Boop His Cute Little Tootsies!
Pretty Baby Looks Innocent Now
But He'll Be Huge and Fiery Soon
Donate!
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 02/07/2012 10:46:18 AM PST by RobinMasters
News just began coming out a little after noon on the east coast. A California appeals court has struck down Proposition 8, which banned same sex marriage in the state.
A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California’s ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.
The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal.
The ruling was narrow and likely to be limited to California.
“Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California,” the court said.
The ruling upheld a decision by retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who struck down the ballot measure in 2010 after holding an unprecedented trial on the nature of sexual orientation and the history of marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Typical 9th Circus.
Remember when it was supposed to be one person, one vote? Now it’s one judge, one vote; the others don’t count.
Why do they even have voting in California anymore?
The 9th Circuit is a FEDERAL court, not a "California" court.
Furthermore, the California Supreme Court ruled that Prop 8 IS constitutional.
So, the state ruled it constitutional, and the federal courts overruled it.
-PJ
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
I have actually read the Constitution and the Federalist papers. I don’t remember marriage being discussed. Maybe they’re talking about the equal protection clause. If that is the case then that doesn’t make any sense either. All homosexuals of adult age are allowed to get married with very few exceptions. They cannot presently be married, and they have to marry someone of the opposite sex. We have the exact same privledges.
Newt Gingrich...pick up the white courtesy phone, please...
Can you imagine these twisted, diseased judges arguing their case before G-d Almighty?
What a simplistic, reductio ad absurdum rebuttal. Is the institution of marriage nothing more than an attempt to elevate or increase the status and human dignity of heterosexuals? Or is it much, much more -- namely a cornerstone of our civilization that has been extant in some form for all of recorded history?
Much more rests on the institution of marriage than mere social status or some vague sense of "dignity." If this is the level of logic this court develops in its opinions, it is less a court than a court jester.
Absolutely. That is the answer to the arguement. I have to deal with this crap in my family (the in-laws). In the future I will simply respond with “But you do have equal protection under the law, no law is stating that gay men cannot marry a woman.
Look closely at the ruling. They are attempting to lay the groundwork for the elevation of homosexuals as a protected “class.” Even though Title 7 specifically says “ Sex defined as gender, not sexuality or sexual practices.”
More judicial activism and revisionism. “We don’t like that homosexuality is not a fundamental right and therefore not a protected class sufficient for strict scrutiny which would get us the result we want. So we will, inch by inch, bump it up to the level of scrutiny necessary.” Even if there is no legal basis for it. First year law students could rule better on this.
This decision was already in the word processor two years ago. They just needed proof of the money transfer.
“Calif. court declares Prop 8 unconstitutional”
This is the case that will end up in the Supreme Court.
It will be all up to Anthony Kennedy…
No way to predict the final outcome as of yet...
This may end up to become the “Roe v. Wade” of homosexuality.
They’ll never let the People have a say. It’s time for the People start ignoring these elites and their armed dogs.
We have long ceased to be a nation whose foundation is based on Judeo-Christian principles.
One can’t think of anything deviant that will not be acceptable by the Court.
Ninth Circus, most overturned court in the U.S.
“Now it’s one judge, one vote; the others don’t count.”
YEP...what the majority of citizens want no longer means ANYTHING!
I look at this measure as a way to authorize 5 wives by the back door.
I have actually read the Constitution and the Federalist papers. I don’t remember marriage being discussed.
Never was, the major legal issues that exist with family relationships are designating whose job it is to pull your plug if you are left a vegetable, who is on your insurance plan, how your inheritance gets divided, and which kids deserve to be in your custody, but then again, being considered a biological parent, according to court cases, is no longer the great deal it used to be.
If worst comes to worse, I can see major churches no longer asking, in fact plenty asking for you to not get out a government marriage license, which is probably the way it should have been in the first place. The morality of government and the morality of God are wholly incompatible, I would always think twice when seeing how lax the morality of man’s laws are in comparison to the morality of God’s laws.
I look at this measure as a way to authorize 5 wives by the back door.
Well in plenty of ways, having multiple wives is essentially decriminalized. I could have five girlfriends, father children through all of them, have them live in the house, but since there is no marriage license, and they are all adult women, there is no crime. Hugh Hefner is a great example of this, and lives quite the big daddy life.
Polygamy is an example of how something once okay turned ugly. Perhaps one of few cases where the importance of actually only allowing people with a marriage license to simply live together was actually enforced, but ever since the 19th century, our government has been corrupted to the point where it no longer treats adultery, cohabitation, or various other offenses as serious crimes.
