Breaking News: Stay Lifted on Gay Marriage in California! (generation, Alabama, brainwashing)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do you think it will become a federal "right" ?
Common law marriage is not recognized in all states and that is a form of marriage.
Plus this is not a Supreme Court ruling..it's a CA judge who said it could resume IF not appealed by next week.
The common law isn't an official wedding, because there hasn't been an official contract or agreement reached. While states can issue them, it doesn't make them binding, and are generally quite easy to get out of, without much in court fighting.
The common law isn't an official wedding, because there hasn't been an official contract or agreement reached. While states can issue them, it doesn't make them binding, and are generally quite easy to get out of, without much in court fighting.
Common law marriage IS recognized in some states and is legally binding and you must petition the court to get it dissolved.
42 states have either constitutional amendments or statutory bans in place.
This IS the voice of the majority of the people of those states.
The majority of voters spoke in California but are getting trampled on.
To me, this is more about what the majority of voters want for their state..not the "gay marriage right".
If the majority of the state residents want it, then fine, vote it in.
42 states have either constitutional amendments or statutory bans in place.
This IS the voice of the majority of the people of those states.
The majority of voters spoke in California but are getting trampled on.
To me, this is more about what the majority of voters want for their state..not the "gay marriage right".
If the majority of the state residents want it, then fine, vote it in.
They won't decline to review this one -- it's too contentious.
And voters don't have the right to vote into law, things that violate the federal constitution. Well, they can do it, but it will be challenged and overturned.
In Islamic countries being gay = Stoned to death, hung, beheaded, shot etc.
That represents about 1/4th of the world's population who cannot be openly gay, or even talk about it.
India, which is 20% of the worlds population also doesnt allow gay marriage...
China which is another 20% of the world's population also doesnt allow gay marriage.
Those are all Non-Christian societies...And yet the Christian west is where gays can be free, and even marry in some areas...Yea, them Christians sure are bigoted! I guess Gays would be better off living in a Islamic republic like Saudi Arabia...Oh wait they would be stoned to death there. Guess not.
Yea ... and adultery / premarital sex would have you stoned to death as well. which means probably 95% of all US citizens would be stoned to death in certain countries, who also do not accept gays. Poor argument.
Why don't the conservative people go live in a country where their anti-gay views would be respected? Oh wait... they'd be stoned to death there too....
Back to the original issue...
Any proposition pushed by a religious group violates separation of church and state. I don't care what my church says on the matter. In fact, my church does not discuss this matter because it is respectful of this separation. I am pretty sure that if there was a revote, prop 8 would not pass. Lots of people did not vote in that election, but knowing the stakes now I think the majority would now vote the other way. It actually came as a pretty huge surprise to many people (who of course did not vote *kick*) that this measure actually passed.
Why do you think it will become a federal "right" ?
Common law marriage is not recognized in all states and that is a form of marriage.
Plus this is not a Supreme Court ruling..it's a CA judge who said it could resume IF not appealed by next week.
a) Perry v. Schwarzenegger has already been appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
b) the Ninth Circuit is very likely to affirm Judge Walker's ruling
c) the Supreme Court is all but certain to grant cert
d) when the Supreme Court hears the case, five words: Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kennedy
They won't decline to review this one -- it's too contentious.
And voters don't have the right to vote into law, things that violate the federal constitution. Well, they can do it, but it will be challenged and overturned.
Furthermore, if the Ninth Circuit affirms the ruling (and it very likely will) then same-sex marriage laws become invalid throughout the Ninth Circuit: California, but also Hawaii, Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana, not to mention Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.
There's no way the Supreme Court will let such a glaring circuit split stand unresolved.
42 states have either constitutional amendments or statutory bans in place.
This IS the voice of the majority of the people of those states.
The majority of voters spoke in California but are getting trampled on.
To me, this is more about what the majority of voters want for their state..not the "gay marriage right".
If the majority of the state residents want it, then fine, vote it in.
Yep, the people in the south wanted segregation also, but that was declared unconstitutional wasn't it.
And their houses and their cars and their swimming pools, and chickens, frogs -- OMG, you can't leave out the frogs -- and rain clouds and pasta. Oh, I'd be in heaven already if I could marry pasta!
I love cheese so much that I would marry it if I could.
If it started to turn on me, I could eat the evidence.
what that may mean to you doesn't mean you can just walk out of your house and marinate a cat in spices to cook him can you? that's liberty... is it justice for the cat no. it's no more justice for the mainstream populous who have to adjust to having gay lifestyles taught in public schools to children as an alternative to normal households. why do pro-gay people want to put everyone in that hot chili marinade and serve us when we know it's unjust what is going on in the court system?
you can't have a gay judge legislating from the bench about this subject.
and that's what has been done, he should have recused himself.
Silly argument.
Do straight judges have to recuse themselves from every hetero case that comes before them?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
