Posted on 08/16/2010 3:57:22 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
BReaking Hot!!! 9th Circus flips lid, says hold the marriages off 'til the case finishes appeals..
developing
H/T to Drudge and Mark.. :-]
I hope they put them new Golden Gate bridge suicide barriers up quick.. it could get ugly..
No way, can’t be....there is some sanity left in this world?
...as we speak, CBS, MSNBC, CNN and the rest of the leftist media is rushing to San Fransicko to interview gays sobbing in the streets...
...with nary a word about the violence and chaos on our southern border...
Not every judge on the Ninth Circus is insane. Getting a good panel was a long shot though.
The question is, do the people have a right to change their Constitution. Bill Handel and his nazi friend running UCI law school are wrong when saying their is no harm so we cannot appeal.
The harm is the people no longer have control of their government.
we should give ‘em free bus service to the golden Gate and flowers.. :-)
Geez, that’s gonna leave some skid marks.
I am REALLY SHOCKED to hear this out of that court.
GOOD NEWS!!!
looks like they will likely grant standing if they upheld this preliminary injunction.
I think the ninth is trying to save themselves from the tidal wave desrision placed on the judiciary from the insane opinion.
Judge W-whats-his-name should quietly resign after this is over to “spend more time with his family”.
I was stunned, I posted to you on another thread.
What now Moonbeam and Ahnold?
They’re trying to look calm and ‘judicial’.
They will approve the ruling as fast and strongly as they can.
Moonbeam and Arnold need to assign competent outside legal counsel, now, to represent the People of California.
What's even more shocking it the article has changed from the first time I read it.
In the ruling as quoted in the original piece, the Courts stated that heterosexual marriages were important because they were intended for procreation and necessary for social good.
Did anyone else notice the change??
Oops, should post the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100816/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial
it = is (minor clean up)
For the next five minutes, anyway.
Just read the link you gave and it said, “Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.”
I would LOVE to have the judges concur with this!
If they were going to do that they would not have granted the preliminary injunction pending appeal.
the test is “strong likelyhood of success”
I would too!
The original though was quite a bit more explicit....I hope it turns up in the official ruling.
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.