Gay Marraige Back as a Campaign Issue

It is in these situations that McCain's years of experience are so telling. He is able to look beyond a specific issue to the ramifications for our Constitution going forward. I wonder if the electorate will have the maturity to follow along and understand these nuances. Unfortunately, the ratcheting up of the dialogue due to race, gender, and orientation tend to cloud the bigger issue of our liberty and its defense.

The courts have been doing this for years, beginning with the Supreme Court back in the mid-20th century. There were serious concerns raised by the anti-Federalists way back at the time of the founding about the possibility of judicial usurpation. Alexander Hamilton was given the task of responding in the Federalist papers and did a miserable job, but by then I think ratification of the Constitution was a foregone conclusion. As Jefferson later pointed out, there was one defect in the Constitution that no one (except the anti-Federalists) realized at the time, and that was that there was no effective check on the judiciary. No, I am not saying that the Constitution should not have been ratified (it is indeed a great document), but that the problem of how to control the judiciary remains to this day its greatest flaw.

Prop.187 and the overturn of same -comes to mind

It has long been my impression that courts are supposed to interpret the law as it is enacted by legislatures. If they interpret the law contrary to the will of the legislature and the people, then the people, through the legislature, must alter the law so that it cannot be again misinterpreted by activist, or any other types, of judge. It would appear to me that the 60% of Californians who do not wish gay marriage to be sanctioned ought to be working diligently to change the constitution.

The Cal Supreme Court has evidently ignored the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which is a federal law, and therefore applies to all 50 US states, including CA. And CA's constitution doesn't actually protect gay marriages. It seems that CA judges don't think that the rules apply to them.

The GOP has been warning about this kind of judges for long - judges who legislate from their benches, judges who are enforcing the Dhimmicrats' agenda by judicial fiat, because US voters would have never accepted that agenda during a National Election.

But don't vote for Mr McCain if you want conservative judges. A president can only nominate judges. He cannot appoint them single-handedly. The Congress must confirm them, and because the 111th Congress will certainly be dominated by the Dhimmicrats, no conservative judges will be confirmed. So if you plan to vote for McCain, don't count on him (as some people do) to appoint strict constructionist judges.

BTW - no more than a year ago, the novice CA Assemblywoman Fiona MA (D-12) sponsored a bill legalising homosexual marriages. Has this bill been approved by CA's legislature? And does Fiona Ma herself have a husband or a boyfriend? I've read a couple of her biographies, but none of them mention a hubby or a boyfriend.