prop 8 in ca - judge

imo....the 9th will enforce the stay...

i could be wrong, as the 9th is liberal, but i just don't see the purpose of allowing any marriages until this is resolved at a higher court...eg., the 9th and if the scotus denies cert, the 9th is final as to california...

reason i say this is....it is a federal district court ruling and could still be overturned by the 9th or the scotus....last time when the marriages were allowed...it was because cali's sct ruled they were allowed, there was no higher court at that time to challenge that ruling. it would be like a superior court of california allowing something only to have it overturned by an appellete court or cali sct.
 
Yurt said:
imo....the 9th will enforce the stay...

i could be wrong, as the 9th is liberal, but i just don't see the purpose of allowing any marriages until this is resolved at a higher court...eg., the 9th and if the scotus denies cert, the 9th is final as to california...

reason i say this is....it is a federal district court ruling and could still be overturned by the 9th or the scotus....last time when the marriages were allowed...it was because cali's sct ruled they were allowed, there was no higher court at that time to challenge that ruling. it would be like a superior court of california allowing something only to have it overturned by an appellete court or cali sct.
Click to expand...


But the mere fact that a decision could be overturned on appeal isn't a sufficient basis to impose a stay. That's a pretty stupid analysis.

And while you may not "see the purpose" in allowing people to freely enjoy the fundamental right to marriage where preventing them from doing so will impose no harm whatsoever on anyone anywhere, others may disagree.
 
NigelTufnel said:
But the mere fact that a decision could be overturned on appeal isn't a sufficient basis to impose a stay. That's a pretty stupid analysis.

And while you may not "see the purpose" in allowing people to freely enjoy the fundamental right to marriage where preventing them from doing so will impose no harm whatsoever on anyone anywhere, others may disagree.
Click to expand...

No homosexual person is prevented from marrying. You continue to make that false assertion. Marriage is defined as a union of a man and woman, and it is not restricted in ANY state on the basis of sexuality. Homosexual same-sex unions are NOT marriage, and should not be considered equivalent to marriage, and that is where your argument lies. You wish to make it equivalent to something it's not, and about 80% of this country doesn't support that idea.

Keep this up, and you are going to get a Constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as being between a man and woman. I really do hate we'll have to go that route, because this could all be settled with civil unions legislation, as I have laid out before. It would give everyone what they want and we could all live happily ever after, but it looks like the extremists are hell-bent on forcing the hand of social conservatives. Once this is codified into the Constitution, all of this debate and court wrangling vanishes, homosexual couples will be shit outta luck, and you'll be looking at an uphill 60 year battle to try and repeal an amendment to the Constitution. You are literally on the verge of setting back gay rights 60 years, and you don't even realize it. You're too stubbornly mired in your own philosophy to understand you live in a society which simply does not agree with you, and will not accept your viewpoint.
 
Dixie said:
No homosexual person is prevented from marrying. You continue to make that false assertion. Marriage is defined as a union of a man and woman, and it is not restricted in ANY state on the basis of sexuality. Homosexual same-sex unions are NOT marriage, and should not be considered equivalent to marriage, and that is where your argument lies. You wish to make it equivalent to something it's not, and about 80% of this country doesn't support that idea.

Keep this up, and you are going to get a Constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as being between a man and woman. I really do hate we'll have to go that route, because this could all be settled with civil unions legislation, as I have laid out before. It would give everyone what they want and we could all live happily ever after, but it looks like the extremists are hell-bent on forcing the hand of social conservatives. Once this is codified into the Constitution, all of this debate and court wrangling vanishes, homosexual couples will be shit outta luck, and you'll be looking at an uphill 60 year battle to try and repeal an amendment to the Constitution. You are literally on the verge of setting back gay rights 60 years, and you don't even realize it. You're too stubbornly mired in your own philosophy to understand you live in a society which simply does not agree with you, and will not accept your viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Sorry Dixie; but there's not going to be any amendment.
The Courts are going to rule that same sex marriages are legal and you're just going to have to accept the ruling.
But, don't worry; because no one is going to make you marry a guy.
Unless you want to.
 
Dixie said:
No homosexual person is prevented from marrying. You continue to make that false assertion. Marriage is defined as a union of a man and woman, and it is not restricted in ANY state on the basis of sexuality. Homosexual same-sex unions are NOT marriage, and should not be considered equivalent to marriage, and that is where your argument lies. You wish to make it equivalent to something it's not, and about 80% of this country doesn't support that idea.

Keep this up, and you are going to get a Constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as being between a man and woman. I really do hate we'll have to go that route, because this could all be settled with civil unions legislation, as I have laid out before. It would give everyone what they want and we could all live happily ever after, but it looks like the extremists are hell-bent on forcing the hand of social conservatives. Once this is codified into the Constitution, all of this debate and court wrangling vanishes, homosexual couples will be shit outta luck, and you'll be looking at an uphill 60 year battle to try and repeal an amendment to the Constitution. You are literally on the verge of setting back gay rights 60 years, and you don't even realize it. You're too stubbornly mired in your own philosophy to understand you live in a society which simply does not agree with you, and will not accept your viewpoint.
Click to expand...

