Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 05/05/2006 12:48:19 PM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: SmithL
a couple that isn't legally married under state law has no right to contest the federal definition of marriage

This seems like a "Duh!" moment ...

2 posted on 05/05/2006 12:50:15 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Dump the 1967 Outer Space Treaty! I'll weigh 50% less on Mars!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

Using lack of standing to dismiss the case is weasling.


3 posted on 05/05/2006 12:50:31 PM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL
Wow, this came out of the 9th?
4 posted on 05/05/2006 12:51:51 PM PDT by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

6 posted on 05/05/2006 12:55:16 PM PDT by edpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

Well of course they can't. The gay activist strategy is to have a married homosexual couple from Massachusetts bring that suit. Duh! You can't sue for federal benefits until you first gain state recognition, or the DOMA is irrelevant. I would say it was a waste of money but they probably got the services for free from some activist attorney.


9 posted on 05/05/2006 1:15:08 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL; AFA-Michigan; AggieCPA; Agitate; AliVeritas; AllTheRage; An American In Dairyland; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping!

If you oppose the homosexualization of society
-add yourself to the ping list!

To be included in or removed from the
HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PING LIST,
please FReepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2k.

Free Republic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword = homosexualagenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court today dismissed a challenge by two Orange County men to a law denying federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples, saying a couple that isn't legally married under state law has no right to contest the federal definition of marriage.

The federal appeals court should have dismissed the challenge to reality as follows:

A homosexual couple are free to engage in delusion; however, society is not required to reward or grant privelege to such activity...

10 posted on 05/05/2006 1:16:35 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL
Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer

No comment.

11 posted on 05/05/2006 1:18:00 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

Arthur smelts Christophers hammer????


13 posted on 05/05/2006 3:22:36 PM PDT by catmanblack. (he is the great I AM-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

"The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached the result urged by gay-rights groups, which opposed the federal suit because they are trying to overturn California's marriage law in state court."

When the nutty 9th circuit makes an actual sane ruling, you can bet their is something amiss in how they got there.


17 posted on 05/05/2006 3:54:25 PM PDT by WOSG (Faith & Reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

This is such a game of ping-pong between the courts. We need a Federal Marriage Protection Act to settle the matter.


19 posted on 05/05/2006 4:17:58 PM PDT by pray4liberty (School District horrors: http://totallyunjust.tripod.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

Incredible! *LOGIC* out of the 9th Circus. Makes perfect sense, really.


23 posted on 05/05/2006 6:04:36 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Don't use illegals: HIREPATRIOTS.COM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

is there an error? It says Ninth Circuit ?


25 posted on 05/05/2006 6:10:55 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL
saying a couple that isn't legally married under state law has no right to contest the federal definition of marriage.

LOL! Whether statutory (federal) law OR civil (State) law, no governmental entity has the authority (juristiction) to define marriage as ANYTHING other than a marriage between a man and a woman.

All political entities and subdivisions MUST remain true to natural law-

This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other-It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.

From Blackstone's Commentaries Book I Part I Section II

28 posted on 05/06/2006 9:04:10 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I will hold my government to the intent of the Founders...whether it likes it or not!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

My goodness! This from the Ninth Circuit? They must be keeping an eye on the Supremes. No judge likes to be overruled. Roberts and Alito have already made a difference.


30 posted on 05/07/2006 7:31:14 AM PDT by ContraryMary (New Jersey -- Superfund cleanup capital of the U.S.A.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson