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

Skip to comments.

Appeals court: Same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional [Calif]
Orange County Register ^ | LISA LEFF

Posted on 02/07/2012 10:24:14 AM PST by South40

SAN FRANCISCO – Supporters and opponents of California's ban on same-sex marriage were anxiously awaiting a federal appeals court decision Tuesday on whether the voter-approved measure violates the civil rights of gay men and lesbians.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that considered the question plans to issue its long-awaited opinion 18 months after a trial judge struck down the ban following the first federal trial to examine if same-sex couples have a constitutional right to get married.

The 9th Circuit does not typically give notice of its forthcoming rulings, and its decision to do so Monday reflects the intense interest in the case.

(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuit; 9thcircus; homosexualagenda; lawsuit; ruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-87 last
To: Coronal

The Mormon Church has issued at statement regarding the Prop 8 ruling today. They, along with Catholics and others, were instrumental in getting out the vote for prop 8.

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/Mormon-Church-responds-to-Prop-8-ruling/Stt_1ZDTbEOwsFF4ahfwGw.cspx


51 posted on 02/07/2012 1:26:59 PM PST by Allon (Since 1980, no Republican has won his party's nomination without winning in South Carolina.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: South40

I want to claim I have multiple personalities then marry all of them and since I will be the only one working claim the rest as dependents and then take the tax write off.

And if I am challenged then i can claim they are ‘criminatin’ on me.


52 posted on 02/07/2012 1:26:59 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Road Glide

Conservatives MUST shift away from the “religion is why” basis for agrument.

That is a trap. It surrenders reason.

Using logic and rational basis for society’s benefit is a winner every time and it forces the homosexuals into a mere fetish of choice.

The 9th applied a “love test” based on born that way.

that is not law.


53 posted on 02/07/2012 1:29:49 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

besides the obvious.

How about “provisional marriage”? just to see if you like it.

How about set time contract marriage?

How about per-state marriage?

How about “just for tonight marriage” with automatic nulification after 24 hours? This way women can pretend to be virtuous.

How about “because there is a subpoeana marriage”?

How about “marrying a dead corpse for inheritance” marriage?


54 posted on 02/07/2012 1:37:25 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Road Glide
You're still right, unfortunately.

This battle is already lost.

Our only recourse is to get government sanction of marriage...to include all tax benefits etc. out of the mix. Only when government recognizes no marriage will this abomination be tolerable.

55 posted on 02/07/2012 1:37:30 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik
You're right there. If there are no limitations for marriage, then confining it to unrelated couples or multiples of couples is also unreasonable. It would serve as a good test if some wealthy widower would agitate to marry his children and grandchildren. Surely the love would be there. Is there a test the state will institute to mandate sexual behavior? Such a marriage would destroy inheritance taxes. As a married member, each of the "partners" would be entitled to an equal share of the property.

Upon the death of the estate holder, each surviving "spouse" would be entitled to their share of the estate before the remainder would go to probate. States and the federal government could lose untold sums.

56 posted on 02/07/2012 1:54:16 PM PST by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Williams

The general point is that a Republican President does not necessarily equal appointing conservative Justices.

The specific point is that Romney would not appoint conservative Justices.

NONE.

Clear???


57 posted on 02/07/2012 2:03:33 PM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
Does this mean they can drink from the same water fountains as the rest of us now?

Hopefully not.

Though clearly you want that.

58 posted on 02/07/2012 2:05:29 PM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
Our only recourse is to get government sanction of marriage...to include all tax benefits etc. out of the mix.

And there is the answer.

59 posted on 02/07/2012 2:08:24 PM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
Our only recourse is to get government sanction of marriage...to include all tax benefits etc. out of the mix.

And there is the answer.

60 posted on 02/07/2012 2:08:47 PM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Supporting Gay Civil Unions IS supporting Gay Marriage, just with a delay before the word “marriage” is applied.


61 posted on 02/07/2012 2:11:19 PM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

the only way to do that would be to abolish inheritance, paternity, maternity and anything family related.

IOW no property rights at all.

no property of person.
no real property
no personal property
no intelectual property
no property of ones associations

nice going comrade, big brother loves you. (that way)


62 posted on 02/07/2012 2:15:33 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

the people said and voted back in the 90’s but then the courts said you need a constitutional amendment.
So the people went about this and the left thought they would not get the signatures but they were wrong.

It went on the ballot and the left spent millions upon millions on this thinking it would never pass. They intimidated voters etc.

The constitutional amendment passed and now the same court states the constitutional amendment is unconstitutional.

They use the argument that it takes away some peoples rights but it does not for one.

Homosexuals can marry just not too the same sex.
It is not right in the constitution to marry.

But lets go with what they said.
If it is taking their rights away then they must apply that same argument to mormons wanting 9 wives or muslims wanting 4 wives according to their religion , then there is gun rights etc which this court does not like.

