Fed Appeals Court: Calif. ‘Prop 8’ Gay Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional
- Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:17pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court on Tuesday declared California’s same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track for likely consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.
It was unclear when gay marriages might resume in California. Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors and for the two couples who successfully sued to overturn the ban have repeatedly said they would consider appealing to a larger panel of the court and then the U.S. Supreme Court if they did not receive a favorable ruling from the 9th Circuit.
“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted,” the ruling states.
The panel also said there was no evidence that former Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker was biased and should have disclosed before he issued his decision that he was gay and in a long-term relationship with another man.
The ruling came more than a year after the appeals court heard arguments in the case.
Proposition 8 backers had asked the 9th Circuit to set aside Walker‘s ruling on both constitutional grounds and because of the thorny issue of the judge’s personal life. It was the first instance of an American jurist’s sexual orientation being cited as grounds for overturning a court decision.
Walker publicly revealed he was gay after he retired. However, supporters of the gay marriage ban argued that he had been obliged to previously reveal if he wanted to marry his partner – like the gay couples who sued to overturn the ban.
Walker’s successor as the chief federal judge in Northern California, James Ware, rejected those claims, and the 9th Circuit held a hearing on the conflict-of-interest question in December.
California voters passed Proposition 8 with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage by striking down a pair of laws that had limited marriage to a man and a woman.
The ballot measure inserted the one man-one woman provision into the California Constitution, thereby overruling the court’s decision. It was the first such ban to take away marriage rights from same-sex couples after they had already secured them and its passage followed the most expensive campaign on a social issue in the nation’s history.
The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and the Law, a think tank based at the University of California, Los Angeles, has estimated that 18,000 couples tied the knot during the four-month window before Proposition 8 took effect. The California Supreme Court upheld those marriages, but ruled that voters had properly enacted the law.
With same-sex marriages unlikely to resume in California any time soon, Love Honor Cherish, a gay rights group based in Los Angeles, plans to start gathering signatures for a November ballot initiative asking voters to repeal Proposition 8.
Supporters and opponents of California’s ban on same-sex marriages were anxiously awaiting a federal appeals court decision Tuesday on whether the voter-approved measure violates the civil rights of gay men and lesbians.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco considering the question plans to issue its long-awaited opinion a year-and-a-half after a federal trial judge struck down the ban, known as Proposition 8. The 9th Circuit does not typically give notice of its forthcoming rulings, and its decision to do so Monday reflects the intense interest in the case.
Even if the panel upholds the lower court ruling, it could be a while before same-sex couples can resume marrying in the state. Proposition 8′s backers plan to appeal to a bigger 9th Circuit panel and then the U.S. Supreme Court if they lose in the intermediate court, which would likely put its ruling on hold while that process plays out.
The three-judge panel, consisting of judges appointed by presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, heard oral arguments on the ban’s constitutional implications more than a year ago. But it put off a decision so it could seek guidance from the California Supreme Court on whether Proposition 8‘s sponsors had legal authority to challenge the lower court ruling once California’s attorney general and governor decided not to appeal it.
The California court ruled in November that the state‘s vigorous citizens’ initiative process grants the official proponents of ballot measures the right to defend their measures in court if state officials refuse to do so. While its reading is not binding on the federal court, the 9th Circuit’s written heads-up suggests the panel accepted the Supreme Court’s interpretation, legal observers said.
Further complicating the 9th Circuit’s consideration of the case was a move in April by lawyers for the coalition of religious conservative groups that put Proposition 8 on the ballot seeking to have the lower federal court decision striking down the measure vacated because the now-retired judge who issued it was in a long-term relationship with another man.
Former Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker disclosed he was gay and had a partner of 10 years after he retired from the bench last year. Proposition 8‘s backers have argued that Walker’s relationship posed a potential conflict-of-interest and that he should have revealed it before he declared the measure unconstitutional in August 2010.
Walker’s successor as the chief federal judge in Northern California, James Ware, rejected their claims that Walker was unqualified to preside over the 13-day trial that preceded his ruling – the first in a federal court to examine if same-sex couples have a constitutional right to get married – because he stood to personally benefit from declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional.
The 9th Circuit held a hearing on that question in December.
California voters passed Proposition 8 with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage by striking down a pair of laws that had limited marriage to a man and a woman.
The ballot measure inserted the one man-one woman provision into the state Constitution, thereby overruling the court’s decision. It was the first such ban to take away marriage rights from same-sex couples after they had already secured them.
The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and the Law, a think tank based at the University of California, Los Angeles, has estimated that 18,000 couples tied the knot during the four-month window before Proposition 8 took effect. The California Supreme Court upheld those marriages, but ruled that voters had properly enacted the law.
University of Pennsylvania Law School Professor Tobias Barrington Wolff said the unique circumstances giving rise to the ban’s passage could prompt the 9th Circuit panel to strike down Proposition 8 without addressing if banning gay marriage would be constitutional in the eight other states in its territory.
“The circumstances in California are unprecedented. The state supreme court found marriage equality to be a right of the highest order under the state Constitution, and thousands of couples actually exercised that right before a discriminatory initiative took it away,” Wolff said. “The federal courts would do well to focus their attention on those unique circumstances, which would support a ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional while leaving the situation in other States for another day.”
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 688 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 537 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 466 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 374 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 334 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 308 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 316 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 216 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 301 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 308 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (341)
EdWheeler4Health
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:40pmGovernment of the judges, by the judges, for the judges!
