Posted on 12/08/2010 8:17:19 AM PST by SmithL
Monday's federal appellate court hearing on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the California ballot measure that bars same-sex marriages, was divided into two one-hour segments.
During the first hour, lawyers argued over who, if anyone, has legal "standing" to appeal District Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown, who will be governor in a month, refused to defend the measure. Attorneys for its proponents want the court to allow them to become the appellants.
There's also a very odd bid by Imperial County, or at least its marriage license clerk, to intervene as an appellant, although Imperial's attorney was ill-prepared to defend its case.
The second half of the hearing before three appellate judges was devoted to the measure itself – whether it represents the right of states and their voters to set legal parameters of marriage or is an unconstitutional abridgement of everyone's right to marry whomever he or she chooses, as Walker ruled.
What's happening in California is, of course, part of a larger national debate over marriage. Same-sex marriages are legal in some states and illegal in others, while in California it's very much up in the legal air, thanks to Walker's decision.
Polls indicate that it's a close question among voters everywhere, and the panel itself may be divided, if Monday's questioning of attorneys is any guide.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Well, eventually it will make to the Supreme Court, no?
I think of this as a Church issue, not a State's issue. The Church per denomination decides.
Probably we will get an Executive Order from BHO legalizing same sex marriage one of these days soon. And sadly some RINOs in congress will demand it is only for those earning over $250,000 a year. /snide
Hardly close as all of the DOMA's voted upon by at least 17 states the man/woman as married overwhelmingly won even in liberal Oregon where it won by almost 70%!
It would seem that only in very liberal circles within academia, media and elite circles does gay marriage seem to be a non-"close question."
Well, eventually it will make to the Supreme Court, no?That's hard to say. The worst case scenario is that this panel will rule that no one has standing to appeal Walker's decision, and neither the full 9th Circuit nor SCOTUS accepts the appeal.
As I understand it, it is about the 14th Amendment. Can the government treat people differently.
The judges decision and the gay advocates say the government must treat every citizen the same.
The larger picture here is interesting. If the ruling is Yes, the government must treat everyone equally then the next round of lawsuits will be the progressive tax structure.
Can the government give free homes, schools, food, medicine to one citizen and not to another. Can it take 10% from one person and nothing from another. That answer will become no. Everyone must be treated the same if you take 10% from one you must take 10% from everyone. If you take 5% then everyone pays the same. The entire progressive income tax structure will be forced to be removed and every citizen must be treated equally.
This story has a long way to go until it ends.
Of course the gay marriage issue will end-up at the SCOTUS and we already know how eight of the current nine Justices will vote and from past decisions have a good idea how Kennedy, the ninth Justice will vote.
For Prop 8
Scalia
Alito
Roberts
Thomas
Against Prop 8
Sotomayor
Kagan
Ginsburg
Breyer
Unknown
Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas and seems to love the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
I imagine that Ted Olson when arguing for gay marriage will only be speaking to Justice Kennedy.
Not just 17 states. 31 states have amended their constitutions to define marriage as a man and a woman. These states amended their constitutions specifically to keep judges from imposing same-sex marriage via court order. The thinking is that a judge can’t say that marriage laws are unconstitutional if marriage is part of the constitution.
The Feds do not have to force a church to marry a same sex couple, but simply have to prohibit a state from denying a marriage certificate to a same sex couple.
Thanks.
Any man can marry any woman. Everyone is treated equally.
There is nothing that says a queer can't marry a dyke, so they have the exact same rights that everyone else has.
The government will sue the church. Like they did in England.
And STILL Freepers say they will never vote for someone they deem to be a RINO.
Obama is set to appoint two more justices.
In the case of marriage laws, everyone is already treated equally. That’s very disturbing to me, that the law isn’t being interpreted in the gay marriage cases.
Everyone is treated equally under current marriage law. Everyone can marry only one partner at a time. Everyone must be of legal age, a consenting adult, not certain close relatives. Everyone can only marry a person of the opposite sex.
But the liberals reject this equal treatment argument, because it doesn’t allow a woman to marry another woman. Well, these cases are a case of legislating from the bench, because the judges have to change the definition of marriage to come to the conclusion that marriage should just be any two people.
And then polygamy lawsuits are around the corner, because limiting marriage to only two people is also discriminatory against those who want to marry more than one person at a time. Age limits could be next. The legal reasoning used in the gay marriage cases is not correct.
The American people do NOT desire to affirm the term "marriage" to include same sex sexual partners as anything but sexual partners period.
Any of the homosexual "rights" folk claims of not being able to inherit or other claims can be corrected by a matter of civil laws (wills, trusts, etc.) but do not need redefining a 5,000 year relationship honored by any and all societies.
Easy. It won’t be imposed on churches.
As long as you “get a marriage license”, and you do, it is a state issue. It will also decide who inherits your estate when you die.
You don’t have to get a marriage license ... but you won’t be legally married in the eyes of the “state”.
the law does not recognize or care about church weddings.
only the civil union/marriage of the document signed by the notary. Priests are notaries so they can execute the document.
it only becomes “an issue” if all notaries are obligated to sign.
It sure will change the tax picture if it does.
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.