The Equal Rights Amendment failed to gain the necessary states to be ratified.

If an amendment guaranteeing equal rights to women can't pass, what makes you think an amendment to the US Constitution concerning marriage will pass?

The polls show an increase in those supporting gay marriage. The amendment would never pass.
 
liberty-and-justice-lesbians.jpg
 
WinterBorn said:
The Equal Rights Amendment failed to gain the necessary states to be ratified.

If an amendment guaranteeing equal rights to women can't pass, what makes you think an amendment to the US Constitution concerning marriage will pass?

The polls show an increase in those supporting gay marriage. The amendment would never pass.
Click to expand...

I realize you probably are too young to recall the debate on the ERA, but the primary argument against it was because it wasn't needed. Women already had guaranteed civil rights, it was included in the CRA in 1964. It was also a liberal initiative, and the majority of states are not liberal. It needed too many conservative Bible-belt states to ratify it, and that did not happen. Now, protecting traditional marriage? Different situation altogether.

The polls my ass... the only polls that count are on election day, where gay marriage has failed time and time again, in the most liberal meccas you've got! Not by a slim margin, but by overwhelming margins. Where you get the idea that "people's minds are changing" I have no idea. I've been talking to people about this issue for years, and have never known of anyone to change their viewpoint about it. People either have a liberal social view or they don't, in which case, they have a traditional social view. So you are pissing in the wind if you are trying to gain the extra... oh, 30% of the people you need to have any chance at preventing a Constitutional amendment or getting gay marriage.

Here is the problem, since you are obviously clueless to it, we have about 89% of the country, of all demographics, who are strongly connected to their religious faith, and hold marriage sacrosanct because of that. As much as they may wish to sympathize with the plight of the poor homo, they just aren't able to forsake their spiritual views on the matter, and can't do it. You always seem to want to make this a "left-right" issue, a "wedge" issue... but it's really not, according to the numbers. African-Americans and Hispanics are above the national average in their opposition to gay marriage, these are traditionally huge Democrat supporters.
 
Dixie said:
I realize you probably are too young to recall the debate on the ERA, but the primary argument against it was because it wasn't needed. Women already had guaranteed civil rights, it was included in the CRA in 1964. It was also a liberal initiative, and the majority of states are not liberal. It needed too many conservative Bible-belt states to ratify it, and that did not happen. Now, protecting traditional marriage? Different situation altogether.

The polls my ass... the only polls that count are on election day, where gay marriage has failed time and time again, in the most liberal meccas you've got! Not by a slim margin, but by overwhelming margins. Where you get the idea that "people's minds are changing" I have no idea. I've been talking to people about this issue for years, and have never known of anyone to change their viewpoint about it. People either have a liberal social view or they don't, in which case, they have a traditional social view. So you are pissing in the wind if you are trying to gain the extra... oh, 30% of the people you need to have any chance at preventing a Constitutional amendment or getting gay marriage.

Here is the problem, since you are obviously clueless to it, we have about 89% of the country, of all demographics, who are strongly connected to their religious faith, and hold marriage sacrosanct because of that. As much as they may wish to sympathize with the plight of the poor homo, they just aren't able to forsake their spiritual views on the matter, and can't do it. You always seem to want to make this a "left-right" issue, a "wedge" issue... but it's really not, according to the numbers. African-Americans and Hispanics are above the national average in their opposition to gay marriage, these are traditionally huge Democrat supporters.
Click to expand...

I am old enough to remember it quite clearly. And the argument was a bogus one. And it still did not present a sufficient reason to not ratify the ERA.

Its funny that you dismiss the polls that show increasing acceptance and support for gay marriage, but have no problem using polls that show the opposite. The minor propositions that have been defeated are a far cry for an amendment to the US Constitution.
 
The Supreme Court will likely speak, FREEDOM and EQUAL PROTECTION will likely win. It will be a huge step forward for AMERICA.....
 
NigelTufnel said:
But the mere fact that a decision could be overturned on appeal isn't a sufficient basis to impose a stay. That's a pretty stupid analysis.

And while you may not "see the purpose" in allowing people to freely enjoy the fundamental right to marriage where preventing them from doing so will impose no harm whatsoever on anyone anywhere, others may disagree.
Click to expand...

you know, you really can be an ignorant asshole at times

if you would for a moment pull your head out of your ass and reflect on the crazy pandemonium when SF said people could get married before cali sct overturned the law and the ensuing heartache and confusion because those marriages were later ruled invalid....you would realize that is what the judge wants to avoid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top