mitch" was on the same show and also saw Olson as being sincere about his position. So perhaps losing a wife in 9/11 like Olson did could have triggered a profound desire to defend "love of a person" in general seeing it is so hard to come by and so easy to lose. It is not intentional chaos making.
It is a lot to think about: the actions of folks like Graham, Kagan, Walker, Boies, and Olson. Thanks for reasoning with me.
-
BDS
08/08/2010 06:23 PM
RE: Los Angeles, Mike
08/07/2010 09:55 PMMike, thank you for your gracious and thoughtful reply.
In short, your faith in Kagan to do "the right thing" is blind faith, not predicated upon any evidence whatsoever. Moreover, your hope for her runs contrary from her real history - what little history is known of her.
Most people are tempted to say anything to be elevated to positions of extraordinary power, influence, or personal gain. Disciples of Alinsky, e.g. Obama & Co., do so as a matter of course. A prime Alinsky directive that was ingrained in these Chicago leftist revolutionaries is to speak the moral language of the masses and of the middle class ONLY as a means to gain power, NOT because they actually believe what they are saying (the New-Order ends justify any means necessary, Alinsky taught). Kagan was coached by the White House to speak in terms that sound palatable, soothing, mainstream, and moderate to your ears. I'm afraid you and Lindsey Graham have been snookered.
That charade is why the tide of popular opinion is turning harshly against Obama. People are figuring out that they were deceived in 2007-08, not with the incredible campaign promises typical of politicians, but with outright lies about the very nature of the man. He sold himself as moderate, post-racial, a healer, a uniter. He has proven to be anything but. An extreme leftist ideologue, in fact, who's running the economy further into the ground, fanning the flames of racial division, and all but provoking the South to rise again with his arbitrary and capricious oppression of Arizona and the Gulf states. If only the majority of Americans had exercised the discernment to look past the RHETORIC, and examine the RECORD. It was always available to those who dared to look: the appallingly radical and extremist record of his Chicago days and even before. But most people chose rhetoric over record.
This bitter lesson being learned nineteen months into this presidency, and you would fall for the same bait-and-switch all over again? Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
You essentially stated that whether Kagan will do the right thing depends upon "if Judge Kagan has the intellectual capacity and legal knowledge." This is another grave mistake Americans have fallen into in recent times: the confusion of wisdom with intelligence. Many intellectual people (e.g. Peggy Noonan, engineers I work with) assumed that since Obama has a higher IQ than McCain and Palin (for the sake of argument, let's assume that he does), then he would make better decisions, be a better leader, be more apt at doing the right thing. These aptitudes flow more from wisdom than from knowledge or IQ. Wisdom is derived from the fear of the Lord. The intellectuals that are pumped out of the secular humanist "elite" universities worship not the Lord, but their own minds. Obama worships himself. Obama is an educated fool. That is why his decisions derived from his warped worldview are ruining the country. Do not confuse wisdom with knowledge, my friend.
I don't give a rip about Olson, Boies, or Walker. They aren't elected, and they weren't appointed by anyone who is elected. There's no shortage of misquided hotshot lawyers eager to work out their personal issues via courtroom power trips. If not these three specifically, then it would be some one else. (Moving on.)
Lindsey Graham's appropriation of the Golden Rule is misguided. One can treat Kagan or anyone else amicably and respectfully as a person just as Christ would do AND still oppose their candidacy on principle - for their dangerous ideas or lack of integrity. Kagan has some record of dangerous ideas and flagrant lack of integrity. In Sen. Graham's misguided mind, to oppose Kagan's nomination would be to disrespect her personally. I think his misapplication of Christian ethics may also be the key to some of his wrongheaded positions on some other issues too.
-
Dr. David
08/08/2010 02:18 PM
Los Angeles, Mike 08/07/2010 09:55 PM. I saw Ted Olson interviewed by Chris Wallace on FOX this morning (and yes it is the same Olson and Boies who dueled in the 2000 election). Olson is an intelligent and experienced man, and I came away believing that he honestly holds the view he defended, namely, that gay Americans should have the right to marry. I knew that Wallace (or the people who write his questions) would be no match for him, and they were not.
