It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
When justices intervened to stop proceedings from airing online, some saw sympathy for supporters of Proposition 8 – and a lack of faith in the district judge who will first decide the measure’s fate.
Reporting from Washington – The U.S. Supreme Court cast its first vote last week on the legal challenge to California’s voter initiative barring same-sex marriage, and some experts said it was a bad omen for those who hope gays and lesbians will win a constitutional right to such unions.
The 5-4 decision, with conservatives in the majority, intervened in the San Francisco district court trial on behalf of the defenders of Proposition 8.
The high court rebuked U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker for seeking to give the public a chance to view the proceedings on the Internet. In its opinion, the majority saw the dispute through the same lens as the opponents of gay marriage and decided that they — not homosexuals — faced a hostile public climate of harassment and intimidation.
This whole thing is a circus clown show. Let me tell you the real reason why they don’t want this case publicized. They don’t want it publicized because they know the only way gays are going to win this thing is through arguing on a natural rights basis.
Allowing the public to view a case that revolves around natural rights is inherently dangerous to the entire judicial system.
The State has no authority to legislate legal benefits based on the religious institution of marriage. This is a fundamental natural right of man.
The outcome of the gay marriage case will have wide spread implications across all manner of legislation, well outside just marriage laws.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by KrazyJethro
I fully concur.
The 1st amendment was defined to prevent precisely such a situation from occurring.
Our rights don't come from government or the constitution, they come from the very fact we exist.
Government has no authority to dictate religious institutions be given special rights and privileges. It is a total violation of our natural right to equal protection.
Originally posted by Dock9
Let's use this good news to replenish our spirits and strengthen our resolve. Let's build on this ! Let's turn things around to the way they SHOULD be. For natural justice demands that those in office remain mindful of their mandate, which is to dispense justice, be accountable and for all their laws to reflect the will OF the people
At which point the logical conclusion to be reached is that it's better not to get married.