The Arrogance of Judicial Power ; Homosexuals Hijack Political Process for Their Own Ends
The Washington Times › August 06, 2010
Linked as:
The Washington Times › August 06, 2010
Linked as:Summary
A homosexual judge branded 7,001,084 California voters as hateful people on Wednesday. In so doing, Vaughn R. Walker, a man never elected to his lifetime position, decided he would reshape the state to better suit his personal lifestyle preference. In striking down Proposition 8's simple statement that, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," Judge Vaughn undermined not just the political process, but society itself.
At the heart of the matter is the belief of the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that there is no problem with Heather having two mommies. Those who do have a problem with such arrangements, in his words, can only be motivated by irrational "fear" and "animus." By discarding the possibility that centuries of tradition might have a rational basis, Judge Vaughn declared Proposition 8 cannot be allowed to interfere with homosexuals' "fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause."See the full content of this document
Extract
The Arrogance of Judicial Power ; Homosexuals Hijack Political Process for Their Own Ends
The claim is that no government interest could be found in preferring the union of traditional cou...
See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other documents:
state v. briscoe, (ohio 2002) | Campbell Fed Prohibition Administrator v Galeno Chemical Co. 281 U.S 599 1930 | 34 CFR 1100.24 What are the procedures for payment of a fellowship award directly to the fellow? | broadnax v washington mutual 4th cir 2005 | Sentencia nº 2138 de Consiglio di Stato, May 12, 2010 | sentencia nº 5132 de consiglio di stato october 13 2009 | Sentencia nº 54 de Consiglio di Stato, October 19, 2009 | sentencia nº 3811 de consiglio di stato july 23 2009