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 ...
I agree.
If under the 14th Amendment the ‘behavior’ of people must be treated equally then I do not see how any of the current tax laws could not also be ruled as un-Constitutional. Currently a hard-working lifestyle is subject to one set of laws which is to punish heavily through taxation while a lazy dysfunctional lifestyle is subject to another set of laws and is rewarded and subsidized. This is hardly ‘Equal Protection Under the Law’.
No -and if it does They might do like they did in Lawrence v. Texas and decide that Marriage means any temporary agreement
or union so as not to offend the Muslim or those who might wish to marry their Television or a horse-or whatever Jerry Springer could come up with.
Well that’s close isn’t it? In those States where the people have not been allowed any voice the Congressional vote has been very much the opposite of those State run by popular consent of the governed.
My relative is gay, long term monogamous relationship [decades] with no interest in marriage, and when his partner was very ill, he was allowed in as the one designated as immediate family. When gays say they cannot get into the hospital room of their loved one, it's crap he responds..everyone was real nice. They have always set up their legal affairs involving the estate, other financial considerations, investments, etc.
He always laughs and says, he is against gay marriage. Just because we are gay, doesn't mean we are for gay marriage. He dislikes those that lead their ongoing gay marriage political agenda and has a name for them which I will not use here...slightly Un-PC. They are registered Independents.
But the churches will be sued in the local/ District court if they refuse to perform homosexual weddings.
I have never understood this issue. In every village in America, no matter how remote, there is a law office that can draw up a partnership, a "civil union," between any two citizens of the land.
In their contract, they can assign roles to each other covering every aspect of human activity. They can insure each other, share their incomes, wear dresses one week and trousers the next, live in the same room, go out on the lawn and howl naked at the moon (neighbors and space permitting). They can tell the neighbors anything they want. They can adopt children and leave their estate to them. They can file a joint tax return through the partnership. Where is the problem?
All the law says is that right now, they cannot be declared a "married" couple, because "marriage" to the state, is a more or less permanent civil union between a man and a woman.
Gay "marriage" is a psychological issue. IMHO, not a legal one.
No, the churches cannot be forced to marry people they don’t want to marry.
I don’t know what lead you to come up with that.
That is exactly what Prop. 8 did. The CA Supreme Court invented a constitutional right to gay marriage. The people came back with Prop. 8 and changed the state constitution. The gays sued again, but this time the CASC said gay marriage was not a constitutional right, since the constitution had been amended. That is why they sued in Federal court. So the argument now is over the whether the state constitution violates the Federal constitution. If the district court's order is not overturned, every one of those 31 state are going to have their constitutions challenged in federal court over the marriage issue.
Who do you expect to step down in the next 2 years? None of the conservatives are going to step down, so the only one I can think of is Ginsburg.
You have a point. He’ll be replacing Liberals with Liberals.
Will somebody Pleese tell the Governator that the US Supreme Court decided last April that the Mojave Cross memorial could stay until the district court fixed a problem they created by
offending Congress and not recognizing the sweetheart land transfer.Then the Memorial was stolen in the night—and
everybody is pretending to not know who done it.But when a local paper got a letter from the thief he indicates he is a veteran-he did it because he was angry at what Justice Kennedy wrote- he says his act was not anti-Christian-nor theft because his motives were to promote goodwill toward all men and a secular ACLU led society. I believe the
Mojave preserve knows who took it-I believe they know he returned the cross when he sobered up—And I wish somebody would build a fire under the Judges seat -because I WANT MY MEMORIAL BACK ON SUNRISE ROCK.
The gods in black robes dictate to the nation that which the legislature knows would never pass muster with the voting public.
All religions are being lectured to by Big Government as to the nature of sin.
Homosexuality is no longer sinful because gay psychologists decreed it.
In Texas, lesbians are trying to get the courts to recognize same-sex divorce. The state says it does not recognize their marriage in the first place so they are free to seperate as is.
It’s not about life partners, it’s about changing all laws.
A photographer got charged with discrimination for refusing to photograph a same sex "wedding".
And there have been cases where a religious bookstore was being charged with discrimination for refusing to hire a transvestite employee.
Great points! If the state of California is not allowed to define marriage within its constitution, then how can any state define marriage?
And, nobody seems to mention this aspect of it, but the federal government defines marriage as one man and one woman, by law, not by amendment. If courts are going to say that states can’t define marriage, then is it a stretch that these federal courts will also rule that the federal government isn’t allowed to define marriage either???
I think what he was trying to say is that churches could be sued for discriminating against same-sex couples in their definition of marriage. If I recall correctly, a church was successfully sued regarding a racial discrimination matter, and lost their tax exemption as a result. Since the gay activists and liberals are always saying that this current gay marriage/gay rights debate is the same as the civil rights movement, and are winning in court with liberal judges agreeing to that reasoning, it’s not a major stretch to think that churches will be sued over how they define marriage.
The only out for churches may be that they only allow members in good standing of their church to get married. But then, just wait until they have a homosexual member in good standing seeking marriage, and that sets the stage for the lawsuit.
I find it hard to believe that the church would be challenged as to a Holy Sacrament. And the Supreme Court would have to deal with the Vatican as well.
If you wish to entertain that thought, be my guest. I think it is preposterous.
BTW, women can’t become priests either.
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.