The point I would have made to Olson is that numerous laws are on the books simply because they reflect activities which most people find objectionable, for examples, having heterosexual sex in a public park. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits public sex, and having a law against it does nothing to advance sex in private. But those are essentially the arguments that Olson made in favor of gay marriage. Those arguments were specious, but they won the day. The next Court is notoriously liberal, and will undoubtedly uphold the judge's finding, so it will finally be up to the Supreme Court to make the decision. It will be interesting to see whether your suspicion that Elena Kagan will vote with the conservatives is justified. If so, it will be a great call on your part.
-
Patriot 4America
08/08/2010 05:44 AM
And please view this video also. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFHJ41ktt3Q&feature=related
-
Patriot 4America
08/08/2010 05:30 AM
What does this song mean to you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHAFmFsb9XM Peter
-
Los Angeles, Mike
08/07/2010 09:55 PM
Re: Walker, Olson, and Boies
BDS 08/07/2010 04:32 AM
Brian, thank you for your thoughts. It must be very hard having both the Kagan results announced at the same time the "team" of Walker,Olson and Boies announced a false victory in their attempt to redefine marriage at the expense of the will of the people and health of USA society. This re-structuring of California and America by legal fiat,biased liberal media deception, and intimidation of the electorate is very hard to stomach. I apologize if my previous comment helped you lose your lunch. I still think it should not have been over Sen Graham's reason for supporting the Kagan nomination to the SC. I guess you thought I am going over the edge and were disgusted to think you may be losing a conservative thinker. Thanks for caring for me in your way. I mean that. I really do.
Speaking of behavior, I am more worried about the Prop 8 thing and the behavior of Walker, Olson and Boies. Their action should be stopped in the 9th. If not, it will go to the Supreme Court. And, Brian, you just might be shocked (along with many others) that Elena Kagan may wish to not recuse herself from this case(which I initially hoped would be the case based on precedent), but actually sit with the other colleagues and have a go at it (if she is free from any advisory role she may have played in the Gore 2000 case with big boys like Daley in Chicago and Boies).
The shock will be that if Judge Kagan has the intellectual capacity and legal knowledge to match it upstairs which Sen Graham trusts that she has, she may actually be able to see all the violations, sloppiness, and weakness of the Walker-Olson-Boies position and strike it down with the professionalism and objectivity that will impress all. Elections have consequences. California clearly is not Massachusetts.
An important point that was made about Prop 8 earlier was shared by Julie 4 America. While Julie 4 America brings to light legal and conflict of interest troubles with Judge Walker's position, others in previous HuckPac discussions have pointed out a real need to look at Olson and Boies with special attention paid to Boies.
If I recall, Boies is the same D. Boies who represented Gore in the Gore vs Bush state election matter in 2000 that incredibly went to the Supreme Court. And Olson is the T. Olson who amazingly helped represent Bush. You have heard of keeping your enemy close and your identity politics scheme up-to-date? Olson(lose interpretation of marriage) loses last wife tragically in 9/11 attacks. Walker is not elected by the people and has personal issues that come with power ascribed as such. You have no idea where these guys are coming from emotionally and legally on in this case. No clue. The conflicts are so obvious that the sloppy position is only the natural result. But Boies is the strategists whose personal life, as messed up as it is, is the one who started this game of not taking "no" for an answer even if it means messing up the chess board to win at all costs. This is the guy who thinks he can mess up our chess board because he is not a fellow piece on it. He has decided he is the board.
Finally, unlike Walker, Boies and Olson who have sold out to special interests and their own, Senator Graham has not. It is one thing to serve a client at all costs, and it is another to be elected by people from a state like Graham was to work to the best of his ability in the light of day to share his conservative views and positions with other elected officials from our nation who may not hold the same views. Not everyone is cut from such a cloth as Graham; he obviously has a high tolerance for pain and a special skill to be able to articulate his ideas and beliefs well, even keel when most would be yelling, able to build up people instead of tear them down, even if he knows some are using him and are clueless of his goodness.
-
Jill 4 America
08/07/2010 12:50 PM
Gillin, Brian
I think I see where you are coming from but for me, and multitudes of Christian conservatives ... we take seriously and believe that if we apply, obey and practice God's laws, his warnings and admonitions written in the holy scriptures of what constitutes a marriage (a union of 1-man/1-woman), God then can bless our nation in ways that man cannot conceive of. We then can be at peace with our God and within ourselves. We then have the faith to know that our God is true to his promises and he will honor our obedience. "He is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us." (Eph.3:20)
(I Cor.2-14)
For the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(Romans 8: 6,7)
"For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."I cannot say that I am sorry for having to use the scriptures. America's Founding ideals have their roots in Judeo-Christian tradition. It should not be surprising that the Bible is quoted often as the source of the Founders' thinking for studies have shown the Bible is by far the most often quoted source in all of the publications and speeches of the founding era.
