Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FNC: California law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional
Fox News | March 14, 2005

Posted on 03/14/2005 12:16:45 PM PST by Dont Mention the War

Breaking...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: 1996; aba; adoption; amendment; behavior; children; dma; doma; father; federal; fma; gaymarriage; glsen; homosexualagenda; hrc; lamda; legal; marriage; mother; orgasm; pedophile; pflag; ruling; samesexmarriage; sex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 421-438 next last
To: So Cal Rocket

Pitiful. Goodbye "We the people." We have no say any longer.


41 posted on 03/14/2005 12:36:30 PM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real politcal victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: drungus
From your link:
A pair of bills pending before the California Legislature would put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot. If California voters approve such an amendment, as those in 13 other states did last year, that would put the issue out of the control of lawmakers and the courts.

42 posted on 03/14/2005 12:36:30 PM PST by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dont Mention the War

Lets see, the people "vote" and the courts over-rule our votes? Hmmmmmmmmm

Can you spell T-E-A P-A-R-T-Y?

Throw them overboard!!


43 posted on 03/14/2005 12:37:12 PM PST by Vets_Husband_and_Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dont Mention the War
WAAAAAHHH! AAH'M A VIIICTIIIM!!!!!

Renee Mangrum, right, and Mara Williams, who wed in February, rally in support of gay marriage in San Francisco, Aug. 12, 2004. (AP Photo/Noah Berger)
Mon Mar 14, 3:27 PM ET
AP

Renee Mangrum, right, and Mara Williams, who wed in February, rally in support of gay marriage in San Francisco, Aug. 12, 2004. (AP Photo/Noah Berger)


44 posted on 03/14/2005 12:38:23 PM PST by Alouette (Learned Mother of Zion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
He apparently based it on the State Constitution's equal protection clause...

This is where they artificially construct "classes" in order to abuse the concept of Equal Protection.

Marriage is by definition a legal union between a man and a woman. Nothing else. Sexual preference is none of the states business nor is it part of the state's contract. Regardless of their "sexual preference" two people of the opposite sex may not marry each other. And regardless of their sexual preference, those same people are legally entitled to marry someone of the opposite sex.

It is perfectly equal unless you accept the bizarre notion that the state can define new classes of citizens based upon something as personal and legally unprovable as sexual preference.

45 posted on 03/14/2005 12:38:32 PM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dont Mention the War

Did the Judge ALSO approve marriages of live people with dead people or marriages of human people with domestic animal people?


46 posted on 03/14/2005 12:39:52 PM PST by pfony1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs
What about polygamists?

Or polyandry :)

47 posted on 03/14/2005 12:40:12 PM PST by mewzilla (Has CBS retracted the story yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 4everontheRight
California has become an

48 posted on 03/14/2005 12:40:13 PM PST by B4Ranch (The Minutemen will be doing a 30 day Neighborhood Watch Program in Cochise County, Arizona.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ClintonBeGone
Either way, it will go to the 9th circus clowns of appeal and hopefully end up at the USSC.

This ruling seems to be based solely on the California Constitution. Federal courts would actually have no jurisdiction for hearing this case.

49 posted on 03/14/2005 12:40:16 PM PST by Modernman ("Normally, I don't listen to women, or doctors." - Captain Hero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
Prop 22 in Calif was a change to the Constitution, not a law to be ruled on my the courts, it is actually the opposite. We told the government how to operate and what laws they can pass.

Yes; I'm curious how an amendment to the Constitution can be un-Constitutional. By definition, amendments are Constitutional as they are the Constitution.

50 posted on 03/14/2005 12:40:23 PM PST by Kretek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Vets_Husband_and_Wife

THROW "HIM" OVERBOARD. Surely more rational heads will previal in the supreme court of Californina!


51 posted on 03/14/2005 12:40:35 PM PST by Vets_Husband_and_Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket
"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.

What a moron.

