the 9th curcuit has been overturned more times than ted kennedy’s car. no big deal.
The ruling does not state that gay couples have a right to marry. Rather, it states that creating a law for the sole purpose of singling out a disfavored group does not pass Constitutional muster. Given the narrow focus of the ruling, the USSC may decide not to take the case. It is consistent with their previous decision in Romer v. Evans.
IMHO this is reason #1, above all else, why Comrade Zero has got to go. I can only imagine the destruction he will cause if he gets another round of judicial appointments, esp. a USSC vacancy. I don’t see all of the Fab Five holding out another 4 years.
I am sick of abject Judicial activism.
I am sick of liberals extending natural rights, given from God and enumerated in the Constitution, to behavior and ideology to advance their own causes and inclinations...and in an effort to overthrow the constitution to which they swore an oath to faithfully uphold and defend.
The American people, to avoid the hell of chaos and downfall and implosion such trends will inevitably lead to, simply must throw off the political class that has encumbered us and elect American statemen to office who revere and will hold inviolate the fundmanetal moral values upon which this nation and its constitution was founded.
And those are Christian principles and have defined the very reason why America has been so tolerant of so many who have come to these shores. But when those here want that tolerance to extend to the destruction of what has kept the peace, made us free, defined our prosperity and strength as a nation, that we cannot, nay we MUST not tolerate, but fight with every resource at our disposal.
America at the Crossroads of History
http://www.jeffhead.com/crossroads.htm
Apparently, this appeals court has invented a new class of people: “couples.”
It has decided that the equal protection clause applies here because “couples” are being treated differently. It had to invent a new class of people, because there is no disparity in how individual persons are treated under Prop. 8; all people, regardless of their orientation, have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. That they may not desire to do so is irrelevant. So, the court decides that “couples” are being treated unequally.
These “judges” are completely out to lunch. Prop. 8 is simply reiterating what has always been obvious to most people: that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. It is also a means of protecting the First Amendment rights of Christians and other believers.
I think it’s Game Over. Judge Kennedy will join the 4 liberals to rule in favor the gays marriage. (See Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas).
This is what I’ve been trying to tell folks who have been discussing the Birther Law Suit in Georgia. When you want to change things by going to court, you have to raise as much money as you can and hire a kick-ass lawyer. The pro-gay side have Ted Olson arguing their case and he is a great lawyer so they have success after success.
Well, wasn’t the 1878 SCOTUS decision to allow a ban on polygamy pretty much aimed at Mormons?
Besides, gays alone aren’t affected by Prop 8. Two heterosexual women cannot marry each other but a lesbian and a gay man can.
Isn’t that special?...Happy fudge packers everywhere!
Cool how they avoid using the Ninth Circuit in their headline, probably just didn’t have space.
Stephen Reinhardt’s writing the majority opinion pretty much begs the Supreme Nine to reverse.