A U.S. appeals court rules Prop. 8 unconstitutional

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 2/7/12 | Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

[manc]

if that is their argument for their decision then how on earth do they defend that ones rights were taken away?

homosexuals still can marry but to the same sex and if ones rights were taken away and that is there argument then is a muslim wanting to marry 4 women at the same time or a mormon having 8 wives also having their rights taken away.

Then like you said gun rights, the second is perfectly clear.

This was pure out and out judicial activism and they have been doing this for years and the GOP has not said much about it.

High time the GOP stood firm on social issues and judicial activism because the constitution is clearly being ignored and manipulated and they know it, we know it and the activist judges know it and MSM knows it but no one states it on our side with a voice

[manc]

sorry meant to say they can marry but not to each other, they can marry the opposite sex like we all can and therefore their rights have not been taken away

[Lmo56]

I just read the 9th's decision and also Romer v. Evans, which the 9th cited in its opinion.

Romer concerned an amendment to the Colorado State Constitute that removed protected status to Gay/Lesbians and repealed provisions/statutes that protected them. This was discriminatory and the decision was entirely correct.

Prop 8 is an entirely different case. It neither removes protected status [if applicable] of gays/lesbians nor does repeal ANY provisions/statutes that protect them. All it says is:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

I think that this is a close call for SCOTUS - but it MIGHT not be as close as I think. There are 6 Catholics on the bench and 3 Jews. It may depend upon their innately religious beliefs.

Hard-line Catholics and Orthodox Jews [if any on the Court] may decide that the institution of marriage is a historically religious/societal one that is between one man and one woman. And that the provision of civil commitments DOES NOT deprive gays/lesbians of ANY of the benefits of marriage. Just the name - no harm, no foul ...

I also do not think that the reliable 5-4 split is necessarily applicable in this case. You may have Kennedy siding in favor of gay marriage and Sotomayor not [Latino Catholics are GENERALLY opposed]. You may also have one or two Jewish justices siding against [depending on their orthodoxy] ...

[1010RD]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html?_r=2&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065

Check out the spin on the above. I suppose 225 years as a republic isn’t any reason to respect the US Constitution. I mean you cannot even have a gun in Mexico without a ton of permits and paperwork. What are they talking about?

How about Ginsburg’s comments? It sounds like treason to my ear.

[Jacquerie]

Yeah, that column is a real barfer.

Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg, the sweet little grandmother of our Supreme Court would happily march you, me and every other Freeper off to the labor camps, in a constitutional fashion of course.

[Marathoner]

I think it was “The Pelican Brief”.

You're right. My bad.

[Spunky]

"Was the ruling really that broad...."

THEY QUOTE GRACHO MARX AND A MARILYN MONROE MOVIE.

Here is the 9th CIRCUS ruling.

[itsahoot]

Cool how they avoid using the Ninth Circuit in their headline, probably just didn’t have space.

[Repeal 16-17]

Stephen Reinhardt’s writing the majority opinion pretty much begs the Supreme Nine to reverse.

[the OlLine Rebel]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0762107/

Of course it also ends up celebrating “tolerance” for #$!#$ots and feeling sorry for them not marrying....

[1010RD]

Nope, we’ve posted pro-Constitution items and expressed solidarity with the old dead white men. We won’t labor. We’ll heat the camps. It’s ovens for you and I. ;-]

FReepers finally posted it:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2842518/posts

[OneWingedShark]

The question remains. Prop 22 was overturned noting that citizens must change Constitution so Prop 8 was voted on to change the Constitution and yet it is now deemed UN-Constitutional.

The questions remains - how do the American people change their Constitution for a say in how government operates?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I think the self-evident answer involves bloodshed; one way or another.

[OneWingedShark]

President Newt will ask Congress to disembowel the Ninth Circus. Good. Perhaps the other social justice tyrants will take heed.

With all due respect, screw asking the Congress!

US CODE, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 242 -- Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

US CODE, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 241 -- Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
 
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
 
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Smack them down with felonies! (And the fun thing about these is that the Grand Jury can smack prosecutors and judges who refuse to prosecute the case [upon presentment] with them!)