Big Announcement Coming on Marriage Equality

[SalisburySage]

http://www.advocate.com/politics/mar...-proposition-8

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...-marriage.html
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will decide on Tuesday whether to grant an en banc review to antigay groups seeking to keep Proposition 8 alive in California, the American Foundation for Equal Rights reports.

Should the Ninth Circuit deny en banc review, Prop. 8 backers could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, setting the stage for a national case on marriage equality. It's not clear if marriage would be allowed in California if an en banc review is denied — if that's the case, 23% of Americans would live in a state where marriage equality is once again guaranteed by law.

I don't know what the Judges will decide but my guess is that they will deny an en banc review. Prop. 8 is unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution, so ruled Judge Walker and 3 Judges of the Ninth Circuit. Now the bizarre anti gay crowd continues its insane crusade.

[SalisburySage]

Gay marriage: U.S. Supreme Court may not hear Prop. 8 appeal.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...iage-case.html

[SalisburySage]

If granted, an en banc rehearing allows the judges of the Ninth Circuit to do precisely what the 3-judge panel just did -- affirm or reject Judge Walker's decision declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional. It allows them to pass judgment on the panel's narrow holding that focused on Romer and the taking away of rights already granted. So, the Prop 8 Proponents may think they have only upside from an en banc rehearing: The larger court could deny rehearing or grant and affirm on the same narrow grounds, in which case they are no worse off; the judges could grant rehearing and uphold Prop 8, in which case Proponents come out of the Ninth Circuit winners; or, the judges could grant and overturn Prop 8 on the broader due process and equal protection grounds that Judge Reinhardt left untouched. The Prop 8 Proponents could see that broader holding as a long-game victory because it would give the Supreme Court more room to reverse and uphold Prop 8.

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2012/06/nin...#ixzz1ww6waooX

[BiggSeth]

LOL @ 9th circuit

the court where whiny librats and their special interests go when the populace rejects their attempts to foist their special interests and beliefs on the other 99.9995% of the people.

Prop 8 was defeated by a WIIIIIIIIIIIDDDDDDEEEEE margin at the polls. The people have spoken.

the SCOUTS will not take up this case, didn't you hear dear leader hedging on gay marriage? even HE said is was a States rights issue.


now begin the copy and paste onslaught of your talking points, I have opened the door, so you and the teacher from bmore can get it out of your system for the week...

I just hope after the dust settles this fall, come Feb. 2013 the Congress goes about the task of impeaching all of the 9th circuit, defunding the circiut, and making it simply vanish....

[Phineas Finn]

LOL @ 9th circuit

the court where whiny librats and their special interests go when the populace rejects their attempts to foist their special interests and beliefs on the other 99.9995% of the people.

Prop 8 was defeated by a WIIIIIIIIIIIDDDDDDEEEEE margin at the polls. The people have spoken.

the SCOUTS will not take up this case, didn't you hear dear leader hedging on gay marriage? even HE said is was a States rights issue.


now begin the copy and paste onslaught of your talking points, I have opened the door, so you and the teacher from bmore can get it out of your system for the week...

I just hope after the dust settles this fall, come Feb. 2013 the Congress goes about the task of impeaching all of the 9th circuit, defunding the circiut, and making it simply vanish....

In a civilized society, uman rights are not subject to the whims of the voters.

[BiggSeth]

In a civilized society, uman rights are not subject to the whims of the voters.

unless something happened while I was in my weekly manager's meeting, gay marriage is not a human right...

gay STILL is not a race, AND

There will be a little black spot on the Sun today.....

or did the 9th circuit court overturn the Venus transit too?

[Baltimatt]

unless something happened while I was in my weekly manager's meeting, gay marriage is not a human right...

gay STILL is not a race, AND

There will be a little black spot on the Sun today.....

or did the 9th circuit court overturn the Venus transit too?

Total nonsense. What does gay not being a race have to do with anything? What does the transit of Venus have to do with this as well?

