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

Skip to comments.

Same-sex marriage stays on hold for Prop. 8 appeal
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 3/23/11 | Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Posted on 03/23/2011 12:37:32 PM PDT by SmithL

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court refused today to let same-sex marriages resume in California while it considers the constitutionality of a 2008 ballot measure that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Gay and lesbian couples and the city of San Francisco had asked the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last month to lift its suspension of a federal judge's August 2010 ruling that declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

The couples and the city, plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging Prop. 8, cited the appeals court's decision to put the case on hold while the California Supreme Court decides whether sponsors of the initiative have standing under state law to appeal the judge's ruling.

The state court is scheduled to hear arguments on that issue in September. It may take another three months to rule before returning the case to the federal court.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuit; delusiondenied; homosexualagenda; orificediversity; prop8

1 posted on 03/23/2011 12:37:35 PM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL
A federal appeals court refused today to let same-sex marriages resume in California while it considers the constitutionality of a 2008 ballot measure that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

It is surprising that the people of California had to pass a constitutional amendment in connection with something so obvious and evident. Male and female genitalia are made for union, not male and male or female and female. To pretend otherwise is evidence of a seriously disordered mind.

Male/male union or female/female union can only achieved by means of deviant, perverted, and risky behavior that leads to sexually transmitted diseases, mental health problems, and substantial added risk to the public at large, like AIDS being transmitted to the recipient of an organ donor.

Why would a government put its entire population at risk for something that can only be described as beyond stupid? Of course the people of California chose to elect a Democrat to lead them out of the mess created by Democrats.

2 posted on 03/23/2011 1:09:24 PM PDT by olezip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: olezip

it is the sex fetisists who want their behavior to be treated as “normal”. For the government it is a circus to distract a class of do nothing non-producers.


3 posted on 03/23/2011 2:19:22 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Everyone needs to register at the fag-gate website and bomb the h**l out of the homo-commenter with negatives and inject some sanity. It really is the pit of hell, so any sanity would counter the evil.


4 posted on 03/23/2011 3:16:12 PM PDT by fwdude (The world is sleeping in the dark that the Church just can't fight, 'cause it's asleep in the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: olezip

I can’t help but to respond.

First off a male and male or female and female couple that are virgins and not born to AIDS or anything else have zero chance of receiving any of the diseases you mention. This can only be achievied but having multiple partners. A couple should be denied their ability to be a couple because of biases.

That being said here are a couple of responses.

A same sex couple is not marriage.

A same sex couple should not be allowed to marry.

Anyone can catch a sexually transmitted disease.

Just because AIDS will kill doesn’t mean that as a heterosexual that herpes or any other disease isn’t as bad because in the end it’s not how we die but how we got there that will be judged.


5 posted on 03/23/2011 11:12:58 PM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy

Good response!


6 posted on 03/24/2011 3:00:34 AM PDT by olezip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: olezip
Good response!

Not really...

7 posted on 03/24/2011 2:03:13 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy
Anyone can catch a sexually transmitted disease.

Those who abstain from certain sexual activities are less likely to 'catch' a sexually transmitted disease.

As far as sex -this is not about a state of being -it is about activities that a person chooses to engage in or in the case of rape is forced to engage in. Either way it is about the activity and NOT some self-declared orientation.

Those who engage in certain sexual activities are more likely to 'catch' a sexually transmitted disease.

I would say that male on male sex wins the top prize for disordered and unhealthy sexual activities that transmit self destruction and in many cases early death sentences to its participants.

That is the reality.

8 posted on 03/24/2011 2:12:34 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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