Drudge: 1 JUDGE VOIDS 7,000,000 VOTERS...

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The voters in CA chose to define marriage as is their prerogative under Amendment X. This has nothing to do with Amendment IV.

they do not, if such definition denies equality of law and due process for fundamental rights....

Because plaintiffs seek to exercise their fundamental
right to marry, their claim is subject to strict scrutiny.
Zablocki, 434 US at 388. That the majority of California voters
supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as “fundamental rights may
not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no
elections.” West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319
117 US 624, 638 (1943).

p. 119

i would also note that even the proponents of prop. 8 agreed that marriage is a fundamental right....that is not in dispute

 

[DamnYankee]

Marriage, okay, but civil unions should be hands off! Call it by another name, give them rights to become partners who have legal rights!

Why get hung up on a semantics! People want to pretend that marriage is some HOLY institution and then they run to Vegas to get a quickie divorce so they can marry the girl they have been cheating with since they last got married. It use to be a business deals between families! Woman were a piece of property that were traded like land or cattle, so give me a break on the institution of marriage and how it would be ruined by homosexuals be allowed to perform the action. It is a joke!

Sham marriages are bad, so we should have more sham marriages?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

p. 112

The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right
protected by the Due Process Clause. See, for example, Turner v
Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) (“[T]he decision to marry is a
fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional
support and public commitment.”); Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (1978)
(“The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all
individuals.”); Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632,
639-40 (1974) (“This Court has long recognized that freedom of
personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of
the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.”); Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1, 12 (1967) (The “freedom
to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men.”); Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479, 486 (1965) (“Marriage
is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring,
and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association
that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not
political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social
projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any
involved in our prior decisions.”).

 

[Bonestorm]

What?

California cannot define marriage in a manner that violates the U.S. Constitution. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment makes this quite clear.

 

[NOVA]

I feel about Drudge the same way some feel about Media Matters, it is a very biased website.

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Thats interesting....here is drudge...

Its a site to other internet sites covering a variety of issues....
Point out the bias....exactly....I'd like to see what you consider bias...

We know Drudge broke the story on clinton and his Oval Office blow jobs..since then Drudge has been on the liberal shitlist....and that about explains the imaginary bias....

 

[Damocles]

he stayed his order, imo, because it would merely cause confusion and all those people who go out and get married now, would likely have their licenses revoked if the 9th reverses. i know last time cal scotus ruled and until prop 8 passed, 18,000 marriages were left intact, but i believe because this is federal court and not the highest court of california ruling on california law and federal law, that if 9th reverses, the licenses will be invalid.

and btw....18,000 gay marriages for 2 years now...and those that oppose it can't cite anything negative to have occurred since those marriages took place

Well, count the ones in Mass. So far I believe that it caused the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile... And that we'll soon be able to blame our next blizzard on those heathens.

 

[DamnYankee]

they do not, if such definition denies equality of law and due process for fundamental rights....

Because plaintiffs seek to exercise their fundamental
right to marry, their claim is subject to strict scrutiny.
Zablocki, 434 US at 388. That the majority of California voters
supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as “fundamental rights may
not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no
elections.” West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319
117 US 624, 638 (1943).

p. 119

i would also note that even the proponents of prop. 8 agreed that marriage is a fundamental right....that is not in dispute

Assume for a moment that traditional marriage is a fundamental right, who is stopping a gay man from marrying a consenting woman?

 

[Phantasmal]

Assume for a moment that traditional marriage is a fundamental right, who is stopping a gay man from marrying a consenting woman?

No one, but why would they want to? You so funny!

 

[DamnYankee]

California cannot define marriage in a manner that violates the U.S. Constitution. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment makes this quite clear.

How?

 

[DamnYankee]

You so funny!

I love you long time!

 

[Damocles]

Assume for a moment that traditional marriage is a fundamental right, who is stopping a gay man from marrying a consenting woman?