[Baltimatt]

Court will not reconsider

A federal appeals court said Tuesday that it would not reconsider a ruling that struck down California’s Proposition 8 amendment banning same-sex marriage, another sign that the issue will soon move to the Supreme Court. Same-sex marriages in the state will not resume as a result of the ruling because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit stayed its order to allow an appeal.

The Supreme Court will now likely be faced with two ways to consider the issue: the California Prop 8 question and an appeals court decision last week in Boston that ruled unconstitutional the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which withholds federal recognition of same-sex marriages performed in those states where it is legal.

[SalisburySage]

Prop 8 was defeated by a WIIIIIIIIIIIDDDDDDEEEEE margin at the polls. The people have spoken.

However the Federal Court following its constitutional right has over turned Prop 8 as being unconstitutional. This was an improper use of referendum anyway, especially considering that outside money from the Mormon Church was poued into the publicity against retaining Prop8.

It is well established from our founding fathers that the Tyranny of the majority must not be allowed to prevail in circumstances like these.

James Madison, our 4th President, Father of the Constitution and architect of the Bill of Rights, may have foreseen the current push by a religious minority to use majoritarian devices to tyrannize the rest of the country.

[SalisburySage]

If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the omnipotence of the majority, which may at some future time urge the minorities to desperation and oblige them to have recourse to physical force. Anarchy will then be the result, but it will have been brought about by despotism.

Mr. Madison expresses the same opinion in The Federalist, No. 51. "It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be, pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society, under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger: and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted by the uncertainty of their condition to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves, so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions be gradually induced by a like motive to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted, that, if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of right under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of the factious majorities, that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it.¯

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/1_ch15.htm

[SalisburySage]

Court will not reconsider

Great news! If the Supreme Court even agrees to hear the case Prop 8 will be overturned on the narrow argument found in Romer.

U.S. Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt said this “taking away” of a right by the majority was not allowed.

But the Supreme Court said it was “not in our constitutional tradition” to enact laws that single out “a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status.”

[BiggSeth]

I can cut and paste too....

Dissenting from the denial, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain—an appointee of Ronald Reagan who is regarded as one of the best appellate judges in America—wrote an opinion for several of his colleagues criticizing this decision. Noting that President Barack Obama’s recent endorsement of gay marriage included a statement that he believes states are free to decide this issue rather than the federal government, Judge O’Scannlain opined:

“Today our court has silenced such a respectful conversation. Based on a two-judge majority’s gross misapplication of [1996 Supreme Court precedent], we have now declared that animus [i.e., hostile intentions] must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign State to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia. Even worse, we have overruled the will of seven million California Proposition 8 voters based on a reading of [Supreme Court precedent] that would be unrecognizable to the Justices who joined it, to those who dissented from it, and to the judges from [other federal courts] who have since interpreted it. We should not have so roundly trumped California’s democratic process without at least discussing this unparalleled decision in an en banc court.”


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-in-California

[BiggSeth]

and what about polygamy? this ruling opens the door to that too...

Absent from the Ninth Circuit’s panel decision is any serious discussion about polygamy. The American definition of marriage is the union of (1) two persons, (2) of opposite sex, (3) who are not close blood relatives. If marriage is now the union of consenting adults who profess to love each other, there is no rule of constitutional law under which you can remove the opposite-sex requirement from this definition, but still insist that it can only be two persons. This is all the more true because in over four dozen nations around the globe polygamy is legal, since in the Islamic faith—the world’s second-largest religion—a Muslim man can be married to up to four women. The Supreme Court rejected a right to polygamy in 1878 in Reynolds v. United States, but the reasoning in that case would be superseded by these new arguments against traditional marriage if same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-in-California

[BiggSeth]

Total nonsense. What does gay not being a race have to do with anything? What does the transit of Venus have to do with this as well?

the gay activist community likes to compare the attempt to force down the throats of Americans their agenda to the racial inequality struggles of the 60's.

the big difference is that gay is not a race, like black, latino, white, native american, etc....

and the fact that the absurdity of the 9th circuit overturning the transit of Venus flew over your RADAR tells us that you are way too serious about your cut-and paste advocacy....

[karlydee]

and what about polygamy? this ruling opens the door to that too...


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-in-California

Good.

Legally, marriage is simply a contract between parties.

There is no compelling reason to limit said contracts to only 2 parties.

[SalisburySage]

I can cut and paste too....

Dissenting from the denial, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain—an appointee of Ronald Reagan who is regarded as one of the best appellate judges in America—wrote an opinion for several of his colleagues criticizing this decision. Noting that President Barack Obama’s recent endorsement of gay marriage included a statement that he believes states are free to decide this issue rather than the federal government, Judge O’Scannlain opined:

“Today our court has silenced such a respectful conversation. Based on a two-judge majority’s gross misapplication of [1996 Supreme Court precedent], we have now declared that animus [i.e., hostile intentions] must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign State to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia. Even worse, we have overruled the will of seven million California Proposition 8 voters based on a reading of [Supreme Court precedent] that would be unrecognizable to the Justices who joined it, to those who dissented from it, and to the judges from [other federal courts] who have since interpreted it. We should not have so roundly trumped California’s democratic process without at least discussing this unparalleled decision in an en banc court.”


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-in-California

What's wrong with cutting and pasting. You use this like a tiny sword brandishing it like a court jester as if using the tool of cutting and pasting makes you have the high ground. Really I am just laughing at you.

[SalisburySage]

@ Seth: Did you miss this? The Federal Court following its constitutional right has over turned Prop 8 as being unconstitutional. This was an improper use of referendum anyway, especially considering that outside money from the Mormon Church was poued into the publicity against retaining Prop8.

It is well established from our founding fathers that the Tyranny of the majority must not be allowed to prevail in circumstances like these.

James Madison, our 4th President, Father of the Constitution and architect of the Bill of Rights, may have foreseen the current push by a religious minority to use majoritarian devices to tyrannize the rest of the country.

[SalisburySage]

I can cut and paste too....


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-in-California

You are just going to have to live with Same Sex Marriage. The world won'd end. You won't have to become gay, your marriage will not be affected. Maybe your desire to have homosexuals follow your religion will be thwarted but you can't have a theocracy and you'll never get one.

[BiggSeth]

What's wrong with cutting and pasting. You use this like a tiny sword brandishing it like a court jester as if using the tool of cutting and pasting makes you have the high ground. Really I am just laughing at you.

I see my lampooning of your cut-and-paste of the gay agenda talking points has struck a nerve....I got you so full of the vapors that you contradict yourself on the span of 2 sentences....

As for your demonstrated pension to cut and paste talking points--by cutting and pasting, YOU are not involved in the discussion, YOU are merely a human parrot for someone else's opinion.

The REAL issue here is State's rights and the right of self governance. The 9th circuit has just compelled all of the other States in it's jurisdiction to adopt a law that they may have otherwise deemed inappropriate for their people, based on the will of the people of each State......

As for your 'court jester' simile, YOU are the king of the cut and paste when it comes to your fervent pursuit of universal recognition of gay marriage. Therefore, YOU just described yourself better than anyone else could have.

[BiggSeth]

You are just going to have to live with Same Sex Marriage. The world won'd end. You won't have to become gay, your marriage will not be affected. Maybe your desire to have homosexuals follow your religion will be thwarted but you can't have a theocracy and you'll never get one.

As I have stated ad-nauseum, I have no problem with gay marriage, I have a problem with forcing agendas onto the law books against the will of the people.

It is disingenuous to compare gay marriage to slavery, sufferage, etc. Until gay is universally recognized as a race, your agenda is limited to a lifestyle choice.

The people of California said "No thanks" to gay marriage, so beit. Vermont, Hawaii, Massachusstes and others recognize same-sex marriages. Move there.