Incompetent Judges

Today, district judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the ban on gay marriage in California was unconstitutional because "it restricts equal rights under the 14th amendment."

Now, I am not blogging for or against gay marriage. This article is about incompetent, nincompoop liberal judges who abuse their position and power in order to push a phony liberal idea.

It is important to note the reason for his absurd ruling - equal RIGHTS. But as a judge, he of all people should know (and he does know, but chooses to ignore it) that marriage is not, and never has been a right. Rights are God-given, and cannot be refused, purchased or licensed. But every state charges for a marriage license. Therefore, every state recognizes that marriage is a priviledge, like driving, and not a right. If it must be licensed, then it cannot be a right.

So the judge has incorrectly stated the issue, and he did so on purpose in order to push the liberal agenda. As a judge, he surely knows marriage is not a right, but frames it as a right, anyway, because his agenda fails if marriage is only a priviledge.

In other words, Judge Walker is either an ignorant, incompetent fool who has no business being on the bench, or he is a crooked judge, intentionally misstating the facts. In either case, he should never be allowed anywhere near a courtroom except as a defendant for being a fraud.

If the liberals want to make gay marriage legal, they should be honest in their approach, and stop lying, cheating, bullying and using crooked courts and phony lawsuits to force others to accept their ideas.

Frankly, since marriage is a religious rite, the states overstepped by interferring in it and requiring licensing in the first place. Had the state not injected itself, each church would make its own decision based on its own tenets. If a church wants to sanction gay marriage for their congregation, they may do so. If not, they do not have to. It should be up to the churches how they will deal with the issue. The state can just as easily walk away from inserting themselves into marriage and instead offer EVERYONE a state sanctioned civil union that bestows the same legal rights on all couples, regardless of gender. And if a couple wishes to also be united in the eyes of God and blessed by the church, that would be up to their church. And that would be marriage. The civil union would be a right (provided the state does not charge for it). Marriage would be an option for those who want to take it further and seek God's blessing.

Everyone would have the same rights. But marriage, as a religious rite would be regulated by the church.

But the point is - marriage is not a right. Rights cannot be licensed or purchased, nor sanctioned by any government. Rights come from God, not the government.

And the Constitution and the Declaration of Indepence makes that point clearly. Judges should read them sometime.

/