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

Skip to comments.

Breaking: Calif. court declares Prop 8 unconstitutional
Hot Air ^ | February 6, 2012 | JAZZ SHAW

Posted on 02/07/2012 10:46:18 AM PST by RobinMasters

News just began coming out a little after noon on the east coast. A California appeals court has struck down Proposition 8, which banned same sex marriage in the state.

A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California’s ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal.

The ruling was narrow and likely to be limited to California.

“Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California,” the court said.

The ruling upheld a decision by retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who struck down the ballot measure in 2010 after holding an unprecedented trial on the nature of sexual orientation and the history of marriage.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuit; homosexualagenda; prop8; ruling; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: RobinMasters

I look at this measure as a way to authorize 5 wives by the back door.


21 posted on 02/07/2012 12:11:17 PM PST by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: W1somoveon

I have actually read the Constitution and the Federalist papers. I don’t remember marriage being discussed.

Never was, the major legal issues that exist with family relationships are designating whose job it is to pull your plug if you are left a vegetable, who is on your insurance plan, how your inheritance gets divided, and which kids deserve to be in your custody, but then again, being considered a biological parent, according to court cases, is no longer the great deal it used to be.

If worst comes to worse, I can see major churches no longer asking, in fact plenty asking for you to not get out a government marriage license, which is probably the way it should have been in the first place. The morality of government and the morality of God are wholly incompatible, I would always think twice when seeing how lax the morality of man’s laws are in comparison to the morality of God’s laws.


23 posted on 02/07/2012 12:36:00 PM PST by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

I look at this measure as a way to authorize 5 wives by the back door.

Well in plenty of ways, having multiple wives is essentially decriminalized. I could have five girlfriends, father children through all of them, have them live in the house, but since there is no marriage license, and they are all adult women, there is no crime. Hugh Hefner is a great example of this, and lives quite the big daddy life.

Polygamy is an example of how something once okay turned ugly. Perhaps one of few cases where the importance of actually only allowing people with a marriage license to simply live together was actually enforced, but ever since the 19th century, our government has been corrupted to the point where it no longer treats adultery, cohabitation, or various other offenses as serious crimes.


24 posted on 02/07/2012 12:40:19 PM PST by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

“ever since the 19th century”

“My Fair Lady” was on last weekend, and I watched it. I had forgotten that “I’m Getting Married in the Morning” was in it. The father said he was going to be very middle class and marry the woman he’d been living with. I had forgotten all about that implication, but it’s true. A wedding is a very big deal for middle class people, only now, it’s a bit of a burden in many ways.

I was married in judge’s chambers. Then, we went out to dinner. Very private, just 3 witnesses and us. Strange to remember that at this moment. But we are actually fiercely private on many counts.


25 posted on 02/07/2012 12:47:14 PM PST by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

What a simplistic, reductio ad absurdum rebuttal. Is the institution of marriage nothing more than an attempt to elevate or increase the status and human dignity of heterosexuals? Or is it much, much more — namely a cornerstone of our civilization that has been extant in some form for all of recorded history?

Well, never before have treated marriage like something that everyone has to accept as true, or in a do-or-die fashion. Marriage also wasn’t always about a license either. Some people may think my marriage vows weren’t made with authority from God (atheist) or that my marriage isn’t legit (person believing in the sanctity of the state).
Either way, I decided to bypass getting a marriage license, which I have found, amounts to close to nothing legally. Everything else, such as healthcare directives, will & testament, and registered insurance policy, actually does. Interesting enough, the fact that people make a deal about the marriage license shows people adopting a worshipful attitude toward the state instead of God. Interestingly enough, the Bible has quite a number of harsh words regarding people feeling worshipful, or encouraging worship in the wrong way towards government officials. God was angry that King Saul decided to offer the sacrifice instead of allowing Samuel, through his office of a Levite, to do it. God was enraged at the bondage of Israel under the Egyptian monarchy, which was regarded as dieties on Earth, and Samuel was angry at the fact that the people in Israel actually wanted a monarchy, which he warned would produce all sorts of ills. No thousands of years later, the same inclination still exists, plenty of people who seem to not wish to worship God, seem to exert an equivalent of religious faith in the morality of the state government, such an attitude of government worship is a driving force behind communism, or even simply government corruption. It sometimes appears a secular substitute for religion itself.


26 posted on 02/07/2012 12:52:14 PM PST by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]



Boop His Cute Little Tootsies!

Pretty Baby Looks Innocent Now
But He'll Be Huge and Fiery Soon
Donate!


Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up

27 posted on 02/07/2012 1:21:11 PM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

This is a bit off-topic, but I recall decades ago that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was grossly understaffed based on its allotted number of jurists.

At that time, the hypothesis was broached that the Ninth Circuit sought to keep its numbers small so they could continue to hand down inane decisions similar to the one highlighted in this post.

I noticed the Court ruled 2 to 1. Does anyone know how many justices are currently on the 9th Circuit and how many justices should be seated on that court to place the court at full strength?

By the way, I got over being astonished, surprized, disgusted etc. by 9th Circuit rulings many years ago. The lunacy of the justices is transparent.

EODGUY


28 posted on 02/07/2012 1:50:59 PM PST by EODGUY (Hold on to your copies of the Consititution of the United States. It is going to be re-written.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Round them all up!


29 posted on 02/07/2012 1:51:24 PM PST by Friendofgeorge (SARAH PALIN 2012 OR FLIPPIN BUST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
They're 'partying' on Folsom Street.
30 posted on 02/07/2012 2:10:24 PM PST by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deb

Texas is calling. CA is toxic.


31 posted on 02/07/2012 2:12:50 PM PST by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Missouri gal

will of the people, not-upheld..............again.


32 posted on 02/07/2012 2:36:14 PM PST by sappy (criminaldems)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: who knows what evil?
"Can you imagine these twisted, diseased judges arguing their case before G-d Almighty?"

LOL - there won't be any argument. They'll just be consigned to hell the instant they die. They can scream and holler all they want to, but no one in heaven will hear them.

33 posted on 02/07/2012 2:39:18 PM PST by Ron C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
Majority rule?.....We don't need no stinkin majority rule!
34 posted on 02/07/2012 2:46:06 PM PST by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Voting....just like pissing in the wind.


35 posted on 02/07/2012 2:47:31 PM PST by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Great catch. Have you read either ruling to see which one is stronger? It would be great if SCJ’s could build on the CA SC’s ruling.


36 posted on 02/07/2012 2:51:44 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

Not just our civilization, but every great civilization every recorded anywhere on earth.


37 posted on 02/07/2012 2:53:39 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

They’re not always overturned and that’s what’s scary about this ruling.


38 posted on 02/07/2012 2:55:50 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
What say we just scrap the House of Representatives, the Senate, both state and federal and just vote on Federal Judges.
Get rid of the middle men and save lots of money.......Just a thought.
39 posted on 02/07/2012 2:58:29 PM PST by The Cajun (Palin, Free Republic, Mark Levin, Newt......Nuff said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
I would have expected nothing less coming out of the NINTH CIRCUS, the most overturned court in the USA. I want to see a GOP go in there and split the court in at least two. Don't they oversea fourteen states, one the most populous in our nation?
40 posted on 02/07/2012 3:05:44 PM PST by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 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