Skip to comments.Court rejects appeal to overturn Proposition 8 rulingócase could head to Supreme Court
Posted on 06/06/2012 6:06:43 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that it will not review a three-judge panel's decision to overturn California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage.
Following this ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Proposition 8 proponents plan to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, putting the battle for same-sex marriage on a national stage. The Supreme Court could decide to hear the case as part of its docket next year.
The ruling comes after a federal appeals court in Boston ruled Thursday that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), that says states don't have to recognize gay marriages in other states and defines marriage as between a man and a woman for federal purposes, violates the Constitution and should be struck down. This case could also go before the Supreme Court next year.
In February, a three-judge panel in California voted 2 to 1 against the voter-approved same-sex marriage ban, upholding an earlier decision by Judge Vaughn Walker. The panel said that by denying marriage rights, Proposition 8 violated the equal protection clause and due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.
"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," the court wrote in February. Proposition 8 supporters appealed, asking for a larger panel of the court to review the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The proposition in question is an Amendment to the California State Constitution.
Since when do 2 people in a courtroom have the right to declare a State Constitution un-Constitutional?
Well, they are inferior. Especially when it come to reproducing, the most cherished and God-blessed part of a man/woman marriage.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
I may want to marry my mother and my brother. Mom’s old, and the prospect of children is not an issue, and my brother, well, I’m not gay, but I do love him. Is there going to be some kind of requirement of sexual activity among the partners? If so, my wife may get upset.
Studies indicate they are inferior relationships and that “marriage” doesn’t improve them. They’re worse for adopted children. There is no “gay” gene and no scientific reason to believe that homosexuality isn’t a mental disorder.
Listen here for the history: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/sites/all/play_music/play_full.php?play=204
It’s NPR and it’s accurate. It will hold water with liberals if you choose to share it with them.
It’s not discriminatory to recognize an otherwise normal person with a mental illness. Manic-depressives are treated and function normally, some so well you’d never guess they suffered from a mental illness. This type of accommodation will simply hurt them and America.
These leftists in black robes got it all backwards! Proposition 8 seeks to MAINTAIN the time tested and successful status quo that is a result of and premised upon FREEDOM and self determination....
Bear with me as I type extemporaneously and I am sure disjointedly -about the big picture...
How about something, a different way of looking at things, that may blow your mind?
As a conservative I assume many believe like myself in the inherent benefits associated with the economic free market system.
The free market is pretty much a spontaneously generated self regulating complex system comprised of many variables and individual inputs that by its very nature rewards value generation and discourages value destruction. It promotes competition, success, innovation, and efficiency -creating wealth along the way.
Individual market participants uncoordinated, acting primarily to further and advance their own welfare determine value and price of goods and services based upon needs, wants, supply, and demand. The end result of uncoordinated individual advancement within this system of insurmountable complexity is an advancement the common good...
OK -now what about the moral free market?
Ask yourself --what is the rational basis for Beta to win out over VHS or for SUVs to win out over compact cars of for that matter any thing to be valued over anything else and to succeed or fail in the economic free market?
Now go one step further and ask yourself WHY all of the sudden must that which has always been valued in the moral free market now requires a rational basis? The answer should lead one to conclude that those suggesting such moral innovations, e.g. homosexual marriage; are simply those that seek to destroy the moral free market -in essence, they seek to take away individual freedom away from market particpants...
Some may be familiar with F.A. Hayek who wrote a book I recommend to any free market conservative --he is noted for his writings on the inherent benefits associated with the free market system and the inherent flaws associated with socialism. It is no coincidence that underlying legitimate individual freedom are premised not only his arguments on the value, benefits and sound reason for the economic free market but as well arguments regarding the value, benefits and sound reason for the moral free market e.g. society -its historically proven successful and historically observed traditions and institutions...
Traditional morality is rejected today as commonly as it was once taken for granted. And if the specific content of that morality, especially where it touches on matters of sexuality, is widely regarded with contempt, the meta-ethical notion that one ought to respect a moral code precisely because it is traditional gets even worse treatment: It is held to be beneath contempt. Modern educated people take it to be a sign of their modernity and education that they refuse to accept the legitimacy of any institution or code of behavior, however widespread, ancient, and venerable, which has not been rationally justified. Traditional morality stands doubly damned in their eyes: It is not rationally justifiable, and its adherents fail even to attempt to justify it so. The traditional moralist, they take it, is a slave not merely to the conventional wisdom but to the conventional wisdom of people long dead. He is in the grip of irrationality, superstition, and ignorance; worst of all, he is out of date.
Read it, if you like it --use it, and pass it on...