Skip to comments.Appeals court: Same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional [Calif]
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 ...
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.
We had a Republican President Bush and a Republican Senate and we still couldn't get judges approved (see Miguel Estrada).
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!
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.
“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.
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.