P.S. Read Mike Huckabee's book
"Do the Right Thing".
If we do the right thing, God can take care of our economic and national-security issues, etc ! -
BDS
08/07/2010 04:32 AM
Los Angeles Mike, here's another reason you may like to give Lindsey Graham a pass for his "yea" vote on Kagan: he was inspired by Jesus to do so.
Sen. Graham's mistake is that he made this confirmation process personal.
Never mind that ideas have consequences.
Never mind that a judge could exercise the power (and some do) to trample people, rob people, kill people.
What was before Sen. Graham was a proven evidence-tampering radical pro-partial-birth-abort nominee, and all Sen. Graham could say is: "Hnnn, she theemth like a nithe gal."
Hey Sen. Graham: When you did unto Kagan as you were have her do unto you (vote for you, ahem), did you consider all the horrific things you will do unto 300 million+ Americans over the next 30+ years via Kagan?
-
Fliginger, Ryan
08/06/2010 08:29 PM
After reading some of the other posts, a few arguments keep resurfacing:
1. It was the will of the people to ban gay marriage.
2. This is not traditional marriage.
3. I just plain don't like it.All of these were covered in the judges ruling, particularly the will of the majority
...That the majority of California voters
supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as “fundamental rights may
not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no
elections...No one has addressed that argument: WHY should the will of the majority dictate the lives of a minority.
The answer is that the will of the majority may, and in many cases, does impact the lives of a minority. The caveat is that they must have sufficient reason to do so.
Even the supporters of Prop. 8 in court admitted that they had no sufficient reason, nor was any benefit gained by banning gay marriage.
The experts who lead the charge to ban gay marriage realized that their arguments do not hold up to any form of critical thinking or objective analysis.
-
Gillin, Brian
08/06/2010 06:21 PM
I don't have a problem with gay marriage, but I think that those of us who are pleased with how things are starting to look for November should leave this issue alone, whether we were for Prop. 8 or not. Things are looking good for the Republican party this year -- especially after so many had it written off for dead 18 months ago -- in large part because of the independents' support. Let's not kiss that goodbye by getting bogged down in gay marriage when economic and national-security issues are helping lead the way.
-
Notchick, Jeremy
08/06/2010 01:28 PM
Mike,
I am so greatful that there are people like you trying to fight to bring government back down on it's knees in service to Christ. Our government used to represent our Christian beliefs and way of life to the fullest, now adays they are diametrically opposed to our faith and freedoms. Mike, thank you for taking a stand on this issue, it is very close to me as I live about 20 miles outside Los Angeles. Thanks you for making the unpopular choice on this issue and standing united with us. -
Jill 4 America
08/06/2010 01:15 PM
From: American Family Association
Time to impeach Judge Vaughn Walker
Contact your representative today and urge him to start impeachment proceedingsYesterday (August 4), Judge Vaughn Walker of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals single-handily overturned California's Prop. 8, which elevated protection for one-man, one-woman marriage to its state constitution.
In doing so, he frustrated the express will of seven million Californians who went to the polls to shape their state's public policy on marriage.Since marriage policy is not established anywhere in the federal Constitution, defining marriage, according to the 10th Amendment, is an issue reserved for the states. Judge Walker never should have accepted this case in the first place.
Under Judge Walker, it's no longer "We the People," it's "I the Judge."
In addition, Judge Walker is an open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest.
What can be done?
http://www.capwiz.com/afanet/issues/alert/?alertid=15659516&type=COThank-you Peter, a "True Patriot" for those kind words! Keep up the the good fight like you already are !! and God bless you! :)
-
Bouchard, Ann
08/06/2010 07:59 AM
Just for the sake of it in this post all I want to say is no matter how much we try to reason our way through issues and use logic the liberal stand just keeps on coming. This also indicates to me that because we keep doing the same thing over and over we get the same results. More liberal people in the wrong places at the wrong time. We need illumination. The only way I know how to get it is through meditation. Pray for the answers and meditate to receive the answers. God Bless America... America needs it.
