Posted on 02/07/2012 10:13:59 AM PST by SmithL
SAN FRANCISCO -- California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional,
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Welp! This’ll be for all the marbles at SCOTUS. If SCOTUS manages to uphold the ruling, it would wipe the books clean of any marriage laws that limit the definition to one man, one woman.
Justice Kennedy, God on line 1....
Amen! I’ve been told that the Appeals Court says it violates the Federal Constitution. Strange!!!
Pre-SCOTUS ping.
Pre-SCOTUS ping.
Unlikely. The way I see it, Prop. 8 will result in a SCOTUS 5-4 decision with Kennedy siding with the liberals. He seems to go that rout with civil/gay rights cases.
and what about the Govt gets it’s power from the people etc etc etc.
Heck there are lots of lines in the bill of rights, the constitution and the declaration stating that the people have the power.
This was done twice with the votes, and how the court can say this is unconstitutional is outrageous.
Where does it state that we can have any kind of marriage in the constitution of America?
Also what grounds is this unconstitutional anyway, what was their reasoning behind this?
But really, we shouldn't be against this.
Voter referendums are democracy, and we don't have a democracy. The Founding Fathers gave us a Republic. "If you can keep it," as Benjamin Franklin warned.
By overturning referenda, the court gives a nod toward the republican form of government, IMHO.
Of course, they tilt toward the republican form when it favors the left, and they tilt toward the democracy form when doing that favors the left, so we move in the same direction in either case.
this is why we need a President which will put judges on the bench and know the law, instead we have Kagen who wanted the ban on don’t ask overturned and wanted the ban on ROTC and recruiters at Harvard etc.
This woman should never have been placed on the bench, Ginsburg needs to be removed now she states our constitution is old and out of date and no way for social justice basically
the 9th curcuit has been overturned more times than ted kennedy’s car. no big deal.
For me this is the fundamental question. To have the clear will of the people overridden by an arbitrary decision of a few ideologues is tyranny. And it is completely arbitrary. Nothing in the US Constitution prohibits the people from defining marriage. If this ruling and Obamacare stand, the people are powerless against the State. The government will be able to twist the Constitution into any shape it chooses and the people will be unable to redress grievances by explicitly changing the Constitution.
Knowing the ruthlessness of the left, Scalia should consider hiring a car-starter.
my question too.
If the people cannot do an amendment as this was done then how do the people do a constitutional amendment?
This is judicial tyranny at it’s finest.
What was their argument saying it was unconstitutional because I see no where it states two homosexuals can marry each other but i do understand that the Govt derives it’s power from the people.
The people voted and was told they have to do an amendment.
They did an amendment and now these activists say it is not legal s I ma interested in how they explain that and surely there has to be one person left in Govt who can go after this court and call them out and this 9th district is plain out and out activists.
The ruling does not state that gay couples have a right to marry. Rather, it states that creating a law for the sole purpose of singling out a disfavored group does not pass Constitutional muster. Given the narrow focus of the ruling, the USSC may decide not to take the case. It is consistent with their previous decision in Romer v. Evans.
Yep. Reminds me of the John Grisham novel, I think it was The Rainmaker, where a couple of Supreme Ct justices were knocked off.
big difference though, obama has put on the bench two activists, we have Ginsberg saying our laws , our constitution is out of date and other countries should not look to us , along with them saying international law should be looked at when looking at rulings.
Kagen out of the two should never have been allowed near that bench.
She was an activist for homosexuals, she has made it public she stands for them and therefore she needs to recuse herself like she does on the health care where she has a vested interest.
big difference though, obama has put on the bench two activists, we have Ginsberg saying our laws , our constitution is out of date and other countries should not look to us , along with them saying international law should be looked at when looking at rulings.
Kagen out of the two should never have been allowed near that bench.
She was an activist for homosexuals, she has made it public she stands for them and therefore she needs to recuse herself like she does on the health care where she has a vested interest.
so therefore the court is saying any kind of marriage is OK and if muslims want 4 wives then they should sue and if mormons , a few of them to be fair want 9 wives then that should be alright.
The 9th is a weak argument against and it really is judicial activism as it always is.
IMHO this is reason #1, above all else, why Comrade Zero has got to go. I can only imagine the destruction he will cause if he gets another round of judicial appointments, esp. a USSC vacancy. I don’t see all of the Fab Five holding out another 4 years.
Funny, when California first outlawed gay marriage the appeals court nullified it saying such a ban had to be part of the constitution. So California passes a constitutional amendment and the appeals court moves the goal posts.
I am sick of abject Judicial activism.
I am sick of liberals extending natural rights, given from God and enumerated in the Constitution, to behavior and ideology to advance their own causes and inclinations...and in an effort to overthrow the constitution to which they swore an oath to faithfully uphold and defend.
The American people, to avoid the hell of chaos and downfall and implosion such trends will inevitably lead to, simply must throw off the political class that has encumbered us and elect American statemen to office who revere and will hold inviolate the fundmanetal moral values upon which this nation and its constitution was founded.
And those are Christian principles and have defined the very reason why America has been so tolerant of so many who have come to these shores. But when those here want that tolerance to extend to the destruction of what has kept the peace, made us free, defined our prosperity and strength as a nation, that we cannot, nay we MUST not tolerate, but fight with every resource at our disposal.
America at the Crossroads of History
http://www.jeffhead.com/crossroads.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.