Great new video: Making Marriage Meaningless.

This video is full of truth and already has homofascists upset.  There is not one lie in this video, yet some people hate it.

How prop 8 was murdered.

The citizens of California voted twice to uphold God’s definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, yet same-sex “marriage” is still happening in California. How did this happen?

1. A homosexual Federal judge in San Francisco, in a long term sexual relationship with another man (a fact that he wrongfully hid!) who stood to gain personally from his own ruling, AND was about to retire anyway.

2. A Governor who refused to do his sworn duty to uphold the law.

3. A state Attorney General who refused to do his sworn duty to uphold the law.

...the process that killed marriage in California should greatly concern anyone who cares even remotely about democracy and the rule of law.

...The Prop 8 challenge landed in the San Francisco federal courtroom of Vaughn Walker. We’re supposed to accept that this happened randomly, and that the plaintiffs weren’t tipped off by someone in the court system to file the case at a particular time when Judge Walker happened to be the one who’d get it.

...Whether by accident or grand design, it was a fortunate assignment for the plaintiffs. Walker was a judge in a long-term committed relationship with another man—in other words, he was in exactly the type of relationship as the plaintiffs who were bringing suit. Walker never disclosed this critical fact to Prop 8 supporters, or to the public, despite judicial rules requiring such disclosure if even the appearance of impropriety was present.

...Imagine if a judge heard a lawsuit by tomato farmers against an environmental law, but refused to disclose that he was also a tomato farmer. The media and environmentalists would scream to the heavens about the potential for bias. Yet, because the issue in this case was same-sex marriage, Walker got away with the low blow.

...While the lawsuit stood before a hometown judge, state officials did everything in their power to throw the case. Both then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to defend the law enacted by the people of California, despite their sworn oath of office to do so.

...Of course, the constitution of California does not give to the governor or the attorney general the power to decide for themselves which laws are constitutional and which are not, nor are they free to determine which laws shall be defended and which shall be abandoned. But no matter.

...Having orphaned Prop 8, leaving it and the seven million citizens who enacted it defenseless in court, it fell to the backers of the initiative to defend the law in the federal courts. This not only cost the supporters of Prop 8 over $10 million in legal expenses; it ultimately put a sleeper hold on the initiative.

...Yet because the issue in this case was same-sex marriage, Schwarzenegger, Brown and Harris all got away with it.

...This only strengthened my view that Prop 8 would be upheld on the rationale that if New York had the right to redefine marriage, then surely California had the same right to go in the other direction.

...I feel like we were cheated. Just like I felt as a kid watching the bad guy put a sleeper hold on his opponent, or hitting him below the belt or with the brass knuckles while the referee had his back turned, so have the legal system and politicians cold-cocked the people of California—seven million of whom went to the polls to lawfully enact Prop 8. Only this time, I realize there’s not likely to be a rematch. The cheaters won.

...Supporters of same-sex “marriage” may be happy with the result today, but hold on until the tables are turned and a conservative governor and attorney general refuse to defend a law they don’t personally support, and there’s nobody left with standing to defend it.

...Now those very people in power—the governor and attorney general—have been given a pocket veto over the initiative process itself. They can invalidate any measure they don’t personally support simply by refusing to defend it in federal court. Such power was never contemplated by the framers of the constitution, or by the people of California, but that is the practical result of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Prop 8. Again—it is marriage today, but tomorrow it could be any other issue on the political spectrum.

...their religious differences aside to work together in support of the eternal truth about marriage—that it is a covenant between one man and one woman, modeled after God’s own covenant with us.

...the voters, deserved better than to be left undefended before the legal system, abandoned by those sworn to defend them, ignored by judges determined to impose a particular result, and then orphaned by the Supreme Court as the great referee pretended not to see all the nefarious activity going on with the case right in front of them.

...The decisions worry me. I am actually less worried about the damage done to the institution of marriage than I am about the damage done to the body politic. Marriage is an eternal truth, and a profound good.

...When the votes of millions of people are ignored by the elites in government, when politicians can ignore their oath of office and assume for themselves extra-constitutional authority, when judges can ignore their own internal conflicts and impose their own political views on an issue in direct contravention of the expressed desires of the people, and when the Supreme Court can turn a blind eye to the matter and let the politicians and judges get away with it, public confidence in government is seriously, and perhaps permanently, eroded.

Full, well-written article here.

SCOTUS vs. Prop. 8.

There is a way which seems right to man, but it's end is the way of death.    Proverbs 14:12.  Those who fight for the redefinition of marriage are going up against God.

California's Proposition 8 that defined marriage as being between one man and one woman, was NOT ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.

These two videos say it best.

So voting on marriage is okay now??

What happened?  I thought that voting on the definition of marriage was unconstitutional?  That's what the homofascists say in California.

