Posted on 08/12/2010 7:10:51 PM PDT by kristinn
The sponsors of California's gay marriage ban have asked an appeals court to stop a federal judge's order allowing same-sex weddings to begin next week.
The lawyers defending Proposition 8 asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals late Thursday to impose a stay that would halt gay marriages while the court considers the judge's ruling that struck down the ban.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
What a joke, but I’m not laughing!
ie, rubber stamp of the liberal ruling below...
Thanks kristinn.
Gay “marriages”, domestic partnerships, civil unions are not about love and committment. They are about money. Gays want to use their partner as a tax deduction like straight married people. They want their lovers and children covered by their health insurance plans. Love as absolutely nothing to do with it. It is all about money.
does anyone know about the competence of these lawyers? are they just televangilist quack types?
the children ARE covered by medical of the biological mother or father
It is more than money, they want marriage via sexual fetish.
We can only hope. Even a blind hog finds an acorn every once in a while.
If the people’s republic of california allows gay “marriage” watch as the family falls apart and sends their state into a deeper pile of doodoo.
Playing devils advocate here (and I am not a lawyer, constitutional or other).
Questions:
Does a Proposition on a ballot amend existing law?
If so would it not need the proper legislative language to do so? (I.e., enabling legislation for allowing bingo or racing when the law prohibits it)
If legislation is a Constitutional Amendment does it have to be worded in such a way or labeled as a Constitutional Amendment to do so?
Shouldn’t the California legislature have pass a subsequent statute to codify the citizens wishes and not a Proposition?
Can a state proposition/constitutional amendment amend a federal statute? (wasn’t the judges decision on the grounds of violation equal protection under the US Constitution)
If we are a nation that believes in the rule of law would not the judges decision be correct even if widely unpopular)?
Would the true and legal way to solve this be a new statute by the state?
I’m not trying to discuss the make up of the CA Legislature and the likelihood of such a statute passing. Nor am I her to validate or vilify the judges decision. Just the legal mechanism(s) used or that should have been used. Trying to learn the proper legal process.
The judge was initially appointed by Reagan and when this was stalled was reappointed and passed under Bush 41. Judge Vaughn is known as a conservative judge and I read some where considered unorthodox also.
I see no legal basis for this judge to rule that same-sex marriages should commence. If he is saying that the current marriage law is unconstitutional, then he should throw it out. But he should not purely by fiat replace that law with another one made up on the spot. His ruling should kick it back to the legislature or the people who will now have to decide whether they want a marriage law that will comply with the judge’s ruling. If not, then there is no marriage law. The State of California shouldn’t be sanctioning anyone’s marriage.
This ruling is absurd.
The judge ruled that it is against federal law for the state of California to define marriage as a man and a woman.
Yet federal law defines marriage in exactly that manner. The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage for all purposes of federal law as a man and a woman.
How can it be against federal law for a state to define marriage in exactly the same manner as does the federal government?
How could the judge overturn Proposition 8 without also overturning the Federal Defense of Marriage Act? His opinion only overturned Proposition 8. So does federal marriage law still prevail in the rest of the U.S. except for California?
If California can’t define marriage as a man and a woman, is any state allowed to define marriage in that way?
Is any state allowed to define marriage at all? Are federal judges now the only people in our society who will be permitted by gay activists and Lambda Legal to define marriage? Otherwise they will sue somebody??????
When everything is marriage, nothing is marriage. A society that shifts from its foundation of traditional marriage onto sand of mere adult pleasure and convenience is a society doomed to decay and final collapse. I give us three generations at most. Gay-tolerant Europe is a generation closer to the end.
Good point. I think it’s worth considering for the state not to have any marriage law at all if the current one is thrown out. The default should not be automatically to have homosexual marriage because the old law is thrown out.
Classic example of legislating from the bench.
Next up, consanguineous marriage and polygamy.
What will be our collective response in the event that prop 8 is tossed out by the RADICAL MARXIST ELEMENTS in the judiciary branch of government ? The time for talk and half measures is long since over with ! The second amendment was created for use against TYRANNY . If prop 8 is struck down , then it will be time for us to rise up and enforce our will !
Just who do you intend to shoot, newb?
The voters in California need to impeach this activist judge and remove him from office. The militant homosexuals cherry-picked an avowed sodomite to preside over the case. What a surprise that this queer judge now rules in favor of his degenerate lifestyle. 7 million voters spoke loud and clear in rejecting this perversity of true marriage, and yet a liberal activist judge comes along and changes everything. Let’s pray the USSC overrules this total idiot Vaughn Walker.
California voters can’t impeach federal judges.
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.