-
Patriot 4America
08/06/2010 02:41 AM
Jill 4 America,
You truly are a "girl with a Star Spangled Heart"! May God Bless you and keep you! Also, thanks for posting your great comments as I enjoy reading them all. Peter
-
Dr. David
08/06/2010 12:56 AM
Straffin, Ethan 08/05/2010 03:02 AM. A century ago, public support for the prohibition of alcohol increased across the United States. The Federal government in its wisdom passed laws against alcohol use. These laws resulted in widespread bootlegging, racketeering, and other crime, followed by an ultimate reversal of this well intended law with its unintended consequences.
The fact that support for gay marriage is increasing in our population should be interpreted in this light. If gay marriage is legalized in this country, it will have no effect on the natural biological impulse of most people to be repelled by homosexuality. There will probably be an increase in violence against gay people, and covert discrimination of various kinds. Sooner or later, that law will also be overturned, and the situation brought into conformity with natural law (i.e. God's Law).
We must think in terms of what is best for society as a whole, and not give in to what the loudest minority demands. Marriage has always been between one man and one woman because that's in society's best interest. Let's hope that the silent majority finds its voice and sets things straight before we have another failed social experiment with all its attendant pain and suffering.
-
Hughart, Kelly
08/05/2010 10:43 PM
Like many Americans, I am fed up with judicial activism. It's time to impeach these bozos! I agree with Mike Huckabee that they have no right to legislate from the bench. It's their job to uphold the Constitution, not create new laws. After what happened yesterday with Proposition 8, we definitely need to impeach Judge Walker. And I also agree that it's time for a federal amnedment that will permanently define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It should be an amendment that nobody can tamper with.
The reason these activist judges keep getting away with what they do is because we keep allowing them to do it. Then we complain about what a huge mess our country is in. The longer these judges remain on the bench, the longer we will have to put up with their crap. The time to fight back and impeach these activist judges in NOW! We must not let them get away with this any longer!
-
Ron and Dottie in Fl
08/05/2010 09:00 PM
There is something wrong with the picture. Not how the judge ruled, but this judge shouldn't have been the one to rule. Would you say there is could be a little bias or payback in this judges decision.
People give tons of time / resources / money to put an amendment / proposition on a ballot for a vote by the public. I believe there needs to be more than just one person making the ruling, to omitt what the people have voted on.
Using this ruling as a precedent, there needs to be a lot more up front, before going through the enormous effort to put something on the ballot, if one biased judge / individual has the power to throw the peoples vote back into the voters faces.
The people are losing control / freedom / liberty via one judge or ruling, one brick at a time. The government doesn't need congress anymore. Just bring in the right judge or pass an executive order or just say the times are changing this is what you really needed or should have voted on.
-
Lorien, Violet
08/05/2010 08:36 PM
It doesn't matter what the issue is, constitutionally we cannot put rights up to a vote. The Judicial branch, and the concept of judicial review, exists to protect the rights of unpopular minorities from the "tyranny of the majority". Many of the supreme court cases that most people are familiar with -- Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia, for example -- were cases in which the courts were called on to impose fairness on laws that segregated schools and prohibited interracial marriage. The laws that were struck down were passed with the support of the majority, but our constitution protects the rights of all of us, whether we are in the minority or the majority.
One of the previous comments here noted that the prop. 8 proponents who argued this in court put on a terrible case. Read the transcripts; witnesses who were called to testify about the evils and harms that same-sex marriage poses to society/children/marriage/families/etc. eventually admitted that their sources were things like "common sense" and "the internet". While the attorneys arguing against prop 8 put on a detailed evidentiary case, with many experts and studies backing them up. It would have been incredibly difficult for any judge regardless of their personal or political views to rule in favor of keeping prop 8 on the books. There was simply no credible evidence to even begin to back up the claims that were made.
If you see this as a potential assault on your religious freedom, it might be good to remember that there are many kinds of minorities, and if at some point voters in a state enact a law that violates your rights to practice your religion, there will be judges who can use this case as precedent to strike them down.
-
BDS
08/05/2010 08:11 PM
RE: Los Angeles, Mike
08/05/2010 06:47 AMack...huarghhh!
(I just lost my lunch.)Mike, the sentimental-naïve display in your post below is exactly the kind of ignore-the-record
thinkingfeeling with one's glands that, on a massive scale, got Obama elected and has fast-tracked the transformation of our republic into a social democracy ruled by charlatans, fascists, and tyrants in black robes.So you're saying that the "wise and senatorial" Sen. Graham approved of
one ofthe most unqualified yet radically-ideological SCOTUS nomineesin American history in order to teach everyone some lessons?