So why is it that the gays are celebrating now in other states where voters have redefined marriage?  Are they celebrating the coming legal persecution of Christian business that will be fined or closed for their refusal to comply with sexual perversion? Are they celebrating the intentional deprivation of a mother or a father from a child's life?

Oh I get it!  A vote on the definition of marriage is ONLY valid if the glbt community agrees with that vote!  Wow.  Silly me.  Can a heterosexual federal judge now throw out the votes that support the redefinition of marriage?  How would the gay community react to that?

Info here.

"Animus" towards gays?!?

Judge Vaughn Walker, who accuses those who support God's definition of marriage of having "animus towards gays," was also working in San Francisco, very near retirement, and stood to gain personally from his own ruling.

Homojudicial tyranny.

Is God “unconstitutional”? It is His law that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. What will marriage redefiners say to God when they stand before him?

A vote to preserve the one-man-one-woman definition of marriage cannot be compared to a vote to uphold slavery because sexual orientation is not morally innate like race or gender. It is wrong to be sexually attracted to a family member or a child or someone of your same sex.

Gay people have the exact same right to marry one person of the opposite sex that I do, therefore marriage equality already exists.

Judge Walker, who wrongly nullified the votes of over seven million people should have recused himself-not because he was gay-but because he stood to gain personally from his ruling.

“...Denouncing the ruling, Brian Raum, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, said the court undercut the democratic process "by taking the power to preserve marriage out of the hands of the people."

"No court should presume to redefine marriage," he stated. "Americans overwhelmingly reject the idea of changing the definition of marriage. Sixty-three million Americans in 31 state elections have voted on marriage, and 63 percent voted to preserve marriage as the timeless, universal, unique union between husband and wife."

Supporters of Prop. 8 will likely now appeal the ruling. The primary sponsor of the measure, ProtectMarriage, can appeal to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit or, like many experts predict, go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. ...”

More detailed info here.

Move over Vaughn Walker.

<----Lesbian Judge Barbara Lenk is off to a bad start. She wasn't even a State Supreme Court Judge for a week before lending the prestige of her office to anti-hetero activism.

"...Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justice Barbara Lenk, widely heralded as the first openly "gay" judge on the state's top court, spoke at a homosexual advocacy group's fundraiser only two days after her confirmation, a move some critics are saying is a clear violation of (see page 8) judicial ethics. ..."

The gay Empire Strikes Back.

<---HomoSith Judges Vaughn Walker (seated) and James Ware.

The first sentence that came to my mind when Judge James Ware upheld Judge Vaughn Walker's self-serving prop 8 ruling was...

"So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause." -Padme Amidala/Episode III

Once again, the false comparison between race, gender, and sexual sin has eclipsed the fact that Judge Walker stood to gain personally from his decision to throw out the legal votes of over seven million Californians.

"...In his 19-page decision — a response to the first attempt in the nation to disqualify a judge based on sexual orientation — Ware had a bigger message. Gay judges, he said, are just like minority and female jurists: They can be impartial, too, even in cases that might affect them. .."

Homosexuality is a state of mind/emotion, and membership in the glbt community is voluntary, it is not innate like the gender and skin color that comes with birth. Although homosexuality is not an overnight choice, being "gay" is a matter of choice; the end result of a series of choices, like heroin addiction. Although I recognize that a heroin addict has all of the same civil rights that I do, I will not support the lifestyle of a heroin addict as I do not support the glbt community. Nor do I hate the heroin addict since I know how they became an addict.

Seeing homosexuality as innate is where Judge Ware(-is-his-common-sense!) got it wrong. Info here.

Polygamous Federal Judge redefines marriage.

If you replace the word "gay" with "polygamous," how wrong it would be if a Federal judge that was in a sexual, romantic relationship with multiple women, threw out a majority vote that defined marriage as being between one man and one woman, right before his retirement?

How long would his decision stand since he clearly benefits from his own judicial decision? Would I be called "polyphobic" for speaking out against his obvious misconduct? Weren't the Mormons stopped from practicing polygamy by the American law the defines marriage as being between one man and one woman? Do the members of the glbt community consider themselves above the law?

Story here and here.

What if he was a polygamous judge?

Do I have the same right that "gay activists" do when it comes to word-replacement-arguments?

What if Judge Walker believed in polygamy, was in a long term sexual relationship with multiple women, was about to retire, and worked in Salt Lake City, Utah?

If, under the above mentioned conditions, he then threw out a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman... how would his actions be seen? Wouldn't the personal gain of his decision be an obvious disqualifier?

