Fed judge to rule on Calif same-sex "marriage" amendment

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
The latest in an ongoing saga pushed by homosexuals and their advocates will come out today, as a Federal District judge in California releases his ruling on whether California's Prop 8 ballot initiative amending the state Constitution, is blocked by the U.S. Constitution.

Prop 8 amended the state Constitution to say that California would recognize only "marriages" between man and woman.

Besides marriages, Califonia recognizes same-sex "civil unions", which are identical to marriages in all ways except in name. This is not good enough for homosexual advocates, though, who demand that their unions be called "marriages". This despite the universally-accepted definition of "marriage" as being a union of man and woman. Homosexual advocates are demanding that the fundamental definition of "marriage" be changed.

Homosexual advocates have tried repeatedly to put such fundamental changes on legislative bills and even ballot initiatives, and have almost universally rejected. Their only progress has been in getting judges to say that the change in the definition of marriage, is a "civil rights" matter, despite gays already haveing civili rights fully equal to the rights of heteros, in every state in the union.

One of the odder tactics the homosexual advocates have used to "justify" their demands that the definition of marriage be changed, is to compare them to Jim Crow laws forbidding mixed-race marriages. They apparently hope no one remembers that a fundamental reason for marriage is the procreation and raising of children - something mixed-race couples can do but same-sex couples cannot.

-------------------------------------------------

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...marriage-ban-ruling-to-be-released-today.html

California Same-Sex Marriage Ban Ruling to Be Released Today

August 04, 2010, 9:24 AM EDT
by Joel Rosenblatt

Aug. 4 (Bloomberg) -- A federal judge will publish his decision today on the validity of California’s ban on same-sex marriage, or Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment passed by 52 percent of state voters in 2008.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco will release the ruling electronically on the district’s web site, according to the court.

The city of San Francisco and gay couples from Berkeley and Burbank argued during an unprecedented trial that the amendment deprives gays and lesbians of equal rights and protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution. Sponsors of Proposition 8 countered that the desire of gays and lesbians to marry is outweighed by the state’s interest in promoting child rearing in heterosexual marriages.

Charles Cooper, an attorney for the law’s sponsors, said at the January trial before Walker that statutes like Proposition 8 have the support of the U.S. Congress, 7 million Californians and 70 out of 108 judges who have examined the issue.

About 18,000 gay couples married in California before Proposition 8 was passed, barring the practice. As of 2006, there were an estimated 109,000 gay couples in California, more than any other state, according to U.S. Census data compiled by the University of California at Los Angeles.

Proposition 8 outlawed same-sex marriage after it was legalized by the California Supreme Court. The ban, still in effect, sparked protests across the state. Walker’s decision will be the culmination of the nation’s first federal trial over the legality of a gay marriage ban. Both sides have pledged to appeal a defeat.

Theodore Olson, a former U.S. solicitor general, argued on behalf of the gay couples that the U.S. Supreme Court has determined in 14 cases going back to 1888 that marriage is tied to rights of privacy, liberty and freedom.

He said Proposition 8 proponents can’t show that California has any rational basis or compelling interest to take away that right.

The case is Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 09-02292, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).
 
Werbung:
Actually it's DOMA that is in question. (Defense of Marriage Act) defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The law was passed by Clinton. If that law can be overturned, then I guess any law can. Look out health care.
 
Now that same sex marriage is going to be considered Constitutional, why isn't polygamy?

I'm not personally for either, but hey, everyone should be able to marry whom and however many people they want right? It's about human rights. It's about everyone's "pursuit of happiness" right?
 
The latest in an ongoing saga pushed by homosexuals and their advocates will come out today, as a Federal District judge in California releases his ruling on whether California's Prop 8 ballot initiative amending the state Constitution, is blocked by the U.S. Constitution.

Prop 8 amended the state Constitution to say that California would recognize only "marriages" between man and woman.

Besides marriages, Califonia recognizes same-sex "civil unions", which are identical to marriages in all ways except in name. This is not good enough for homosexual advocates, though, who demand that their unions be called "marriages". This despite the universally-accepted definition of "marriage" as being a union of man and woman. Homosexual advocates are demanding that the fundamental definition of "marriage" be changed.

Homosexual advocates have tried repeatedly to put such fundamental changes on legislative bills and even ballot initiatives, and have almost universally rejected. Their only progress has been in getting judges to say that the change in the definition of marriage, is a "civil rights" matter, despite gays already haveing civili rights fully equal to the rights of heteros, in every state in the union.