* Lesson #1: a "protest" vote to teach Obama some statesmanship, and
* Lesson #2: a rubber-stamp stick-it-in-our-eye vote to teach all of us dullards that elections have consequences?
(!)If Sen. Graham wants to make darn sure we've learned our elections-have-consequences lesson, and if he's going to be consistent, then he needs to pledge himself to be a "yes man" for the president's agenda from here on out.
What a crock of bull. What we have here actually is Sen. Graham's luke-warm pansyism masquerading as a patronizing "I'm doing this for your own good."
Justice Kagan is a disciple of Thurgood Marshall? You mean the Thurgood Marshall whose stated judicial philosophy is "Do what you think is right and let the law catch up"? (Yay!)
Sen. Graham got Ms. Kagan to state that she tells the truth? (Oh my...what comfort!)
And the confirmation of Elena Kagan made possible by the likes of Sen. Graham warms your heart because you take it on blind faith that she would recuse herself from the greatest hot-button issues of our era? Not a chance!
Elena Kagan's record is one of ends-justify-the-means radical leftist activism. (She tampered with written medical testimony in order to ensure that Prez Clinton would veto a partial-birth-abortion ban, for crying out loud!)
If anything, yesterday's federal court strike-down of Prop 8 should have made every conservative double their efforts to make sure that radicals are kept off the bench because, when Prop 8 gets to the SCOTUS (and it will), Kagan could very well be the decisive vote in a decision that would strike down every "defense of marriage" statute in every state in America, thereby instituting "gay marrige" nation-wide.
Thanks a lot, Mike.
If you really believe that load about Sen. Graham and Justice Kagan, then may I suggest that Jerry Brown's having traded in his '74 Plymouth Satellite for a Camry Hybrid proves he will make a superb next governor of California!
-
henderson, cary
08/05/2010 07:54 PM
> There is a lot of discussion by gays, liberals, progressives, and groups promoting racial issues. Each of them says they are defending "rights". Many of these groups or individuals are confusing rights with privileges. They try by various means to blur the difference between the two. The reason is obvious, They wish to become part of a privileged class. This concept is pushed on them by liberal politicians to buy votes. This action has infiltrated our society and stokes fear and controvercy. All a politician has to do is play the appropriate card and he has the votes of the aspiring class.
On an aside Governor, would you consider putting a FairTaxNation button on your main page? We'd like to create a new privilidged class "Americans". -
2Kings22-23
08/05/2010 01:52 PM
A brief response to another comment based of Neil Boortz this morning (who was in favor of the ruling but for different reason).
Paraphrase:
Boortz: There is no right that you or I have that gays/lesbians do not have.
Gay guy: But I don't have the right to marry the one I love and you do!
Boortz: Ah, but I do have the right to marry the one of love, if it's a woman. And I do not have the right to marry another man. The same goes for you. We're both treated equal.
Of course any rational homosexual would point out that he is still not allowed to marry the one he 'loves.' But 'love' is ambiguous. I love my mom, I love my country, I love some good rice and chicken, I love you.Now this is a fault of the culture's influence on language but marriage isn't all about love anyway. Romance wasn't added to the concept of marriage until the sometime after the reneissance and then only in the West.
No, marriage has-through all times and culture-been defined teleologicaly (by it's end purpose) and that is family. And when it comes to raising children homosexuality doesn't work, biologicaly, socially, or emotionaly.
The government has every right to see marriage this way and reward it as such with tax cuts etc if it wants to. At the same time it could treat it as a religious institution and but out of it altogether and leave it to the churches but I think the former is more likely.
-
Hedger, Catharine
08/05/2010 01:20 PM
I have a gay brother and I still want a Constitutional ammendment to defend, protect Marriage as an institution of family life for the HS to work inside
-
2Kings22-23
08/05/2010 12:36 PM
Obviously the judge was operating off a post-modern concept of marriage rather than a classical/teleological.
Ask yourself two questions: What is the origin of marriage? And what is the end purpose of marriage?
In regards to the first you can either say it's political/civil (sort of like arranged marriages, or marrying for money/political power, treaties etc.) or its spiritual/religious (as it has been historically in EVERY culture).