This was out and out pure blatant judicial activism, you know it, I know it, the MSM knows it, the GOP knows it and left knows it and the judges know it and will the GOP now stake a stand and say we will fight for social issues, we will fight for the right of the people, as Govt takes it power from the people.

Will they hell.

They the GOP will shut up to not upset their north east , DC elitist homosexuals and cross dressing cocktail party pals .

They have totally ignored the constitution, they have pissed all over us and the GOP shuts up because all they are about is their power and their pockets.

These judges have to be stopped fro their activism


63 posted on 02/07/2012 2:36:48 PM PST by manc (FOX, DRUDGE, HAS BEEN DISGUSTING IN THEIR BIASED ATTACKS V NEWT. I HATE OUR BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr

not the same.

behavior is not an imutable or exposed traight.

You are confusing skin color with bedroom conduct.

homosexual behavior contributes NOTHING to society. zip, nada.

Society rewards the institution not the individual.

There is no science to support “born that way”

(you watch too much spiderman...)


64 posted on 02/07/2012 2:41:41 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: South40

So did they also declare the Bible and Christians unconstitutional yet?


65 posted on 02/07/2012 3:03:58 PM PST by westmichman ( God said: "They cry 'peace! peace!' but there is no peace. Jeremiah 6:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
"the only way to do that would be to abolish inheritance, paternity, maternity and anything family related."

None of that is true. None.

All of those laws could be preserved without marriage. In fact all of them stand NOW without marriage.

There are no property laws in the USA that depend on marriage.

Comrade? Who do you think you're talking to?

We've already ascertained that you don't know what you are talking about.

66 posted on 02/07/2012 3:35:21 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: manc

the meme of “born that way” and “who cares” is controlling here.

These judges go to ABA conferences where the FAR FAR left controls. The model law projects sponsored by the ABA are all about anything goes marriage with children as mere “accessories” but not part of a marriage.

These judges are often failed students with the gift of gab.


67 posted on 02/07/2012 3:53:34 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: South40

If it is upheld they will simply try and repeal it through popular vote. Prop.8 passed in 2008 by 52%. I wonder if it even would pass now. The second the homosexualists think they have the numbers they will stop howling about their civil rights being infringed by the majority and be screaming for the popular voting process.

Freegards


68 posted on 02/07/2012 4:13:34 PM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40

Does not anyone fear the Lord??? God have mercy on their souls...


69 posted on 02/07/2012 5:09:03 PM PST by angelcindy ("Those who follow the crowd,gets no further than the crowd")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
You're still right, unfortunately.

This battle is already lost.

Our only recourse is to get government sanction of marriage...to include all tax benefits etc. out of the mix. Only when government recognizes no marriage will this abomination be tolerable.


I'm in the same boat, maybe government ought to get out of this altogether, change the tax code to where you have a flat tax charged when you make above a certain amount of money. In this case, I don't care who or what you marry. Now if we keep government involved, I like what the Russians and Serbians did, enact a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

The way it is now, if this passes then how can we deny other forms of marriage, if two heterosexuals can marry and if two homosexuals can, then I cannot deny a polygamist or some guy who wants to marry his goat. We opened Pandora's Box here, a really big barrel of monkeys.
70 posted on 02/07/2012 5:42:15 PM PST by Nowhere Man (Holodeck Computer: End Obama Administration simulation program, NOW!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory; Mariner
the only way to do that would be to abolish inheritance, paternity, maternity and anything family related. IOW no property rights at all.

This is an utterly baseless assertion.

no property of person. no real property no personal property no intelectual property no property of ones associations

This is a list, not a substantiation of your baseless assertion. There is no correlation between your baseless assertion and the list.

Nice going comrade, big brother loves you.

Actually, Big Brother is government licensing / controlling marriage.

Instead of government licensed controlled legal marriage, there should be private marital contracts binding only those signing them. And those should be treated the same as any other contracts are: those who sign them write the terms.

71 posted on 02/07/2012 6:20:08 PM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: South40

I consider it unconstitutional to give EXTRA rights to one group of people over another.

What do I mean by this?

Heterosexuals all abide by the laws that determine who can marry whom.

Homosexuals have the same freedoms and rights as heterosexuals. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex that is legally able to marry and consents.

But that isn’t enough for the homosexuals.

They want that AND they want the ability to marry people of the same sex.

So I suppose this now means that two brothers or two sisters can marry one another? Certainly the homosexuals won’t deny these “same-sex lovers” the right to marry, will they? And how about a mother and daughter or mother and son or father and daughter and father and son? Certainly the homosexuals won’t deny these “other-oriented romances” the same right to marry, will they?

You see, homosexuals, either the people determine what is morally and legally acceptable, or they do not. If they do not, then there are no rules. If they do, then WE who are in an atomic-sized majority (as proved overwhelmingly in the far-left state of California) can set those rules.

What they don’t understand is that they are forcing America to pass an amendment to the US Constitution defining marriage along traditional, Judeo-Christian terms.