USA RIP
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:43pmThis is why Soros is spending a lot of money trying to stack state and apellate courts with liberal judges. The peoples‘ vote doesnt’ matter to socialists. it’s the state that they feel must have the power.
Report Post »phillipwgirard
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:51pmGay anything is immoral
Report Post »jzs
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:56pmThis is why the Koch Brothers are spending a lot of money trying to stack state and apellate courts with conservative judges.
Report Post »Gold Coin & Economic News
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:58pmThe government of the people, by the people and for the people has perished from this earth.
Weeping…
Report Post »gramma b
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:00pmThis is the Ninth Circuit, the most overturned circuit in the country. There is still hope.
Report Post »dogdr
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:01pmOh, No!!! The world is coming to an end! Gay people marrying is the beginning of the end. Look what has happened to the 25 countries and 10 states that have legalized gay marriage already. Every one of them is now just a haven for drugs, sex and debauchery. Their economies have tanked because of it, there is no longer any rule of law and everyone of those places will likely be burnt to the ground soon. Straight people will be forced to marry gay people, it is a disaster.
Oh, wait, I forgot, NONE of those things has happened, in fact , since 2001 when the first country legalized same sex marriage there has been NO negative fallout and not a single country that has enacted same sex marriage laws believes it was a mistake. ALL are happy with their decision and in the long run it made NO DIFFERENCE to anybody except the people who can now get married.
But Blaze readers, run for the hills, the gays are coming, the gays are coming. Run for your life.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:03pmBeing the idiot you are JZS…aping another post is expected of you.
Report Post »Gold Coin & Economic News
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:04pm@dogdr
Report Post »Yea, our nation is in real good shape. Fool!
gramma b
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:12pmGay “marriage” is objectively ridiculous, in addition to being immoral. Marriage is an institution for reproductive couples, to create families as a stable place for their offspring. Sexual attraction and intercourse have an obvious biological purpose. Homosexual attraction is an obvious dysfunction. They can only imitate intercourse, and they can only imitate marriage. The notion that society must give its imprimatur to this dysfunctional imitation of marriage is disgusting.
barnsy
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:18pmThe 9th circuit ruling something unconstisutional? What a joke! These clowns make a living at shredding the constitution.
Report Post »guntotinsquaw
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:19pm@DOGDR…Rotflmao….I know the gays are my biggest concern..they scare me more than big sis
Report Post »cuinsong
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:26pmThe ninth circuit has made another mockery out of marriage by equating gay relations as equal to normal male female relations! This is of course ridicules! The problem with gay marriage is simple, you can’t have two men/women procreate and fulfill the roil of a mother & father because they do not except the premise of man/woman = mother/father, two same sex=partners. As long as I can remember they have been trying to force their life style down our throat’s even though their sexual practices are repugnant to heterosexuals. No mater how you cut it you can’t change the facts! I will never accept the gay life style as a normal activity of the male female species, it’s not! All the discussions about gay relationships center around the rights of people to form relations like married people have but they leave out the details of what that involves when it comes to sex between the two partners. The sex act as performed by gays is anything but normal. I’m sorry but that is the truth. This desire to have a gay relationship is a life style choice and I have a right to be disgusted by it whether gay’s like it or not! Keep it to your self and get it out of my face. I don’t care what you do in your bedroom just don’t seek my approval. This song is for the agenda pushers. http://www.reverbnation.com/play_now/song_10789987
Report Post »Crush_Liberalism
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:47pmI know…as “logical” as gay “marriage” is, I want to be a “straight ****”! Who are YOU to tell ME that I can’t be a **** just because I am not sexually attracted to men?! I DEMAND my right to redefine terms!!!!
Report Post »InfiniteSolutions
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:52pmI live in California and voted on prop 8. I’m against gay marriage although I have nothing against gay people. I will say there are different flavors of gays as there are straights and thus, they should now have the full extent of the law to sue each other for divorce too. Guess that means government can now create laws that apply to gays and straights now, hmmm, gives government more control over relationships.
So, I’m pissed about the courts. I don‘t think it’s unconstitutional since it was never a right or a law to recognize gays as married couples. Are we talking Natural or Civil Rights here. I think Civil since you could argue that being gay, such as dog on dog is natural. But, on the other hand, you could say a man and woman constitute what marriage means since they can produce a child. So what we really are doing is trying to change what we recoginze as a marriage and this is NEW. I don’t agree with it, I believe a man and woman are the true definition. In my eyes, I don’t recognize gays as married whether the government wants to or not. I think of it as a perversion of traditional values and just because the baby wants candy and wants it doesn’t mean they should get it. Sometimes you just have to say NO. We are becoming a laughing stock to the world.
Report Post »MYHEROISRON
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:53pmThe federal government has truly become the enemy of the American people …
Report Post »jzs
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:15pmDoesn’t the 14th Amendment guarantee equal protection under the law for US citizens? How can a law apply to some people but not to others?
Report Post »jzs
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:19pmAVENJERK, that wasn’t aping, or plagiarizing, that was mocking.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:48pm“As long as I can remember they have been trying to force their life style down our throat’s even though their sexual practices are repugnant to heterosexuals.”
Ha. You see, it’s not gay people who are making you read this story and comment on it. It wouldn’t feel as if they were “shoving it down your throat” if you minded your own business.
Report Post »turkey13
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:56pmI’m sorry Myself, wife, 3 sons and 3 daughter in-laws voted for hope and change! Holder will do in the USA if obama doesn’t. Did these folks in California believe “We the people still exist.” Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia or Alabama all being sued by Holder after we spoke at the voteing booths. Here in Oklahoma Muslim woman get the snott beat out of them for going out in public without their Burkas. We were in a store and a woman in full Burka came in with a guy that looked like a body guard. We left, there was enough room under that garb to carry an AK-47 or a shotgun.
Report Post »4x4conserve
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:59pmCongress, get off your *** and represent the will of the people. Where’s the check and balance?
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:32pm“Oh, wait, I forgot, NONE of those things has happened, in fact , since 2001 when the first country legalized same sex marriage there has been NO negative fallout and not a single country that has enacted same sex marriage laws believes it was a mistake. ALL are happy with their decision and in the long run it made NO DIFFERENCE to anybody except the people who can now get married.”
really? the netherlands say you’re a liar…
The numbers for 2005 are in, and the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate has done it again, shooting up a striking 2.5 percentage points. That makes nine consecutive years of average two-percentage-point increases in the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate, a rise unmatched by any country in Western Europe during the same period. Ever since the Dutch passed registered partnerships in 1997, followed by formal same-sex marriage in 2000, their out-of-wedlock birthrate has been moving up at a striking clip. That fact has created a serious problem for advocates of same-sex marriage
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/217803/smoking-gun/stanley-kurtz
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:33pm“Doesn’t the 14th Amendment guarantee equal protection under the law for US citizens? How can a law apply to some people but not to others?”
yeah why have separate bathrooms? what a moronic question…you must be a liberal!!!
Report Post »paperpushermj
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:41pmIt seems we the citizens have no right to define what the criteria is for marriage. The Judiciary will redefine marriage to the point of Irrelevancy. Glad Im an old guy so as to not witness the future of Single Hit and Run Fathers Roaming the streets only responsible to themselves and a good time. Civilization created marriage to solve certain Societal problems that will still exist after the Cure is gone.
Report Post ».
That all in the name of I Want What I Want When I Want It!.
The_Jerk
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:47pmTime to get rid of the black robed thugs that are dictating to the masses.
Report Post »DJ in AZ
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:49pmThe ruling, though incorrect, was what I expected out of this court. I will happily await this case being overturned by the Supreme Court. I hope the SC decision is broadly based, as to wipe out any other gay marriage rulings in all other states and jurisdictions, as well.
Report Post »paperpushermj
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:55pm@dogdr
Report Post »Do you think Marriage is important for a Society?
With this ruling the only restraint placed on who can or can not marry is only limited to the age of consent. The Number of people will no longer be a barrier, Brother , Sister Mother Daughter or Father Son or Daughter all those limits thrown out. HOW WILL THIS DECISION STRENGTHEN ?
dogdr
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:08pm@RUSH_IS_RIGHT – What a crock. I read the article and if you need I can post a few others that refute your/National Reviews claims. The reason? While the out of wedlock birthrate IS increasing, there is NO proven correlation and NO study has shown one. Is there a corresponding increase in the birth rate in other countries or states with same sex marriage- The answer is yes in some places, no in others, as you might expect. One country with a puzzling increase in out of wedlock births proves nothing. I looked up a few other statistics. Apparently same sex marriage correlates with the price of cheese as well. It was stable for years until the late 90′s , then spiked in the first part of the next decade. I guess it is all those unmarried gay couples. People in the Netherlands are starving because they can’t afford cheese and it is all because of the gays.
You will also have to prove to me that out of wedlock births are inherently bad. Are they? Single parent homes or just people who didn’t get married? Marriage does not automatically mean a healthy, happy family with well adjusted kids. You don’t have to look very far to see that.
Finally for the other people who seem to think marriage is only about producing offspring. We now need to invalidate every marriage without kids and quit allowing people over 45 to get married. They don’t produce kids, so their marriage isn’t valid?
Report Post »VRW Conspirator
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:27pmThe Constitution is there to protect the WILL of the PEOPLE!! The CA State constitution is there to protect the WILL of the People of CA! The Tenth Amendment gives the right to decide abortion, gay marriage, education laws, and any State social concern to the State and the People of that State.
The 9th Circuit should have kicked the ball back to the CA Supreme Court and said “we have no jurisdiction under the Constitution to interfere in State business.” That is the CORRECT interpretation of the Constitution and U.S. law. The people of CA voted to amend their constitution to restrict marriage to one man- one woman, the only way to remove that is for the State constitution to be amended again to strike that provision.
The way CA is going…they will probably get that chance and it will be stricken, but I pray to God that the people in CA wake up before that day comes or there really is no hope for my home state, even though I bugged out this summer to TX.
Report Post »Jim S
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:31pmIn keeping with the moral stance they have always held, The Catholic bishops of the United States will support gay marriage as long as they don’t have to perform them…
Report Post »beckwasfox
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:33pmWhat’s the big deal? Gays do have the right to marry. All they have to do is find a suitable parner of the opposite sex and get married. They really should quit fighting for rights they already have.
Report Post »SpeckChaser
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 6:01pmJZS
I couldn’t help but notice your recent post have been strangely lacking in the substance dept and lean more toward rambling sarcasm. Your non recent posts, albeit factually inaccurate, at least contained substance. Are these recent posts yours or have you again been the victim of a account hack?
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 6:52pm“@RUSH_IS_RIGHT – What a crock. I read the article and if you need I can post a few others that refute your/”
uh yeah go ahead…Kurtz is rarely wrong. as he says..
All indications are that the Dutch case is a causal smoking gun for gay marriage’s negative effects. Although the matter is fair game for continued debate, no one has yet offered a convincing alternative explanation, or even fully confronted the arguments already on the table.
so post your proof…..looks like the truth hurts.
when you make marriage meaningless…as with gay ‘marriage’ then what do you expect? but then you fascist libs don’t care about children…or the effects of fatherlessness…..like gangs, drugs, crime, etc….oh no its all about the gays….and what social good does gay marriage bring? hmmm? none.
of course it does limit the rights of christians who disagree, just like in the case of the catholic charities in MA who were driven out of the adoption business by the fascist gays…..no ‘tolerance’ from the most ‘tolerant’ among us…
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 6:55pmand here is Kurtz quoting some dutch researchers…
In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy, highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to persuade Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid ‘lifestyle choices’ has not had serious social consequences….
http://old.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200407210936.asp
Report Post »tarm778
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:56pmWHen one or two tyrants in black robes can try and overturn the will of millions of voters this is proof that our court system has run amok. A very small yet very loud group of people have zero right to re-define the institutions of our society in order to make themselves feel legitimate.
Report Post »oct15
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 12:50amyeah that’s right, almost 4 years of judicial review and appeals trials, clearly the courts (the most powerless branch of the govt, by the way) are out of control and legislating from the bench! you idiot
Report Post »ConservativeQtee
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:39pmI’m totally disgusted!
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:46pmWhat do you expect from the 9th Circus?
They earned the nickname for a reason.
Report Post »cessna152
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:54pm@left,
I understand what you’re saying, but the concern comes in when we say “well, what did you expect”? If we’re talking about the Phladelphia Eagles losing then I could understand the “well, what did you expect”. However, we are talking about freedom and the possibility of a tyrannical takeover, which never ends well for honest citizens.
This has to be dealt with… these are bad, bad people who are here to enslave and control us.
Report Post »IDConservative55
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:10pmAll you ******* just go back to your closet and quit insulting average Americans by pushing your liberal agenda.
Report Post »You want equal rights, fine but MARRIAGE is OUT OF THE QUESTION. Mariage is about a manand woman who join to START A FAMILY. ALL the hormones in the worls will not get your partner pregnant.
ModerationIsBest
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:25pm@IDCONSERVATIVE55
Fine, then we shouldn‘t allow a man and a woman to marry if they don’t have the intent to get pregnant and have children.
Any man and woman who is married and is proven that they can’t reproduce should get their marriage license revoked and must get a civil union.
The fact that you think a “family” is only defined by a specific way proves your ignorance.
Report Post »oct15
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 1:11amyeah, i‘m pretty disgusted that it’s taking so long for gays to be given the same rights as everyone else, too.
Report Post »KeithOlberdink
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:39pmMan, I use to living in Canada was messed up.
Report Post »In the O.C.
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:38pmAh yes, CALIFORNIA – the land of “it-don’t-matter-what-the-people-say” – it’s all about the Ninth Circuit Court. I live in California. We are trying to get it together to move to Texas – REALLY. This is what we live with out here. It DOESN’T MATTER what the people vote for. The Courts get involved, they do whatever the hell they want to – and that’s that. You see, in case you haven’t heard – the voters in California really don‘t understand what’s right. They really don’t know what they want. They have no understanding of right and wrong, therefore, the courts – the judges – Sacramento – must make the necessary changes. VOTING for something. Don’t even bother. It means nothing in California. YOU mean nothing in California. The Democrats run everything. What a lousy place to live. Over taxed. Over “judged”. But it‘s a GREAT place to live if you’re an illegal alien. Then all bets are OFF.
Report Post »TraceyM
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:51pmWe moved to Idaho from California 5 years ago just for the very same reasons. Good luck to you and you family.
VivaFreedom
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:52pmAnd the sad part is it’s such a pretty place.
Report Post »dscheerer
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:59pmYou can’t move to Texas, they need people like you to provide the tax dollars that keep their madness going. They don‘t realize that it’s a downward spiral. California IS a prime example of the effects of income redistribution.
Report Post »Our family members have been moving out one by one for the last 30 years. Not many left. I say let the liberals have it and pay for all the crap they pass.
0Troy
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:13pmI live in California (thankfully behind the conservative curtain of Orange County, too), and am also planning on moving out of state because of the horrendous mismanagement of those in Sacramento and the destructive “vote ourselves the treasury” mentality a majority of California voters seem to have. You see, when a majority of Californians say we need a high speed rail boondoggle to line the pockets of connected politicians all over the state, we get it. Regardless of how poorly planned, lacking oversight, and vague the expenses are. Would you say there’s a reason we live in a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy?
But when the people get together and vote in a majority to deny government services to a minority, is that ok? Is there any other field wherein the government discriminates in service delivery (marriage license issuance) based on sexuality? What about discrimination based on race or religion?
Strictly from an equal protection stance, how do you defend the government providing a service (marriage license) to heterosexual taxpayers, and denying it to homosexual taxpayers? So long as the government is in charge of the service, it must provide it equally to all citizens.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:40pmThe majority should never have a say on blocking fundimental human rights. he court today held up the notion of equal protection under the law that is enshrined in the Constitution.
Report Post »dscheerer
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:54pmIs a marriage license a “fundamental human right”?
Report Post »dscheerer
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:17pmWhy aren’t the voices of the voters being heard? The people of the state made their voices heard….twice. Maybe California should concentrate on changing their structure instead of going through the process of allowing special interest groups with deep pockets to push the courts to override the will of the majority of the citizens.
Report Post »This is not about “equality”, it’s about receiving special treatment. They are not being denied same-sex marriage. There are other states that allow it.
RightThinking1
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:21pmEnciom:
Report Post »Troll. Federal Government = Big Government, California Voters= Small Government. Is that too complex for you?
Once more, in your childish fashion, you miss the point, or perhaps prefer to be mulishly obstreperous. Whichever, it is occasionally amusing to point out the vacuity of your posts.
You see, dear child, the definition of marriage is left to the states. Search though you might, you will find no authority within the constraining bounds of the Constitution which allow the federal government to define marriage. Thus, when the good people of California elect to do so with their state constitution, the matter is decided.
Now, it may be that you rejoice in the ‘decision’ of the 9th Circuit, but that does not mean that their decision is constitutional. Indeed, we have learned to expect those creeps to make ‘decisions’ that are not-unusually UN-constitutional. To make a point here, I must ask how you would feel if the people of California voted to make homosexual marriage legal, and the ‘justices’ at the 9th circuit ruled it UN-constitutional. Hmmmm? It would cause a thinking person to recognize that the 9th circuit has no place ruling on the issue at all…, but then, there is no evidence that you are capable of digesting thought outside of your restricted ideological mind-set, i.e, you are not ‘liberal’ at all, but rather close-minded.
Winedude
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:49pmThis is really quite simple. The “people” do not have the right to strip away the rights of other people. For example, what if the rednecks in a southern state decided that they’d like to start slavery again. They pay enough people to gather the signatures to get it on the ballot. Somehow, not surprisingly, it passes…slavery is legal again! But, not it isn’t. Even though the people voted for it, they can take away another group’s civil rights. The government really has no business getting involved in rules for marriage but involved they are. You can tell me that gay marriage is a violation of God‘s laws and I’d be happy to refer you to the 1st amendment re. religion. The government should have nothing to do with religion and this was a great decision by the 9th Circuit. Oh yes, I was born and raised in California and I’m proud of it!
Report Post »soybomb315
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:53pmThe federal government did not get involved until the 1920s. It was a mistake. They got involved for tax purposes – what does that tell you? Return the power to the states AND remove discriminatory tax laws…why should a single person pay a higher tax rate than a married person? Doing that would solve the problem and people can still choose the type of laws they want
Report Post »soybomb315
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:14pmwinedude – there is a constitutional amendment prohibiting slavery. Therefore a state cannot do that
Report Post »what4
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:59pmNo ****, first we voted to get rid of the the ILLEGALS, and the them ****** say its unconstitutional….WRONG Now they want all then ******* to get married,,,WRONG! ******* being so called man or woman, Devients are what they are, just like CANCER cells they need to be eliminated!
Report Post »KStret
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:46pmWin,
“The “people” do not have the right to strip away the rights of other people.”
If we change the definition of marriage for one group, the 14th amendment dictates that all groups have the same right. What you are saying is that redefining marriage is a right. If it is a right for gays to redefine marriage, it must be a fundamental civil right to change the definition of marriage for any group who wants to get married. You must believe that bigamist and polygamist have the right to get married too, right? You must believe that bigamist and polygamist are being discriminated against as well, is that correct?
Report Post »oct15
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 12:16amuh. what’s the problem with bigamy/polygamy? as long as all adults involved are consenting and love one another, why should the government or anyone else have any say in it?
and hell, it’ll kill two birds with one stone–you sad “blaze” commenters can marry all of the women that those heathen gays don’t want, and impregnate them to your heart’s content! gotta keep the ignorant cretins in the gene pool somehow, after all
Report Post »oct15
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 12:17amhell, you may as well all just marry each other, and you can be one big, gay, white-male polygamist circlejerk
Report Post »Lamarr01
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 4:27pmLimiting marriage to a man/woman, man/man or woman/woman lacks imagination.
Many pedophiles would like to marry children until the kids get too old. Where is their equal protection under the law?
Under Sharia, a man is allowed four wives. Where is their equal protection under the law?
In Florida having sexual intercourse with a porcupine is illegal. Where is their equal protection under the law?
In my humble opinion, marriage is a legal constraint that makes most participants miserable and should therefore be forbidden.
Report Post »The Jewish Avenger
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:38pm“The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and the Law, a think tank based at the University of California, Los Angeles”
Translated: Think tank = socialist commie base.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:29pm… like the Heritage Foundation?
Report Post »CatB
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:37pm9th circus court .. Yes .. I AM SHOCKED !! NOT!!
Onward and upward.
Report Post »Liberal_Atheist_Critical_Thinker
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:36pmTomFerrari said -
“Rights come from God (per the United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence.)”
What god are you referring to – Zeus perhaps?
Report Post »UBETHECHANGE
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:46pmYour God is satan.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:47pmI certainly don’t want my rights coming from man. Seen what’s happening in Europe? Constitutions revised and re-written by men are being thrown out the window right now. But a constitution to implement a bill of rights given to us by our Creator is immovable and out of the reach of statists like you. Nice try champ.
Report Post »phillipwgirard
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:14pmAnd your proud of yourself?
Report Post »dangarh01
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:08pm@Phillip
Of course he’s proud of himself. Thats what atheists do, they attack religion and and try to mock it, thinking they are hurting God’s feelings. It has nothing to do with not believing in God. I dont believe in the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairey, or Santa. Most adults dont. You dont see them going on forums poking fun at the ones that do believe in those things. You dont see them write books, go on tv shows, or try to ram their nonbelief of those that do believe in those, do you?
Report Post »spirited
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:35pm“Prop” 8, –seems self explanitory.
>Theaters, sound stages …. holly wood
Report Post »Van Damage
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:32pmI was taught that voting was important. That a single vote can change everything. The Judiciary is seperate from the legislation. And upholds the enacted law, when the electorate speaks…..I guess that wasn’t the truth…or has the Federal Judiciary once again perverted the order of law? If you think your vote matters you’re wrong. Idealogy over law is the new 2000′s.
Report Post »GoodStuff
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:30pmI believe this is called “tyranny of the minority”.
Report Post »guntotinsquaw
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:47pmYou describe a Democracy..where the 51% holds control over the 49%. Good thing we are a REPUBLIC were there mob majority does not rule. If a marriage license is not issued to one group..it will not be issued to any group.
Report Post »beckwasfox
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:40pmGays can get marriage licenses the same as any one else. They aren’t being discriminated against. They choose to live outside the norms of the traditional family so why do they wish to have the same designations as a traditional family?
Report Post »WEBWITHDEB
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 6:19pmGoodstuff, I believe you are right. Our system of checks and balances was put in place to avoid this type of tyranny, yet a minority of people (two judges) have completely subverted the will of the majority of the voters in California. I hope the Supreme Court has the fortitude to do what is right.
Squaw, so your “group mentality” is what you are hanging your argument on? What about these types (groups) of people: children, siblings, those already married? They should all have “equality”, according to your logic. As others have said, the issue of marriage should not even be under the umbrage of governmental control as it has now come down to being in conflict with religious views. Let religions decide whether or not they want to recognize homosexual unions or not via a marriage ceremony. If the government cannot see fit to relinquish its control over individual relationships, they need to come up with a term which is EQUAL for everyone and does not prohibit the free exercise of any religion, to wit, Civil Union.
My personal belief is that homosexuals are not looking to be “equal” in any manner other than to have their relationship sanctioned by an Authority Figure, and since most religions do not sanction homosexuality, gays are looking to the government to be that authority figure.
Report Post »Nightfall
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:30pmThis is a slippery slope. Next will come the pedophiles because they were “born that way” too.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:48pmHow can you tell Mormons they are limited to one wife? One man / three women sounds more natural than one man / one man to me.
Report Post »goahead.makemyday
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:05pmGreece already made them mentally deficient, along with pyromaniacs(arsonists), and other sick things. So of course they’ll try it in America soon.
Report Post »Sirfoldallot
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:17pm5 Women & 2 men , thats where I draw out side the line, okay.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:41pmSure Sirfoldalot, whatever works…anything goes.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 11:35pmNo. Sorry, nightfall. You will still have to keep your forbidden desires hidden from society.
Report Post »TheObamanation
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:30pmIf a tree falls down in San Francisco … and nobody is there to hear it …
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:33pmHopefully it falls on Pelosi.
Report Post »TheObamanation
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:41pmLOL … The wicked witch of the west
Report Post »Wilma
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:29pmSo much for democracy. It is only a matter of time before judges will select the President as well.
Report Post »SoiledDove
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:39pmMatter of time? It has already happened! If you remember, the Supreme Court chose President Bush.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:13pm“Matter of time? It has already happened! If you remember, the Supreme Court chose President Bush.”
more laughable liberal lies….
Report Post »SoiledDove
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:26pmHuh? I actually wasn’t even aware this was debatable. Florida was in the middle of a recount. The recount was occurring as a result of preexisting state law. Before they finished the recount, the Supreme Court took the case and decided President Bush had won the election. How is that NOT a case of the judiciary deciding an election?
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:04pm“Huh? I actually wasn’t even aware this was debatable. Florida was in the middle of a recount. The recount was occurring as a result of preexisting state law. Before they finished the recount, the Supreme Court took the case and decided President Bush had won the election. How is that NOT a case of the judiciary deciding an election?”
yeah more than debatable…..the Florida supreme court decided to ONLY recount a few counties….it wasn’t in accordance with preexisting state law. the supreme court stopped the florida supreme court from fixing the election….I would say get a clue, but you‘re a liberal and can’t think for yourself.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:42pmFlorida Supreme Court rules that results of hand counts of ballots in Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward counties must be included in the vote tally if the counts are completed by Nov. 26.
yeah they didn’t want to hand-recount the whole state…oh no, just those counties….with democrats doing the counting, of course….how convenient….
The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on whether the Florida Supreme Court acted properly when it forced the Florida secretary of state to accept manual recounts submitted after the legal deadline.
yeah gotta keep counting as long as the democrat is behind….
The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Bush v. Gore 7–2 to reverse the Florida Supreme Court, which had ordered manual recounts in certain counties. The Court contends that the recount was not treating all ballots equally, and was thus a violation of the Constitution’s equal protection and due process guarantee
Read more: 2000 Election Chronology — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884144.html#ixzz1ljMvCB5S
so the US supreme court had to stop the florida supreme court’s efforts to steal the election for gore…..
Report Post »GoodStuff
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:29pmFederal judges are the biggest problem in America.
The 9th Circus strikes again.
Report Post »SychinLegacy
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:28pmSo basically in today’s society “unconstitutional” is defined as “An issue where the particular judge does not like it”.
Not even the judges actually read the constitution anymore. Guys we are beyond hope now.
Report Post »Popp40
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:32pmAre we a country of laws or of men…….guess this answers that question.
Report Post »SoiledDove
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:42pmIt was a 133 page opinion. I don‘t think the judges’ reasoning was simply “I don’t like the law.”
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:27pmOnce again, more activist judges over-turning the will of the majority of the people for a minority. THAT should be un-constitutional.
Report Post »guntotinsquaw
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:01pmYou should probably learn what the REPUBLIC actually means…or find yourself a nice little democratic country to move to.
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:28pm@Guntotinsquaw
Report Post »Lighten up, Francis, I know we are a republic. This particular ruling was against a referendum of the will of 52% of the people of California, the 2nd time around, AGAIN.
soybomb315
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:01pmThere is a case for the gays tho (although nobody is making it yet). We all should have equal protection FROM GOVERNMENT. In this case, not being able to marry means that you will never get the favored tax breaks that married people get. So the government will be taking more of your money (that is where the protection FROM GOVERNMENT comes in). Personally, the answer is a flat tax rate, or tax rates that do not discriminate between married/unmarried. Think about it
Report Post »Godfather.1
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:44am@Anonymous T. Irrelevant
The will of the people doesn’t matter if it goes against the Constitution. If a state voted to bring back slavery, would you then say it is ok?
I thought all you Blazers were all about the Constitution, but it seems that when the Constitution gets in your way, you conveniently forget about it.
Report Post »HowTruthHurts
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:26pmEVERYONE can marry one of the OPPOSITE sex
Report Post »+
NOONE can marry one of the SAME sex
=
EQUALITY
Birddog
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:43pmRight on
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:33pmSome people can marry someone they are attracted to and can love the way they deserve. Some people can only marry someone that they aren’t attracted to and ruin both their lives – NOT equality.
Report Post »HowTruthHurts
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:04pm@CHET HEMPSTEAD
That’s asinine. Some people also get to marry hot chicks, and some don’t. Just because you aren‘t attracted to your spouse doesn’t mean the government and/or society failed you.
My point is still on point & yours is officially moot.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 11:41pmHowTruthHurts
Report Post »The grownups were discussing the legal right to marry. Obviously you can only marry someone who wants to marry you, but you are not legally forbidden from marrying an attractive person of the opposite sex.
HowTruthHurts
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:29am@CHET HEMPSTEAD
Maybe it takes an adult to understand this, but I’ll try to explain to you anyway. When EVERYONE has the same rules and NOONE is exempt from these rule, that IS EQUALITY. If NOONE is allowed to marry of the same sex (weather choosing to practice homosexuality or not) that IS EQUALITY. It’s really not complicated.
Also, you are not legally forbidden from being happily married to one of the opposite sex. If you chose to be disgusted, that’s your problem.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 12:01pmSame logic was struck down by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virgina.
Report Post »HowTruthHurts
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 1:07pm@ENCINOM
Wrong, that case was specifically based on race NOT on sexual lust/desire/practice/fetish/“orientation”. In NO way was it intended to abolish all marital restrictions or guidelines.
Your rational is the problem with our current justice system. It is now based on cases which are based on other cases which are also based on other cases etc… Hardly are rulings ever based on the Constitution.
Report Post »scuba13
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:24pmIt’s the 9th circus so what else is new ?
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:24pmPerverts!
Report Post »Liberal_Atheist_Critical_Thinker
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:24pmGreat news! Hooray for liberty and down with government regulation of marriage! Freedom to marry who you want is everyone’s right!
Report Post »HowTruthHurts
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:28pmLet’s see you stand by that quote when adults want to marry minors. With no marital regulations and our current anti-old-school-morality atmosphere, this will happen.
Report Post »randy
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:28pmYou’re sick!
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:29pmAnyone, and soon to be…. anything.
Report Post »Liberal_Atheist_Critical_Thinker
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:29pmThis ruling is for adults you silly person.
Report Post »Wilma
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:31pmWill you celebrate with glitter?
Report Post »TomFerrari
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:32pmSorry to tell you this, but, marriage is not a “right.”
Freedom of association IS a right.
Religious freedom IS a right.
But, “marriage” is NOT.
Rights come from God (per the United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence.)
I DO agree with you though, that government needs to get OUT of the marriage business!!
I say, let CHURCHES handle it. If athiests want to get “married,” then fine! They can get a Justice Of The Peace to do it. But, I also say we get rid of tax credits etc. for marriage. Marriage should NOT be entered into because of government influence, nor should it be exited because of government influence. Get out of our personal lives. PERIOD!! No matter whether you are straight, gay, bisexual, lesbian, or whatever! BUTT OUT !!!
Report Post »DD313
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:36pmSo you can run out and marry that other clown, Nancy Palooza.
Report Post »SoupSandwich
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:38pmWhere is CAIR at on this glitter ruling stuff?
Report Post »UBETHECHANGE
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:42pmI’m a gay conservative and ignorant people like you are the reason, plus I smartened up and got myself off the Marxist plantation and am free at last! Your all a bunch of fascist lying freaks! One man+one woman=marriage Period.
Report Post »downthewell
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:44pmThere is no “god” and there never was. Modern people have been on earth for 200K years, so where was god for all that time? Answer: man didn’t invent the Jewish GOD until a few thousand years ago. Our rights come from our ability to think and reason and nowhere else.
As far as the marriage issue – heteros will have to learn to share “marriage” since the constitution doesn’t allow otherwise. Get used to it. Not crazy about the idea, but there aren’t that many homosexuals to begin with anyway. Where’s the harm. They have a right to suffer like the rest of us.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:51pmLOL…yes we’ll see you stand by that ridiculous assertion when the NAMBLA crowd and the polygamists want their “rights” respected too.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:53pm@LIBERAL_ATHEIST_CRITICAL_THINKER
“This ruling is for adults you silly person.”
I believe the Catholic Church thought the same with Obama Care; It’s not intended for us, the President said so…
Don’t tear down fa ence until you know why it was put up.
People who use the ‘it’s for adults’ argument are being naive. This is certainly taking us down a slippery slope.
The army lifted its’ ban on sodomy AND BESTIALITY. Who’d have thought?
Report Post »Popp40
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:53pm@Liberal_Atheist_Critical_Thinker…..so do you feel the same way with liberty and down with government regulation when it comes to gun ownership? I find it funny that liberals want laws on gay marriage to be accepted across the country….yet when you look at liberal states and cities and see all of the gun laws that restrict gun ownership. Would you feel the same if a Federal judge said it was unconstitutional for these cities to enact these laws?
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:54pmTOMFERRARI….this whole “same benefits” angle the homosexual lobbyists are pushing is a load of tripe. Two adult males together more likely than not, have very good salaries and benefits that exceed normal married couples’.
Report Post »downthewell
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:57pmThese knuckledragging nitwits will have to learn to live with it. Tough luck.
http://atheism.about.com/od/secularismseparation/p/SecularFundies.htm
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:08pmBut we’ve tried it your way DOWNTHEWELL. Do you liberal idiots have memories that short? The twentieth century is overstuffed with hundreds of millions of deaths and incarcerations committed by vehemently secular/humanist regimes like Stalin’s Russia, Maoist China, Khmer Rouge, Hitler’s Germany…ad nauseum. We already tried to be godless champ…it cost us dearly. Let me guess…you’re one of those lefties that believes humanist ideals like communism can work, they just haven’t been implemented properly yet? LOL.
Report Post »booger71
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:30pmThey have always had the right to “marry” if they found a willing clergyman. what is this really about? Taxes? Then pass the Fair Tax or a flat tax where everyone pays the same. Health Insurance? Are you going to force a private company to write policies that include gay partners? Not very liberty minded Oh wait, I am forced to be in a group policy that requires me to subsidize women having babies(by federal law) Gays can already create a will that they can leave their property to anyone they choose.So what is this about—-forced acceptance of the gay lifestyle? Tell us we are eagerly waiting.
Report Post »barber2
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:30pmGuess there is just an innate anger and cruelty in a ” liberal-ahteist-critical-thinker. ” Your comments reflect that, as well as your need to graffiti and deface the image of a woman whose political views you do not like. Hope you do not have access to young children or animals. You have a very obvious mean streak in you.
Report Post »NoMarxist
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:56pmWhy do gays need to change the meaning of marriage? Why can they not be happy with a civil union with all of the same rights and benefits? Answer: Evil people need to corrupt and erode moral values.. Simple as that. Anyone who does not acknowledge the erosion of moral values in our society is simply dishonest. That is why this matters to people with moral values.
Report Post »soybomb315
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:06pmLets all agree that the founders had no idea GAY MARRIAGE would become a constitutional issue. Whether you are for it, or against it – it is not contained in the constitution. According to the 9th and 10th ammendments, it is therefore a state issue. Our federal and district judges have no concept of states rights. The same problem happens with abortion – again, not something that the constitution considered. Therefore, the only way the federal government (including the supreme court) can weigh in is if there is a constitutional amendment
Report Post »T-2
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:23pmanother example that our votes don’t matter.
Report Post »OFFTHEMENU.US
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:23pm‘boystown’, CA-“frisco the queer dump” weighs in!!-(allegedly in men’s clothes too!)
Report Post »THE MESSAGE: “SUPPORTING THE QUEER COMMUNITY SINCE 1972-”ONWARD TO EXTINCTION!”
love the kids
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:22pmIn Egypt, The gay and lesbian community are all for letting the people speak, but now they want them silenced.
Report Post »honor007
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:21pmWe must get rid of these Jucidial Politicians. Period.
Report Post »love the kids
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:21pmHow come they are all for Democracy when it goes their way, but when it goes against what they want, they try to stifle democracy?
Report Post »RightThinking1
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:27pmBecause they are totalitarians.
Report Post »Popp40
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:29pmBecause that is the liberal/democrat way.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:14pmBecause they’re damaged goods.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:29pmBoth sides do this so it’s not a surprise.
Like when the democrats left Wisconsin over the union legislation, Republicans cried foul, and rightfully so.
Well I believe there are instances in the past where Republicans left the state to avoid legislation being passed that they couldn’t stop, and the Democrats cried foul, and rightfully so.
We will get nowhere when everyone else calls the other a hypocrite and then goes and knowingly does the exact same hypocritical actions.
Report Post »EvangelicalTruthofAgesAlphaOmega
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:49pmThe phrase “Depart from Me, I never knew you!” will be said many times to these people. Shame.
Report Post »