It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Judiciary, Crime, & Courts => Topic started by: Pandora on February 07, 2012, 03:36:43 PM
-
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) — A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, is unconstitutional because it violates the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.
But backers of the controversial, voter-approved law quickly signaled that they planned to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court ruled 2-1 to uphold the decision of a lower court judge, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco, who determined in Aug. 2010 that Prop. 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians. The panel also rejected claims that Walker, now retired, was biased in his ruling because he is gay and in a long-term relationship with another man.
“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 stated.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the author of the majority opinion, went on to write: “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort.”
Drudge (http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/02/07/150967/)
"News" sound-clip featuring one of the judges, in stentorian tones, declaring "today, we are truly Americans".
Fleas/camels/armpits. And a pox on their houses.
-
Some days I just want to be the proud owner of my own street sweeper, and put that sonofabitch to good use.
Know what I mean?
-
"Equal protection" my ass. Homosexuals are already equally subject to marriage laws. There is no law preventing a homosexual man from marrying a woman or vice versa. It's the definition of marriage that they seek to change by judicial fiat, not its legalities.
-
Some days I just want to be the proud owner of my own street sweeper, and put that sonofabitch to good use.
Know what I mean?
I already own a couple street sweepers and it is only moral restraint that holds me in check.
There are days when I can't hardly standz it no more .......
I'll tell you this: many of these issues are going before the USSC and I am irate that our fates rest on from which sides of the bed only nine people arise the days they hear these cases.
-
Eh, just one more incident which will turn out the faith vote.
Obama is doing his part.......he has bitched slapped Catholics.
-
9th Circus strikes again.
It's all about forced acceptance and encroaching upon moral traditions and undercutting Christian's. They have their secular domestic unions, they should be happy with that, but the in-your-face forced acceptance impulse propels them forward out of pure spite. I'll match their spite!