72 posted on 02/07/2012 6:39:26 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

Yes, the same people who scream with big mouths and red faces “DEMOCRACY NOW!” (and even have an asinine show by that name) simply love dictatorship when one judge can overrule the will of the overwhelming majority.


73 posted on 02/07/2012 6:46:24 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012; 185JHP; 230FMJ; AFA-Michigan; AKA Elena; APatientMan; Abathar; Absolutely Nobama; ...
Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

It's horrible to be ruled by a few fistfuls of leftist judges.

74 posted on 02/07/2012 8:15:55 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

Marriage has been recognized legally for at least a few thousand years. It is not a “nanny state” invention.

Your plan is liberaltarianism anarchy and against natural law and reason.


75 posted on 02/07/2012 8:18:29 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Not anarchy at all.

Private contracts with the terms determined solely by the two adults signing them, with an overall parameter of one man and one woman and, of course, only legal elements in the contract.

Much better than Big Government setting the terms, as is the case now.


76 posted on 02/07/2012 9:01:27 PM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

Yes, anarchy. There is no reason government should not recognize the legality of natural law based marriage.

Are you a Ron Paul supporter by any chance?


77 posted on 02/07/2012 9:31:52 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

BTW, “Big Government” has not set the terms for marriage, Natural Law has done that already. Now, Big Government wants to usurp Natural Law and replace it with faggotry.

You are wrong, and you are probably a libertarian since that is their utterly wrong headed, anti-Natural Law position.


78 posted on 02/07/2012 9:34:05 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: South40

No surprise. Will this reach SCOTUS just in time for the election next fall? Candidates better have an answer on this issue.


79 posted on 02/07/2012 10:32:25 PM PST by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
You are wrong

That's impossible.

80 posted on 02/07/2012 11:22:02 PM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: South40

So The People of California get an approved measure on the ballot to amend their Constitution which passes a popular vote, yet the judiciary still strike sit down. Seems to me the judiciary is saying your vote doesn’t matter, which is an extremely dangerous precedent to set.


81 posted on 02/08/2012 2:09:40 AM PST by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams
...the absolute importance of having a republican president appoint judges through a republican Congress.

We had a Republican President Bush and a Republican Senate and we still couldn't get judges approved (see Miguel Estrada).

82 posted on 02/08/2012 2:12:39 AM PST by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

Nazis in black robes! Maybe we need a federal law saying that no liberals or judges that are legislating from the bench & “interpreting” the Constitution instead of simply doing as it said are banned from any part of the judicial system. Me? I’d pull the next guy I see walking around the street in Lubbock, Texas to make judicial decisions. They would be FAR better than anything we have now!


83 posted on 02/08/2012 2:12:52 AM PST by Bulgaricus1 (Fill your hand you son...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: South40
<<<=== Constitutional Right?
<<<== ILLEGAL!!!
84 posted on 02/08/2012 6:30:07 AM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coronal
"In all or most states, children born of married parents are presumed by law to be the biological offspring of the husband, unless he chooses to challenge paternity."

Yes, that is true (as I think I mentioned). But a child born to an unmarried woman, fathered by a married man, does not create a parental responsibility for the wife of the father. It is physically impossible that the wife is the natural parent. Just as it is physically impossible for a spouse in a same-sex marriage to be the natural parent of children born to their partner.

So, to pass court muster, California must change its law to only create the presumption of paternity for male-female marriages, and exclude the presumption for same-sex couples. Then they have a valid reason for having a legal difference between a "domestic partnership" and a marriage.

Other states that have not given such sweeping rights to same-sex couples are unaffected by this narrowly-drawn decision.

85 posted on 02/08/2012 7:12:16 AM PST by In Maryland ("Truth? We don't need no stinkin' truth!" - Official Motto of the Main Stream Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

“We had a Republican President Bush and a Republican Senate and we still couldn’t get judges approved (see Miguel Estrada).”

To your point, we need a minimum of 51 conservatives in the Senate as opposed to a minimum of 51 Republicans. Basically, we need to take over the Senate with conservative Republicans (or Independents?) in such numbers that conservative positions would prevail, even with a handful of liberal/moderate Republicans voting with the Democrats as they always do (eg Graham, Collins, McCain, etc). I’m thinking a 65-35 ratio would do the trick.

Wishful thinking? Probably so, sadly.


86 posted on 02/08/2012 8:34:19 AM PST by Let_It_Be_So (Once you see the Truth, you cannot "unsee" it, no matter how hard you may try.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

I don’t advocate polygamy, but always find it weird that so many opponents of “gay marriage” make the premise that gay marriage might allegedly lead to polygamy the center of their case.

“Gay marriage” is infinitely worse than polygamy.

The case against “gay marriage” needs to be made on the basis that it endorses / subsidizes / mainstreams a harmful pattern of conduct.


87 posted on 02/08/2012 12:00:46 PM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-87 last

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.

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