The second is even more oblivious. FAMILY. Yeah I know a lot of moderns think it’s all about some nebulous concept of 'love' and I've no problem with the romantic aspects attached to marriage in western culture but ultimately the end purpose has always been about raising stable families.
In answering both questions its clear why definitions matter. Californians understood that. I fear the judge does too.
And don't even give me that junk about hospital visitation rights. Do you seriously think that re-defining a major social institution is the best way to solve that problem?
As for tax benefits (which are about to be lost anyway if the Obama Congress has its way), see the answer to question 2.
Thank you HuckPAC for taking on this controversial issue and supporting candidates who understand that traditions become traditions because they work!
-
Adams, Sandy
08/05/2010 12:08 PM
I'm a California resident (born & raised here)
It concerns me when judges completely disregard the wishes of the people.
I have many wonderful gay friends, however I still believe the definition of marriage is between one man & one woman. My view may not be politically correct or popular with some, but I have to hold true to my traditional values. -
Adams, Ian
08/05/2010 12:01 PM
An interesting stat was shown on Glen Beck's program last night. Apparently 84% of Americans believe we are headed in the WRONG direction, while 74% of Law Makers believe we are headed in the RIGHT direction. So where is the disconnect here?
It's very simple. The example set by our President is to do what ever is on your personal agenda, despite what "we the people" are crying out for. It is no surprise that his mentality has trickled down the ladder to Senators, Congressmen, and even Judges. Term limits should be set for ALL branches of our government, not just the President. We need fresh ideas, and law makers that speak for us.
America was founded when people got sick and tired of "taxation without representation." Somewhere along the way we are back to a tyrannical government that does whats in their best interest, not what's in the best interest of the people who elected them.
The "Change" Mr. Obama spoke about apparently meant a change in democracy to a dictatorship. It's time for a real change.. Mike Huckabee for President!
-
Novak, Alexander
08/05/2010 11:12 AM
I agree, it is time for a Federal Amendment.
We have voted twice on this issue in CA and now both times, my vote doesn't count. I am disgusted by these activist judges - Judge Vaughn Walker as some may not know - is gay - should he have not recused himself? I guess not...
-
Adams, Ian
08/05/2010 10:42 AM
As Glen Beck stated on his show last night, 84% of Americans think we are headed in the wrong direction. However, 74% of Law Makers believe we are headed in the right direction.
Obviously we have a problem here. the people "we" have set in place to represent "us" are not doing so. I believe what's causing this rogue effort by law makers in power including judges, is the top dog himself. The President does whatever he pleases. He pushes forward bills, and passes laws despite what the people, and even other law makers want. That sets the example for other law makers and people in power to ignore "We The People," and abuse their power, and fuel their liberal agendas.
Time for a real "change" Huckabee for president!
-
Jill 4 America
08/05/2010 10:13 AM
I am very disappointed in the ruling of this activist judge against the will of the people. I am now just reminded of this passage of Daniel 8:25 -"He shall speak great words against the most High, and he shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time."
The enemies of God and his righteousness are literally trying to wear us down. No matter what all the good we do, it is never enough!
I agree that we need a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as 1-man/1-woman. However, it will take a miracle from a left leaning supreme court.
The fight continues .....Yes, Peter ..."Noah's Time" !
-
Los Angeles, Mike
08/05/2010 06:47 AM
Re: Sen Lindsay Graham and Elena Kagan and Prop 8 Ruling
Perhaps Senator Graham's approach to the Elena Kagan SC selection is wise and senatorial.
Graham is using his vote for Elena Kagan as a means to not only protest the way former Senator Obama acted by voting against Bush appointees, but also as a means to recognize that elections have consequences, some seen and others unseen.
In the Elena Kagan case, Senator Graham was very tough, but also gracious in his interview of Elena Kagan. What Graham managed to do was get Kagan to share that she is first and foremost a disciple of Thurgood Marshall. That was wise. He also, I believe, got Ms Kagan to say she tells the truth.
I believe Thurgood Marshall was the last person to rise to the court after having served as solicitor general, and he had to recuse himself from some four dozen cases.
What does this mean? It could mean that believe it or not, Elena Kagan out of respect for Thurgood Marshall can use the Marshall precedent and recuse herself from gay marriage, "Dont Ask Dont Tell", and the Arizona immigration and Health Care cases that make it to the Supreme Court this coming year.
