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 ...
Romney believes in sodomite unions (identical to marriage, just not called marriage), and believes it’s fine for sodomites to adopt children. He will be no better than
Obama is protecting marriage as one man and one woman.
His great grandpa had 5 or 6 wives. And if there is one thing we all know about Romney he gaves in to all special interest groups and that includes fudge packers.
“Mitt and Kerry wish you a great PRIDE WEEKEND”. And this
is the worstless piece of liberal garbage that Faux News is cramming down the throats of republican voters all over this country.
I really hope this didn’t come as a shock
9th Circuit is merely a stepping stone to the Supremes.
Gingrich supports the federal marriage amendment.
Santorum PROBABLY does
Now is a time to lock Mitt into the pro Federal Marriage Amendment corner since he is competing for the nomination.
kookpaul? who knows.
The court, at first glance, applied a rational basis test and simply said there is no rational basis for prop 8.
IOW all those who argued mere religion abandoned reason and logic to the homosexuals.
The court also adopted a “born that way test”
By this, the court also is stating there is no rational basis for ANY, and I do mean ANY, other variation of marriage.
Does this mean they can drink from the same water fountains as the rest of us now?
“I’m thinking the USSC will rule gay marriage is legal.
The only way to stop it is a Constitutional Amendment.”
I’m thinking the same.
This case will go to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it has the potential to become the “Roe v. Wade” of homosexuality.
But alas . it’s too late now for that Constitutional amendment, and I’ll explain why.
It was obvious to me, from the time the very first state (Vermont) legalized “civil unions”, that the ONLY solution to conservatives to prevent gay marriage in America was by a U.S. Constitutional amendment that defined the meaning of “marriage” as being between one man and one woman, and also barred both the federal government and the state governments from enacting any legislation to the contrary.
Lacking that, it was also obvious to me that the left would pursue exactly the same path to legalizing gay (and eventually, polygamous) marriage as it did in legalizing abortion.
Think back to the early 1970’s (perhaps it was even into the late sixties) before Roe v. Wade. We first saw a few liberal states (New York comes to mind) legalize abortion on their own, while many others (most?) remained opposed to the idea.
It’s possible that after the first state “liberalization laws” were passed, sufficient sentiment existed in the Congress of the time to pass an anti-abortion amendment; and, once passed, that a requisite number of state legislatures would have agreed, and ratified the amendment. But only a few years’ later, public sentiment began to shift, and by the time the Supreme Court issued Roe v. Wade, the “moment of opportunity” to settle the issue by way of Constitutional amendment had been lost, never to be regained.
And now, fast-forward to today.
Right after the Vermont civil union law, I recall posting right here on FR that a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage was warranted and how it should be worded (I was the first, I recall, to propose such an idea).
At the time, there was sufficient outrage at the national level to support this approach, and there probably way sufficient support in Congress to ramrod the amendment through.
Recall that back then, it was -Republicans- in the Congress who backed away, begging off the issue that a Constitutional amendment would be “too extreme” a solution, and that a “Defense of Marriage” law would be “enough”. They wouldn’t do the heavy lifting and wanted the easiest way possible out of a difficult situation.
But by their actions, they sealed the fate of marriage in America. That is to say, they provided the left with the perfect avenue to impose its will on all of us, that way being through the courts.
And now — with subsequent court decisions in several states at the state level, combined with “legislative acts” in other states (such as Connecticut, and soon-to-be Washington State), the left has built a strong enough foundation under its ideological argument to support a decision on the national level, which it will soon achieve.
As the saying goes, one must strike while the iron is hot.
Several years’ back, the conservative “iron” was hot enough to burn a marriage amendment into our Constitution that would have settled the issue once and for all.
But unfortunately, that time has past, and the iron has grown cold.
“The fault, dear Brutus is not in our stars, but in ourselves
(Will Shakespeare said that)
Because we failed to act, conservatives are going to lose the national argument on gay marriage.
(I said that)
I wish it weren’t so. But that’s the way I see it.
also remember the Republicans (like McCain) stuck a poison pill flag burning amendment into the mix in order to make the amendment unpassable.
This can become a litmus test issue this November.
Obama is for homosexual based marriage, no debate there via his actions.
Attack this enough and it will doom democrats across the USA.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Though clearly you want that.
And there is the answer.
And there is the answer.
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.