“It is important to emphasize at the outset that we are not suggesting that a gay or lesbian judge could not sit on this case,” the group’s attorneys said in their motion, which was submitted to the district court. “Rather, our submission is grounded in the fundamental principle, reiterated in the governing statute, that no judge ‘is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome.’ ”

My supporting evidence is here.

Judge Vaughn Walker is going down on...

...the issue of the personal gain of his own court ruling.

Lets go over the common-sense viewpoint again; A homosexual judge in a 10-year, sexual relationship with another man, and is about to retire from the bench, throws out the legal, 52% of the vote that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. In the city of San Francisco. Okay. Wow. The prosecution rests.

Exhibit A is here. Exhibit B is here.

Why prop 8 judge should have recused himself.

It has now come to be public knowledge that Judge Vaughn Walker stood to gain personally when he threw out the votes of 7,001,084 tax paying citizens of the great state of California. Wow.

Doesn't it stand to reason that, if a judge stands to gain from his own ruling, he should recuse himself from the case? Well, it turns out that Judge Walker is/was in a ten year sexual relationship with another man, and was less than a year away from retiring from the bench. (Look at how retirement affected his "judgement.") When he threw out the fair and legal votes of over seven million people (52% of those that voted on prop 8), he stood to gain from his decision!

My evidence is here, here, and (as of 16 April) here.

Victory for sexual sanity!!

A homosexual Federal judge in San Francisco CA, throws out California's constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman right before he retires. Wow.

Then comes the hypnotic drumbeat of, "...gay marriage ban.....gay marriage ban.....gay marriage ban..." Which mischaracterizes what the amendment stands for. How come no one ever says, "...ban on polygamy.....ban on polygamy.....ban on polygamy..."?

"...A three-judge panel of a federal appeals court Wednesday ruled that, despite a lower court decision overturning California’s true marriage amendment, Proposition 8, the amendment would stay in force while that decision is being appealed..."

"...“It’s a victory for Proposition 8 supporters and the initiative process as a whole. People need to have confidence that their vote will count, at least until the courts make a final decision,”..."

More detailed info here.

Iowans oust anti-hetero judges.

Three, Iowa Supreme Court justices were sent packing yesterday by the voters of the State. This is good news since the judges ignored the State's Defence of Marriage Act and imposed homosexual "marriage" on the people of the state.

This is a typical tactic of homofascists; to confuse sexual behavior with race, and see themselves as rescuing a downtrodden minority. Through clever arguments, the glbt community has stolen the nobility of the civil-rights movement of the African-American community.

"Iowa's Defense of Marriage act...specified one man one woman marriages, so the justices actually were violating the law they were sworn to uphold." Info here.

Take a walk, Walker.

I've said it once and I'll say it again, a homosexual man has the same right to marry one woman at a time just like I do. We all already have the freedom to marry. Again I'll ask; Why doesn't the glbt community just flat-out say that they want to redefine marriage? How come polygamists aren't trying to ruin those that support true marriage like some/most gays do?

The legitimate vote of the people of California has been temporarily upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and marriage will remain what it should be for at least a little while longer.

I'll bet that Judge Vaughn Walker is having some Johnnie Walker right about now. Story here.

7,001,084 votes thrown out by homosexual judge.

I've heard of this case being referred to as "judicial jujitsu," and I laughed, inwardly, at the phrase. Then I got a little miffed at myself for not thinking of that phrase first.


This prop 8 case is so absurd and fast-moving, that my best bulls**t-decryption-processors are red hot and signing off in order to cool down and reboot. BUT, I'm going to rally one last post on Prop 8 until a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals comes down(which will be tomorrow with my luck).

"What we have today is judicial tyranny..." Story here.

Ninth Circuit Court moving quickly on prop 8.

I can't do a proper post right now since I've been getting my a** kicked at work, but I want to post this.

A child has no right to a father?

Oh my God. This is all of the evidence I need to figure out that this "judge" is a nutcase. A person has to completely abandon moral common-sense to say/believe/write that a child doesn't need a father.

What happened to this man? I'd bet that his probable lack of a father was one of the factors that led to his homosexuality. And, on top of that, this guy is a Judge! With authority over peoples lives!

Children need and want a mother and a father, and those that deny that fact are just plain crazy and, moreover, bound to raise children even crazier than they are.

Prop 8 overturned by homosexual Judge.

Well, I can't say that I'm surprised. I'm a little saddened, but not surprised.

I covered the beginning of this absurd situation here, stating a common-sense observation of how unseemly it was for a Federal judge in San Francisco who was also openly homosexual (one of the three openly gay Federal judges in the country!) to preside over this case.

And today the expected has happened. The votes of millions of Californians, 52% of those that voted on prop 8, have been thrown out. Now this case will go on to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the most overturned Court of Appeals in the United States. I'll be surprised if this doesn't go to SCOTUS. Story here. More info here and here.