“ever since the 19th century”
“My Fair Lady” was on last weekend, and I watched it. I had forgotten that “I’m Getting Married in the Morning” was in it. The father said he was going to be very middle class and marry the woman he’d been living with. I had forgotten all about that implication, but it’s true. A wedding is a very big deal for middle class people, only now, it’s a bit of a burden in many ways.
I was married in judge’s chambers. Then, we went out to dinner. Very private, just 3 witnesses and us. Strange to remember that at this moment. But we are actually fiercely private on many counts.
What a simplistic, reductio ad absurdum rebuttal. Is the institution of marriage nothing more than an attempt to elevate or increase the status and human dignity of heterosexuals? Or is it much, much more — namely a cornerstone of our civilization that has been extant in some form for all of recorded history?
Well, never before have treated marriage like something that everyone has to accept as true, or in a do-or-die fashion. Marriage also wasn’t always about a license either. Some people may think my marriage vows weren’t made with authority from God (atheist) or that my marriage isn’t legit (person believing in the sanctity of the state).
Either way, I decided to bypass getting a marriage license, which I have found, amounts to close to nothing legally. Everything else, such as healthcare directives, will & testament, and registered insurance policy, actually does. Interesting enough, the fact that people make a deal about the marriage license shows people adopting a worshipful attitude toward the state instead of God. Interestingly enough, the Bible has quite a number of harsh words regarding people feeling worshipful, or encouraging worship in the wrong way towards government officials. God was angry that King Saul decided to offer the sacrifice instead of allowing Samuel, through his office of a Levite, to do it. God was enraged at the bondage of Israel under the Egyptian monarchy, which was regarded as dieties on Earth, and Samuel was angry at the fact that the people in Israel actually wanted a monarchy, which he warned would produce all sorts of ills. No thousands of years later, the same inclination still exists, plenty of people who seem to not wish to worship God, seem to exert an equivalent of religious faith in the morality of the state government, such an attitude of government worship is a driving force behind communism, or even simply government corruption. It sometimes appears a secular substitute for religion itself.
This is a bit off-topic, but I recall decades ago that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was grossly understaffed based on its allotted number of jurists.
At that time, the hypothesis was broached that the Ninth Circuit sought to keep its numbers small so they could continue to hand down inane decisions similar to the one highlighted in this post.
I noticed the Court ruled 2 to 1. Does anyone know how many justices are currently on the 9th Circuit and how many justices should be seated on that court to place the court at full strength?
By the way, I got over being astonished, surprized, disgusted etc. by 9th Circuit rulings many years ago. The lunacy of the justices is transparent.
EODGUY
Round them all up!
Texas is calling. CA is toxic.
will of the people, not-upheld..............again.
LOL - there won't be any argument. They'll just be consigned to hell the instant they die. They can scream and holler all they want to, but no one in heaven will hear them.
Voting....just like pissing in the wind.
Great catch. Have you read either ruling to see which one is stronger? It would be great if SCJ’s could build on the CA SC’s ruling.
Not just our civilization, but every great civilization every recorded anywhere on earth.
They’re not always overturned and that’s what’s scary about this ruling.
I wonder that. Time and time again, the voters of California have voted for some common sense measure designed to protect the rights and liberties that are threatened by liberal policies, and had them overturned by activist courts.
There is no Constitutional reason that Californians should be forced to subsidize the health care and education of illegals who should be deported. There is no Constitutional reason that Californians should have to allow gay "marriage" to be made legal. Yet activist judges have said otherwise.
OTOH, the people of CA seem rather schizophrenic in their voting patterns. While voting for common-sense propositions (and passing them by overwhelming majorities), they turn around and vote for the most whacky liberal politicians on the ballot. Although I wonder if that isn't so much a reflection of the voters' will, as it is a reflection that there are huge political pay-offs for vote fraud in favor of candidates, while vote-fraud in favor of an unpopular proposition doesn't really have a pay-off (especially when corrupt judges will overturn the will of the people anyway).
Judges should not be allowed too strike down the will of the people who voted a law into existence. The will of we the people governed by consent should be the final check & balance. Perhaps it’s time too end appointed Judiciary in our nation and elect them instead? It’s definitely past time for Term Limits for all Three Branches of Government.
Which is a clearer indicator of right vs. wrong: the will of the people or the will of the government? There seems to be a general divide based on that.
Geez. No kidding. Its like Rose Bird never left.
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.