Thread: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Successfully Petitioned to Re-hear Prop. 8 Ruling

As people begin to see the fruition of where the gay cultural usurping of mainstream secular values is going in California, apparently a push-back surge is under way. A recent defeat in the legislature in Idaho, the veto of the gay marraige bill in New Jersey by compassionate but unapologetic Governor Christie may be reflecting a limit of tolerance for promoting something that may not have a place in mainstream values, but instead, a place in a deeper understanding of what is going on. A compassion for those people who identify themselves by their compulsive non-reproductive sexual behaviors, but not a promotion of them into mainstream mores.

February 22, 2012 SAN FRANCISCO — The backers of California’s same-sex marriage ban petitioned a federal appeals court Tuesday to review a split decision by three of its judges that struck down Proposition 8, deciding for now to avoid taking their chances before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lawyers for the religious and legal groups behind the ban beat a midnight deadline to ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the 2-1 decision that declared Proposition 8 to be a violation of the civil rights of gay and lesbian Californians.

If they hadn’t sought reconsideration, the three judges could have ordered the ruling to take effect in seven days, clearing the way for same-sex marriages to resume in the state.

Instead, same-sex marriages will remain on hold at least until the 9th Circuit decides to accept or reject the rehearing petition. The court does not face a deadline for doing so. “After careful consideration, we determined that asking for reconsideration by the full Ninth Circuit is in the best interests of defending Prop. 8,” said Andy Pugno, general counsel for the Protect Marriage coalition. “This gives the entire 9th Circuit a chance to correct this anomalous decision by just two judges overturning the vote of seven million Californians.” http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/...s-seek-review/

My personal view is that when they began to promote Harvey Milk as their official representative, "hero" and ambassador to children in CA Schools via a mandate there to teach children to equate "gays" [sexual behaviors] with "accomplishments/hero status", the gay community at large screwed up. Big time.

Harvey Milk via the book The Mayor of Castro Street and the movie "Milk" spun off from that, was documented as having sodomized a vulnerable and drug-addicted 16 year old boy in NY and CA. 17 is/was the age of consent in New York and 18 was/is the age of consent in CA. There is no age of consent for sodomizing someone under the influence of drugs...

Gays choosing Harvey Milk as their iconic hero set off alarm bells across the nation. And now the fruit of that is that states are saying, "maybe in California, but not here..".

And now apparently not even in California, at least until gay advocate legal teams can figure out a way to convince the Supreme Court that a certain small select group of sexual behaviors deserve protection under the Constitution, while other behaviors that are similar, do not..

Lets keep ignoring the constitution and keep a group of citizens as second class citizens, by denying them the 1400 rights that come with marriage.

Well your way will only work if behaviors become = "race, creed, gender or ethnic origin". And at that, only a few select compulsive sexual behaviors known as "gay" and "lesbian", to the exclusion of all others.

So unless you're planning on either 1. Applying for federal recognition as a religion [the only protected class regarding behaviors] or 2. Seeking to set a precedent that may turn states' penal and civil codes on their head [American law regulates human behaviors] or 3. Getting an Amendment to the Constitution protecting just gay and lesbian sexual practitioners as "special class", ignoring all other behaviors that also may choose to identify themselves as an organized group based on what they DO, not what they are, you're going to have a rough legal road ahead of you.

The key here is it understand that just because a group of people have organized to call their behaviors a "race" doesn't mean that the law or society at large will have that same outlook.

Aren't you worried about gays and lesbians getting a special class distinction and arbitrarily leaving out [discriminating against] other sexual fetish behaviors? Why just "gays" and "lesbians"? Why not others too? For some reason I have yet to find a gay-advocate that worries about this. Odd, that...

Originally Posted by Silhouette

Well your way will only work if behaviors become = "race, creed, gender or ethnic origin". And at that, only a few select compulsive sexual behaviors known as "gay" and "lesbian", to the exclusion of all others.

So unless you're planning on either 1. Applying for federal recognition as a religion [the only protected class regarding behaviors] or 2. Seeking to set a precedent that may turn states' penal and civil codes on their head [American law regulates human behaviors] or 3. Getting an Amendment to the Constitution protecting just gay and lesbian sexual practitioners as "special class", ignoring all other behaviors that also may choose to identify themselves as an organized group based on what they DO, not what they are, you're going to have a rough legal road ahead of you.

The key here is it understand that just because a group of people have organized to call their behaviors a "race" doesn't mean that the law or society at large will have that same outlook.

Aren't you worried about gays and lesbians getting a special class distinction and arbitrarily leaving out [dicriminating against] other sexual fetish behaviors? Why just "gays" and "lesbians"? Why not others too? For some reason I have yet to find a gay-advocate that worries about this. Odd, that...

Homosexuality is not a 'behavior'. False premise right off the bat.

Also straight people are already in a 'special' class, they can marry.

Originally Posted by rstones199

Lets keep ignoring the constitution and keep a group of citizens as second class citizens, by denying them the 1400 rights that come with marriage.

MArriage itself is not a "right". PLease cite a single rule for marriage that is different for gays than for anyone else...

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

MArriage itself is not a "right". PLease cite a single rule for marriage that is different for gays than for anyone else...

It is when the government hands out 1400 rghts with marriage.

Originally Posted by rstones199

Lets keep ignoring the constitution and keep a group of citizens as second class citizens, by denying them the 1400 rights that come with marriage.

Sadly, it needs to pointed out again that every single man and every single woman in America HAS EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHT TO MARRY.

Originally Posted by rstones199

Homosexuality is not a 'behavior'. False premise right off the bat.

Also straight people are already in a 'special' class, they can marry.

Homosexuality is a behavior. Much like being right-handed or left-handed. A gay guy can hump a straight woman if he wants to. A lesbian can let a straight guy hump her if she wants to. That is the "choice" aspect of homosexuality that you queers can't understand. You can "choose" to become what does not come naturally to you...hence the term "behavior".

By the way, marriage is a privilege, not a right. That is the 'special' class about it. If you disagree, then you must advocate that all men be allowed to join women's gym clubs. Now.

Originally Posted by rstones199

It is when the government hands out 1400 rghts with marriage.

Once again, please cite a SINGLE RULE for marriage that is different for gays than anyone else. THERE ARE NONE.

Gay Guevaras do not seek "equal treatment", they already have it. They seek "special priveledge", special EXCEPTIONS to the rules everyone else must follow.

And , once again, there is NO LEGAL RIGHT, Constitutional or otherwise,to be married, no matter what you pretend.

Homosexuality is not a 'behavior'. False premise right off the bat.

According to whom? The church of gay sex or perhaps Harvey Milk?

Let's consult with the experts about sexual orientation and behavior:

Mayo Clinic 2007

....Individuals who engage in homosexual pedophilia were more likely to have been abused than individuals
who engage in heterosexual pedophilia.24...the “abused abusers
phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place.23,24,46 http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

And the entire agriculture industry that banks on training artificial sexual orientation in all mammal species in order to bring you superior food via the miracle of artificial insemination..

But I suppose learned-orientations only apply to just pedophiles and the entire rest of mammalian species except gays and lesbians, right?

And to that, a weird coincidence has been noted by another prestigious health group in the US:

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...