One of the odder tactics the homosexual advocates have used to "justify" their demands that the definition of marriage be changed, is to compare them to Jim Crow laws forbidding mixed-race marriages. They apparently hope no one remembers that a fundamental reason for marriage is the procreation and raising of children - something mixed-race couples can do but same-sex couples cannot.

-------------------------------------------------

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...marriage-ban-ruling-to-be-released-today.html

California Same-Sex Marriage Ban Ruling to Be Released Today

August 04, 2010, 9:24 AM EDT
by Joel Rosenblatt

Aug. 4 (Bloomberg) -- A federal judge will publish his decision today on the validity of California’s ban on same-sex marriage, or Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment passed by 52 percent of state voters in 2008.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco will release the ruling electronically on the district’s web site, according to the court.

The city of San Francisco and gay couples from Berkeley and Burbank argued during an unprecedented trial that the amendment deprives gays and lesbians of equal rights and protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution. Sponsors of Proposition 8 countered that the desire of gays and lesbians to marry is outweighed by the state’s interest in promoting child rearing in heterosexual marriages.

Charles Cooper, an attorney for the law’s sponsors, said at the January trial before Walker that statutes like Proposition 8 have the support of the U.S. Congress, 7 million Californians and 70 out of 108 judges who have examined the issue.

About 18,000 gay couples married in California before Proposition 8 was passed, barring the practice. As of 2006, there were an estimated 109,000 gay couples in California, more than any other state, according to U.S. Census data compiled by the University of California at Los Angeles.

Proposition 8 outlawed same-sex marriage after it was legalized by the California Supreme Court. The ban, still in effect, sparked protests across the state. Walker’s decision will be the culmination of the nation’s first federal trial over the legality of a gay marriage ban. Both sides have pledged to appeal a defeat.

Theodore Olson, a former U.S. solicitor general, argued on behalf of the gay couples that the U.S. Supreme Court has determined in 14 cases going back to 1888 that marriage is tied to rights of privacy, liberty and freedom.

He said Proposition 8 proponents can’t show that California has any rational basis or compelling interest to take away that right.

The case is Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 09-02292, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).

Your beef should be with the U.S. Constitution. The liberty clause and the 14th amendment to be exact. The framers of Prop 8 intended this law to go before the SCOTUS. The will of the Majority can not allow for discrimination in any form. Just look at the loving case and you can see that discrimination in any form will be deemed unconstitutional. Also take a look at Brown v. Board of education. Like I said your beef is the with constitution but I don't expect you to really question that document. Also how does same sex marriage stop the procreation process??? This was asked by this judge back in January and not to mention this judge was appointed by GHW Bush and is a staunch conservative. Something you con's can dispute all you want but it's the truth.
 
Now that same sex marriage is going to be considered Constitutional, why isn't polygamy?

I'm not personally for either, but hey, everyone should be able to marry whom and however many people they want right? It's about human rights. It's about everyone's "pursuit of happiness" right?

There is nothing in the constitution that I know of that would ok homosexual marriage and I would bet if it were possible to ask any one who had anything to do with making the constitution if they meant for homosexual marriage they would all say no.

But I never understood why plural marriage isn't and I do not understand why Utah was told to drop plural marriage or they can not be a state.

It was a fundamental belief of Mormons and still is today to the FLDS that you must have plural wives to get into their version of heaven. To tell them they can not plural marry is to tell them that they cannot practice their long held religious beliefs. The constitution stops the government from impeding the free exercise of religion.
 
Now that same sex marriage is going to be considered Constitutional, why isn't polygamy?

Because polygamy doesn't discriminate. The ban on gay marriage is a violation of the 14th. Amendment, according to the judge, which prohibits discrimination.
 
That is not what I said. You just have a habit of putting words in peoples mouth and assuming people thing things they do not.

I think all people should have equal rights

well thats the logic of what you just said...Republicans fight to make sure Gays don't have rights, you say well abortion...since the are not related, one would asume you say this as justification for gays not having rights...If you believe gays should have equal full rights, then why are you trying to attack that idea with unrelated issues?

They where your words...I simply took what is the logical outcome of your argument...you have to be for both or against both.
 
Pandora, POS habitually lies and makes things up when he loses an argument... which is most of the time.

It's why most people don't bother arguing with him, except to occasionally shoot down some of his nuttier pronouncements.

I thought it was because I use facts and you dance and avoid them...thus look bad when you try.
 
Werbung:
of course it discriminates. It discriminates against an entire sect of religion

a few really, islam and judaism too

You may have a point. Anti polygamy laws could be found to discriminate against particular religions, even be against the First Amendment.

I wonder if that one will make it to the Supreme Court as well? It would certainly be an interesting development.
 
Back
Top