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.
Family Group Vows: We will Defend Marriage and Proposition 8
Sacramento, CA--The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that Proposition
8, the 2008 ballot initiative that codified the traditional definition of marriage,
is invalid and unconstitutional.
"This is a stunning assault on democracy and California's initiative process," explained
Karen England, Executive Director of pro-family group Capitol Resource Institute
and a key leader in the passage of Proposition 8. "Well over 50% of California
voters approved Proposition 8; today their will was overturned by a panel of arrogant
judges who want to impose their political agenda on the rest of us."
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling is not the end of the road for Proposition
8.
"The truth will always prevail and we are confident that the traditional-and true-definition
of marriage will be upheld by the Supreme Court," stated England. "The voice of
the people must be heard and respected. The future of California and American families
depends upon the sanctity of traditional marriage. It's time for the courts to recognize
marriages' critical role in society and protect it."
Dumb article.
What sanctity of traditional marriage? Folks marrying at young age, popping out babies, then spouses cheating on each their marriage, divorcing and marrying again (see Newt Gingrich).
Proposition 8 was about hypocrites using the government to strip away the rights of a group that had already existed under our Constitution. And just because *I* don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle, doesn't mean I have the right to dictate how others should lead their lives, let alone strip away their rights.
I thought the ruling would be a win for the conservatives since one of their ideologies include less government intrusion into their private lives?
Please name one contract, outside of the marriage contract, that two people of the same sex are legally prohibited from entering into. I don't know of any...
From a purely legal perspective there is no reason same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed. The arguments are 100% based on subjective morality and religious beliefs.
Please name one contract that 100+ people cant also enter into outside of marriage. Is this really an argument you want to use?
But since you asked, adoption contracts are usually prohibited from entering into with unmarried two people.
Excellent news. I'm sure the US Supreme Court will weigh in on this however, so I am tempering my enthusiasm.
A smart move since the 9th circuit is overturned more often than any other circuit. They are a contra-indicator. If they say yes, the answer is usually "NO".
You will get your "NO soon, and decency an common sense will, once again, prevail. The shock to your sensibilities will be double or triple when it hits.
Marriage, is, has always, and will always be what it is, the union of 1 man and 1 woman.
On what basis do you think this court would overturn this decision? What are the compelling arguments for the pro-Prop. 8 in this case? I haven't read this decision yet but I recall Walker's decision being quite convincing. I'm struggling to find the arguments SCOTUS would use to overturn this one. The religious-based arguments are not going to work.
I would be astounded if the Supreme Court would rule that voters can willy nilly on the waves of popularity or unpopularity of the moment, deny equal protections, civil rights and status to only certain groups of lawfully abiding citizens while leaving others unaffected by those denials with those same rights and protections.
It would be a tragic day for this country beyond any other. Note that all of us move in and out of unpopular groups or ideas to others during our lives and should be thankful that our inherent civil liberties are not so fragile to turn on a popularity contest of the moment.
I have no idea what your first sentence means. Can you clarify?
It wasnt a difficult question. You can have a contract with 100's of parties, not just two (purchase of Empire State Building for example. Does this mean we should allow marriages with 100's of individuals just because a contract allows it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
*Usually* prohibited, or legally prohibited, period? Are there states that two legal adults of the same sex that are legally barred from adopting?
yes, there are states that dont allow two legal adults to adopt if they are not married, regardless of sexial orientation if they arent married.
A smart move since the 9th circuit is overturned more often than any other circuit. They are a contra-indicator. If they say yes, the answer is usually "NO".
You will get your "NO soon, and decency an common sense will, once again, prevail. The shock to your sensibilities will be double or triple when it hits.
Marriage, is, has always, and will always be what it is, the union of 1 man and 1 woman.
Yeah, well my partner and I will get married as soon as we can so MOD CUT.
Last edited by NewToCA; 02-07-2012 at 03:20 PM..
Reason: don't be rude
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.