Senator Graham reminded Elena Kagan of her judicial roots by raising up the liberal SC hero in Marshall so that none from the WH can criticize Elena if she uses precedent to also recuse herself of any cases related to her former job as solicitor general and when Law Dean at Harvard. She cannot lose if she chooses to recuse.
-
Straffin, Ethan
08/05/2010 03:02 AM
I almost hate to point this out, Juliee, but support for same-sex marriage has been increasing consistently by 2-3%, every year, in every state except Utah, and it's not slowing down. If the Prop. 8 vote were held today, it might still pass, but the margin would be razor-thin. Four years from now? Fuggetaboutit. You speak for SOME citizens of our State, certainly, but for the record, there's plenty of dancing in the streets going on across California tonight -- and it's not just teh gay who are doing it. (It's not even just the non-Christians.)
And when I say I almost hate to point this out, I'm not being sarcastic, because of this: popularity contests pale in comparison to the fact that we live in a democratic REPUBLIC where even majorities do not get to vote on minority rights.
The defendants and their two "star" witnesses -- quotes sadly required in the case of Mr. Blankenhorn -- did not make a strong case, to say the least, that the state has a vested secular interest in prohibiting gay and lesbian couples from participating in the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Kate is correct: the "activist" decision would have been for Judge Walker to agree with them anyway, regardless of due process, regardless of equal protection, regardless of the defendants' repeated admissions that they didn't know what actual evidence might or might not exist to support the shakiest of their claims.
I welcome Mr. Huckabee's push for a constitutional amendment to define marriage, but from left of center, I must admit that it's solely for partisan reasons.
-
Patriot 4America
08/05/2010 02:02 AM
Sorry Gov. Huckabee, I meant to say BROTHER Huckabee....NOT BOTHER Huckabee!! I'm sure you figured this out before you even read this post. Keep up the GOOD work! Peter
-
OBRIEN, Kate
08/05/2010 01:06 AM
An activist judge would have voted in favor of Prop 8 because they would have been overlooking the preexisting law of the land - the 14th amendment, which promises equal rights for all citizens including gays and lesbians. To include in our constitution and amendment that excludes rights of any kind to any segment of our constitution based on a morally ambiguous argument is unconscionable.
-
Patriot 4America
08/05/2010 01:00 AM
Bother Huckabee,
As the ruling came from another Federal Judge, you might as well as titled this Blog, "The Judge Got It Wrong".
The Judge Gets It Right.....The Judge Gets It's Wrong......
Ummm......do we see a resounding familiarity in all this? And what about "We The People"? Or should we just change it to "They The Judges". Minus well!
It appears to me that these pro-gay marriage people are full of duplicity. As Marriage originated in the Holy Bible (and defind as ADAM & EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE!) The Holy Bible has strict standards for such an institution. Marriage is a Christian virtue, not a worldy idea. Yet, some claim we are not a Christian Nation??? But what would a culture like ours know anything of STANDARDS or VIRTUE?
Can anyone say "Noah's Time"?
God Bless You Mike! And may God somehow find it in His heart to BLESS THE USA!! Peter
-
Clifford, Jerry
08/05/2010 12:21 AM
I totally agree with your opposition to Judge Walker's convoluted cloning of non-applicable 14th amendment verbiage for the devious advancement of their immoral agenda. However, I am not sure a specific marriage amendment is necessary or allowed because, though it's important, marriage is too narrow a topic for the amendment process.
-
JULIEE 4 HUCKABEE, CA
08/05/2010 12:05 AM
Amen and Amen!!
How many times do California voters have to say, "NO" to the redefinition of marriage?? Citizens of our State are getting fed-up with these liberal judges who continue to arrogantly out-step their constitutional boundaries!
God help us!!!
-
Buren, Louis
08/04/2010 10:50 PM
You are correct governor! And it sure would help to have a president who believes the same! Yes, that's a hint' that we want you to run in 2012!
We need you to get elected, and to reverse the anti-God, anti-American things Obama has been doing.
http://fisherman209.blogspot.com
You can beat Obama, you stand on Biblical principles! You understand and believe in America's heritage <><
You have a birth certificate!
officer L. Buren
-
McDaniel, Matt
08/04/2010 10:45 PM
I couldn't agree more.
-
Roberts, kay
08/04/2010 10:45 PM
Perhaps you should try reading the ruling. The proponents of Proposition 8 failed to present a case. You should know better.
-
Masters, Cindy
08/04/2010 10:38 PM
Amen my brother!