52 posted on 03/14/2005 12:41:16 PM PST by Psycho_Bunny (“I know a great deal about the Middle East because I’ve been raising Arabian horses" Patrick Swazey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dont Mention the War

Did the judge impose a remedy or is that stayed pending appeal? Will there be gay marriages in Calif. until the Ca. supremes get around to hearing the case?


53 posted on 03/14/2005 12:42:07 PM PST by nyg4168
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote.

Well, he's right that tradition isn't much of a legal reason, or even a logical one. Was that the argument that was used by opponents of gay marriage?

54 posted on 03/14/2005 12:43:03 PM PST by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dont Mention the War

The argument over the denial of rights based on sex is an interesting one. In federal jurisprudence we never amended the constitution to provide "equal rights" regardless of sex (the ERA). This might be the only thing preventing same-sex marriage now.

Because it is clear that if a PERSON can marry a woman, the ERA would have prohibited discrimination based on the SEX of the person that could marry a woman.

Since we didn't pass the ERA, we are still able to discriminate between sexes.

Note that the current law does not in any way discriminate against gay and lesbian people. Every person, regardless of their sexual preferences, is free to marry any person of the opposite sex.

On the other hand, the constitution does not give anybody the constitutional right to marry the person they are attracted to (otherwise we would have to allow polygamy and half the population of this board would apparently be married to Ann Coulter :->).


55 posted on 03/14/2005 12:43:50 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT (http://spaces.msn.com/members/criticallythinking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny

More than just a moron.

This judge just decided that the people of California are 'irrational' and should have no decision in policy making.

Someone needs to remind the Judge who 'We The People' are!

To the Judge: (Hint: It's NOT the elected officials or appointed Judges)


56 posted on 03/14/2005 12:43:56 PM PST by Bigh4u2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

"Since we didn't pass the ERA, we are still able to discriminate between sexes. "

But a lot of states have state ERAs in their constitution, and those are being used to argue for gay marriage.


57 posted on 03/14/2005 12:45:15 PM PST by nyg4168
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: EdReform; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; stage left; Yakboy; I_Love_My_Husband; ...

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Just to wake you all up. Interesting comments on the thread.

I don't know about you, but I'm ready for some serious civil disobedience if the black robed wicked fools keep this up.

Let me and DirtyHarryY2K know if you want on/off this pinglist.


58 posted on 03/14/2005 12:45:44 PM PST by little jeremiah (Resisting evil is our duty or we are as responsible as those promoting it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kretek; edcoil

Proposition 22 was not a Constitutional Amendment.

It only changed California's family law code to prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages.

If it had been a Constitional Amendment, the issue would already be dead. See post 42--it looks like there is an effort to initiate a Constitional Amendment now.


59 posted on 03/14/2005 12:46:52 PM PST by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket
It is simply not going to be possible to limit the definition of marriage. I say it is time to get the government, at all level, out of the marriage business altogether. People got married long before the State of California started issuing licenses. Let people get married by their churches or however they want, then register a domestic partnership with the state, if they choose to. Domestic partnership would come along with a whole raft of rights and responsibilities, but would have nothing to do with marriage. The state would then dissolve the domestic partnership in divorce, but the marriage would be the business of whatever entity did it in the first place. The only thing the state can do is continually broaden the definition to include whatever group wants to sue it next.

Since the state got involved in marriage, it has done nothing but erode the sanctity of the institution. This is because the state can never create -- it can only destroy. Time to keep them as far away from the institution of marriage as possible.

I don't know why heterosexuals should be all enthusiastic about maintaining their status of being the only ones who must to knuckle under to the petty authority of the state to register who they are going to spend their time with. It is simply none of the state's business, and it never has been. It is just societal inertia that makes the state's definition of marriage into the definition of marriage.

60 posted on 03/14/2005 12:47:19 PM PST by gridlock (ELIMINATE PERVERSE INCENTIVES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 421-438 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson