Appeals Court: Prop 8 Unconstitutional

[poet]

Clearly, these judges don't give a shit about the DOMA. Now we have to hope that the SC will.

Why would they? Who is anyone having to defend marriage from? Eventually, DOMA will fall, and marriage will be open to all consenting adults, regardless of gender.
It's like trying to stop time.

 

[poet]

You know, I haven't been able to find whether Califronia supports DOMA or not. I did learn that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Let's hope the SC upholds that.

That was until gays and lesbians "woke up" and realized they were being denied the rights and privileges enjoyed by heterosexuals, and demanded equal treatment, under the law.
I was married in a civil ceremony, 10 years ago...but the State of Texas doesn't recognize it. I'm thinking about going where it is recognized, instead of waiting for dinosaurs to die.

 

[dixon76710]

And the same arguments about states rights and leaving the issue of marriage up to the states were made when Loving was decided. If the anti-gay marriage crowd had their way, the SCOTUS would have never ruled on that issue either.

Interracl couples procreate just like same race couples. The children of interracial couples can benefit from the entitlements of marriage, just as much as children of same race couples. Government has just as much interest in the wellbeing of children from interracial couples as they do children of same race couples.

Purifying the white race is NOT a legitimate governmental interest. Improving the well being of children is such an interest.

 

[dixon76710]

Why would they? Who is anyone having to defend marriage from? Eventually, DOMA will fall, and marriage will be open to all consenting adults, regardless of gender.
It's like trying to stop time.

6 states with gay marriage still exclude closely related couples and still annul or disolve platonic marriages for a failure to consummate the relationship. Not extended to any two consenting adults but instead extended to gay couples. Courts use the fiction that marriage hasnt been limited to heterosexual couples for thousands of years in order to include those with a potential of procreation but has instead been so limited to heterosexuals, in order to exclude the homosexuals, motivated by animus towards homosexuals. The court held that only excluding gays and lesbians from marriage is a violation of criminal law. Absurd.

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Biology, not animus towards homosexuals.

 

[dixon76710]

It's no judicial tyranny. It's courts upholding equal rights under the law.

"Equal rights" would involve marriage for any two consenting adults who desire marriage. Not special treatment for homosexuals because of animus towards homosexuals.

 

[dixon76710]

You know, I haven't been able to find whether Califronia supports DOMA or not. I did learn that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Let's hope the SC upholds that.

So do I, but with two new lesbian appointed by Obama on the court....I dont know.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

"Equal rights" would involve marriage for any two consenting adults who desire marriage. Not special treatment for homosexuals because of animus towards homosexuals.

your first sentence is correct, your second is false. same sex couples are in fact two consenting adults engaging in LEGAL relationships. there is zero special treatment. tell me, what special treatment do same sex couples get that heterosexual couples do not?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Interracl couples procreate just like same race couples. The children of interracial couples can benefit from the entitlements of marriage, just as much as children of same race couples. Government has just as much interest in the wellbeing of children from interracial couples as they do children of same race couples.

Purifying the white race is NOT a legitimate governmental interest. Improving the well being of children is such an interest.

you seem to believe those who cannot procreate do not have a "special" right to get married.....

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You know, I haven't been able to find whether Califronia supports DOMA or not. I did learn that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Let's hope the SC upholds that.

where in the US constitution does it say that? doesn't matter if CA support DOMA (they clearly don't as they have already granted gays the right to marry). how can scotus uphold marriage between a man and a woman when no such idea exists in the constitution. and do you really think the same court that gave us loving is going to deny gays the right to marry?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Here is the chronology thus far...

A Liberal judge proclaimed upon high, that Gay Marriage shall be the law of the land.

The state legislature failed to act, and the people presented Proposition 8 to the voters.

Proposition 8, banning Gay Marriage, passed in one of the most liberal states in the country.

A Liberal judge ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

Another Liberal judge has concurred.

The case goes to the Supreme Court.

MmmK?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

dixie...are you opposed to 'liberal' judges declaring interracial marriage to be law of the land? are you proposing that so long as the majority denies equal rights, that no court can overturn the law based on our constitution?

 

[dixon76710]

your first sentence is correct, your second is false. same sex couples are in fact two consenting adults engaging in LEGAL relationships. there is zero special treatment. tell me, what special treatment do same sex couples get that heterosexual couples do not?

???? Heterosexual couples do get special treatment, einstein. Because they are the only type of couple with the potential of procreation. The single mother and grandmother downt the street who have joined together for nearlyy a decade to raise their children/grandchildren together do not have the potential of procreation so they are excluded from marriage. Marriages between platonic couples are annuled for a failure to consummate the marriage, because platonic couples dont have the potential to procreate. Gay couples, because the courts imagine that marriages limitation to heterosexual couples is by design intended to exclude homosexuals, get a constitutional right to marriage. Special treatment for homosexuals because they are homosexuals.
As well, the courts declare a new motivation for the thousands of year old institution of marriage. Forming "stable households". There are more stable households made up of a single parent, single grandparent living with their children/grandchildren right now than there has ever been households made up of gay couples raisng children. But since there is no animus towards single parents and grandparents living together, no constitutional right to marriage using the courts logic. Really is tortured logic they use.

 

[dixon76710]

you seem to believe those who cannot procreate do not have a "special" right to get married.....

No, those couples made up of anything other than a heterosexual couple cannot procreate. We don know which couples will procreate, but we do know that all that do will exclusively be heterosexual couples. Thus government encourages ALL heterosexual couples to marry.
We dont know which drivers of motor vehicles will have an accident so government encourages ALL drivers to purchase liability insurance.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No, those couples made up of anything other than a heterosexual couple cannot procreate. We don know which couples will procreate, but we do know that all that do will exclusively be heterosexual couples. Thus government encourages ALL heterosexual couples to marry.
We dont know which drivers of motor vehicles will have an accident so government encourages ALL drivers to purchase liability insurance.

iow, you clearly believe homosexuals are not entitled to equal treatment under the laws. you said "consenting adults"....now...you're backpeddling and claiming that only heterosexuals are entitled to enjoy government marriage. that is a clear violation of the 14th amendment.

further, couples have issue all the time without marriage. your analogy to accidents falls flat, as many couples know in advance whether they can or even want kids.

 

[dixon76710]

where in the US constitution does it say that? doesn't matter if CA support DOMA (they clearly don't as they have already granted gays the right to marry).

Actually, Californians, by referendum prohibited marriage between two people of the same sex. Thats why, still today in California, same sex marriages are prohibited. Now its possible this gay judge will grant the rights of gays to marry, but that will only happen if it makes its way through the appeals process.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

dixon76710;946713]???? Heterosexual couples do get special treatment, einstein. Because they are the only type of couple with the potential of procreation. The single mother and grandmother downt the street who have joined together for nearlyy a decade to raise their children/grandchildren together do not have the potential of procreation so they are excluded from marriage.

here we go again with this truly bizarre logic. you earlier stated:

Not special treatment for homosexuals because of animus towards homosexuals.

why do you want to deny homosexuals the same "special" treatment? your point about a mother and grandmother is truly bizarre. they are not excluded from marriage because they cannot procreate, utter bullshit. they are excluded due to incest laws.

Marriages between platonic couples are annuled for a failure to consummate the marriage, because platonic couples dont have the potential to procreate.

cite the law that says a marriage can be annuled where the couple chose a platonic marriage.

Gay couples, because the courts imagine that marriages limitation to heterosexual couples is by design intended to exclude homosexuals, get a constitutional right to marriage. Special treatment for homosexuals because they are homosexuals.

you're confused, now you're back to saying homosexuals get special treatment. if you want to allow heteros this special treatment you speak of, why do you want to deny homosexuals the same "special" treatment?

As well, the courts declare a new motivation for the thousands of year old institution of marriage. Forming "stable households". There are more stable households made up of a single parent, single grandparent living with their children/grandchildren right now than there has ever been households made up of gay couples raisng children. But since there is no animus towards single parents and grandparents living together, no constitutional right to marriage using the courts logic. Really is tortured logic they use.

your logic is tortured.

 

[dixon76710]

apparently the judicial branch wanted to preserve a right of americans protected by the 14th Amendment.

Nope, just the gay and lesbian Americans

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled 2-1 Tuesday that a lower court judge interpreted the U.S. Constitution correctly in 2010 when he declared the ban, known as Proposition 8, to be a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Actually, Californians, by referendum prohibited marriage between two people of the same sex. Thats why, still today in California, same sex marriages are prohibited. Now its possible this gay judge will grant the rights of gays to marry, but that will only happen if it makes its way through the appeals process.

no shit sherlock. do you even know what this thread is about? you refer to the gay judge, however, this is a 9th circ. ruling, we are past the district court. nice to know you think that homosexuality renders one incapable of being a judge.

do you believe that any law created by referendum (which amended the constitution of CA) should never fall under the perview of the judicial system? what if the majority passed a law making slavery of chinese immigrants legal?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Nope, just the gay and lesbian Americans

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled 2-1 Tuesday that a lower court judge interpreted the U.S. Constitution correctly in 2010 when he declared the ban, known as Proposition 8, to be a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

so gays and lesbians are not americans???

 

[dixon76710]

iow, you clearly believe homosexuals are not entitled to equal treatment under the laws.

Why yes they are. I as a heterosexual man cannot marry someone of the same sex and neither can a homosexual man. Same treatment. I as a 52 year old divorcee, too set in my ways, have no interest in marrying a woman. Gay men with their preference for sex with men, also dont want to marry a woman. You want special treatment though, for the homosexuals, because they are so special.

you said "consenting adults"....now...you're backpeddling and claiming that only heterosexuals are entitled to enjoy government marriage. that is a clear violation of the 14th amendment. .

You make no sense.