Posted on 10/14/2009 2:38:30 PM PDT by La Enchiladita
Edited on 10/14/2009 2:46:47 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge today refused to dismiss a legal challenge to Proposition 8, concluding that the ongoing courtroom battle over California's voter-approved ban on gay marriage must be resolved in a full-blown trial.
After two hours of legal sparring, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker largely rejected the arguments of Proposition 8 supporters, who maintained that U.S. Supreme Court precedent and a lack of proof of constitutional violations should sidetrack a lawsuit designed to overturn the ballot measure.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
"Procreation" is not the 'purpose' of marriage.
That's true, but the state should encourage marriage because it provides a stable family environment for children.
So now the court will rule the 14th amendment as enacted at the end of the Civil War also guaranteed the right of homosexuals to marry each other. (quite a surprise to those who authored the amendment in 1865, I suspect).
Then the 9th circuit affirms. Then suits are filed in every other state. Then it goes to SCOTUS. Maybe Zero will have another appointment by then to go with the wise latina.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
Elections, especially the propositions, are meangingless. Legislating via the courts is what holds sway.
meaningless... you know what I mean:)
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
And the CA SC left the door open by allowing thousands of previous “gay marriages” to legally stand.
The courts here are in business to nullify the will of the people. They always find a way.
>>its purpose of procreation.
>
>”Procreation” is not the ‘purpose’ of marriage.
What is THE purpose of marriage then? Also, what grounds do you have [asserting] that procreation isn’t ‘an’ purpose of marriage?
‘shooting certain domestic people’...
That is way, way over the top.
So you’re saying that people such as that traitor {one giving aid and comfort to the enemy} John Murtha SHOULDN’T be shot?
You’re saying a congress, namely the 111th, that proposes (and passes) a law which targets a certain group of people (bailout-recipient CEOs) for a retroactive (ex post facto) and punitive taxation is upholding and defending the Supreme Law of The Land (The Constitution)? (That says nothing of Amendments 4,5,6,7, & 14.)
My list/count of Constitutional infractions over JUST the retroactive & punitive AIG taxation:
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dv698tm_22dr6x3nfb
And you’re calling me over the top?
*shrug* - I don’t know about you, but I don’t think that swearing to protect and defend the Constitution can be used to justify inaction here. Either the Constitution IS the supreme law of the land, or it is not... there is NO middle-ground in the logic.
If it IS the supreme law of the land, then we have a leadership full of law-breakers who happen to be in charge of the prosecution and (I’m assuming) you want me to believe that they’ll allow this to be prosecuted? That’s just naive.
I'm not so sure about that. One thing is certain, the attorneys always win in the end. This may be an end run to extract funds from the plaintiffs.
This was exactly what the leftist supremes in California were hoping to achieve - an "in" to get their leftist agenda somehow enacted. Either marriage is ONLY the union of a man and a woman, or the existance of other unqualified combinations makes this point mute.
"...same-sex marriage advocates to argue that Proposition 8 violates the equal protection rights of gay couples because it denies them the equal right to marry."
This argument begins with a patently false premise. Marriage is not just a recent legal construct that was arbitrarily bestowed on certain types of relationships - marriage is the very substance of the relationship between a man and a woman.
Federal courts do not have legitimate jurisdiction to decide the content of state Constitutions.
Under what authority does U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker believe he can affirm or overturn the Constitutional will of the people of CA?
Tyranny.
The Supreme Court is the only thing left that will stop this, which means one person, Anthony Kennedy, will decide this case. Scary thought. But I have to be hopeful that Kennedy will vote in favor of prop. 8
Marriage is a social construct which existed long before the notion of a "legal construct" was even conceived. I am unaware of any evidence that, in the entire history of the world, more than a million people total have ever lived in societies which did not award particular recognition to marriages involving exactly one man. Most societies have required that marriages have exactly one woman, but that requirement was nowhere near as universal as the requirement that they have exactly one man.
If marriages not involving exactly one man would be beneficial to a society, there'd be some evidence of that. There isn't.
Keep in mind that even in societies that allowed polygamy, the marriage was still considered to be between the man and each wife INDIVIDUALLY - each wife did not have some kind of marriage relationship to every other wife. Marriage was still one man/one woman even in polygamous cultures.
The fact that marriage is treated uniquely in society BECAUSE of what marriage is in its essence is the basis of our marriage laws.
Mutual emotional and sexual security. Procreation is completely incidental.
L
>>What is THE purpose of marriage then?
>
>Mutual emotional and sexual security. Procreation is completely incidental.
Then why are children born out of wedlock termed “bastards”?
Because some people are heartless bastards.
>>Then why are children born out of wedlock termed “bastards”?
>
>Because some people are heartless bastards.
Hey, hey! Just because I’m heartless doesn’t mean I’m a bastard!
;)
Yes, it will go to the Supreme. Isn’t that crazy? Even a vote in favor of Prop 8 won’t stop the homosexual activist agenda though, will only stall it.
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.