Actually nobody is stopping him from marrying a man either. It seems odd to me that people don't realize that churches across the nation already have married plenty of homosexual couples. The government is just reticent to "recognize" their marriages. It isn't illegal for two gay guys to go to a chapel somewhere that allows it and get hitched up. They just don't get any of the benefits that straight people get when they take those same steps.

The government can't sanctify or desanctify any marriage. It's worthless to pretend that they can.

 

[Bonestorm]

How?

I imagine that if California defined marriage as only between individuals of the same sex you wouldn't have any trouble grasping it.

 

[Phantasmal]

How?

The equal protection law, you know the one that also enables whites to marry blacks! We whites had to get permission from those of high moral authority before we could marry blacks. The change of the law was thought of in the same vein as the gay marriage law. There were those good moral citizen who were sure this was going to lead to the destruction of our society, it would lead to animal husbandry! Those higher thinkers and all, you know!

 

[DamnYankee]

Actually nobody is stopping him from marrying a man either. It seems odd to me that people don't realize that churches across the nation already have married plenty of homosexual couples. The government is just reticent to "recognize" their marriages. It isn't illegal for two gay guys to go to a chapel somewhere that allows it and get hitched up. They just don't get any of the benefits that straight people get when they take those same steps.

The government can't sanctify or desanctify any marriage. It's worthless to pretend that they can.

Then they should get out of the business of deciding on different tax rates, legal status, and evidentiary requirements based on "marriage".

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Assume for a moment that traditional marriage is a fundamental right, who is stopping a gay man from marrying a consenting woman?

that is just silly nonsense...all marriage is a fundamental right...there is no such thing as "traditional" marriage...perhaps you would like to hark back to pre loving v. virginia days as "traditional"...

your traditional notions are exactly why fundamental rights are not up to votes or mob rule, that is why this country has the 3rd branch and thank goodness for that

 

[Damocles]

Then they should get out of the business of deciding on different tax rates, legal status, and evidentiary requirements based on "marriage".

Yes, they should.

 

[DamnYankee]

I imagine that if California defined marriage as only between individuals of the same sex you wouldn't have any trouble grasping it.

You appear to be imaging some sort of logic as well, just too scared to voice it.

 

[NOVA]

p. 112

The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right
protected by the Due Process Clause. See, for example, Turner v
Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) (“[T]he decision to marry is a
fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional
support and public commitment.”); Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (1978)
(“The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all
individuals.”); Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632,
639-40 (1974) (“This Court has long recognized that freedom of
personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of
the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.”); Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1, 12 (1967) (The “freedom
to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men.”); Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479, 486 (1965) (“Marriage
is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring,
and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association
that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not
political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social
projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any
involved in our prior decisions.”).

California cannot define marriage in a manner that violates the U.S. Constitution. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment makes this quite clear.

Marriage has nothing to do with the Constitution...the Constitution neither condones/allows or bans marraiage in any way....queers can hold any ceremony in any location with anyone officiating and call themselves married for their own purposes...nobody cares.

The simple fact is...the government does not have to recognize this union for tax treatment or any other legality if they so desire nor do they have recognize any marriage if they so deem....

The queers and still view themselves married in their own eyes .....

what they really want is for all of us to condone their lifestyle and accept it over our particular moral value systems and religious views....

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

How?

post 23 explains it clearly

 

[Bonestorm]

Actually nobody is stopping him from marrying a man either. It seems odd to me that people don't realize that churches across the nation already have married plenty of homosexual couples. The government is just reticent to "recognize" their marriages. It isn't illegal for two gay guys to go to a chapel somewhere that allows it and get hitched up. They just don't get any of the benefits that straight people get when they take those same steps.

The government can't sanctify or desanctify any marriage. It's worthless to pretend that they can.

That's some stupid shit right there. It isn't about the state sanctifying or desanctifying anything or about the religious institution of marriage. It's about same-sex couples obtaining the privileges and obligations of the secular marriage.