The Cellar - Anyone being affected by Proposition 8?

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Anyone being affected by Proposition 8? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=18704)

Quote:

Originally Posted by monster (Post 569053)

has anyone considered just banning straight marriage?

Now THAT'S funny.

Instead of just letting the Gays do their thing, the right would rather abolish their own marriages, do you think?

Schwarzenegger calls for same-sex weddings
By PAUL ELIAS Associated Press Writer © 2010 The Associated Press
Aug. 6, 2010, 8:04PM

Quote:

SAN FRANCISCO — Lawyers for gay couples, California Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed legal motions Friday telling a federal judge that allowing same-sex marriages to resume immediately in the state was the right thing to do.

Quote:

Opponents of same-sex marriage said they want Proposition 8 to stay in effect until their appeal of Walker's ruling is decided by higher courts.

Quote:

The governor and attorney general almost always defend state laws when they are challenged.
But in this case, both refused to participate in fighting the lawsuit aimed at overturning the ban.

Brown is the Democratic nominee for governor on the November ballot and he previously called the ban unconstitutional.

Schwarzenegger has been more circumspect on his Proposition 8 position and his motion
to immediately resume gay marriage was his boldest pronouncement on the issue.

If Arnold says it's so, so be it... :cool:

I completely support same sex marriage. Have at it.

So ... they're supporting the appeal to overturn the rejection of a decision which rejected the bill which overturned the ban on same-sex marriage ... is that it?

I'm more confused than a closet gay baptist.

Are illegal immigrants allowed to get married in CA, as long as they're straight?

:lol2:

You trouble maker!

How's this - illegals can ONLY have gay marriages. This would defeat the anchor-baby thing. :lol:

Excellent - get the paperwork started.

FOX News Poll;

Quote:

Yes — Prop. 8 violates the Constitution. 71.1% (213,547 votes)

No — Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I don’t care what the judge thinks about the Constitution. 24.8% (74,455 votes)

I’m not sure but shouldn’t the voters views count for something? 3.6% (10,812 votes)

Other (leave a comment). 0.6% (1,685 votes)

Total Votes: 300,499

It would appear even FOX's viewers are thinking Prop 8 is crap.

Damm those evil Fox people....

Let me see....

One very popular new site vs....

everyone else.

Tell me again why they are the most popular News site over all others?

"We don't put the Bill of Rights to a vote"

Fox News / Mike Wallace interview with Ted Olson

http://cllr.me/KyV

California Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down As Unconstitutional

Quote:

A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down Proposition 8, finding California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional because it deprives gay and lesbian couples of the equal right to wed.

With a decision that pushes the gay marriage issue a step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld former San Francisco Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who invalidated Proposition 8 in 2010 after an unprecedented trial.

"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," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote, joined by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins.

Judge N. Randy Smith dissented, saying there were "legitimate governmental interests" in restricting the definition of marriage to a union between a man and woman.

This is a good decision. I'm not gay, I have no intention of marrying a man. But I believe the government does NOT have any legitimate interest in saying what sex my partner may be in **ANY** consensual activity.

I'm not so sure the proponents of gay marriage want this to be decided by today's Supreme Court. Scalia, Thomas, et al. are cavemen. Going to the Supreme Court now could set the gay rights movement back a decade or more.

In four years, after Obama has had a second term and the opportunity to appoint a couple more justices, the court will be much more likely to have a progressive view on social matters like this.

... perhaps.

I still do not understand the Constituitionality of such an argument. What is the interest of the United States of America to permit a man to marry a woman, but forbid a man to marry a man? What is the country's interest and what is the constitutional basis for such an argument? Cavemen or not, I do believe they know about the Constitution.

Because married gays will sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.