Closed Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 520

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

Hybrid View

  1. Default 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..
    Last edited by Silhouette; Feb 26 2012 at 09:05 AM.
    DOMA Opinion, Pages 16-17: "The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations ... the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”... In so Saying, the Highest Court said all the 49 states get to choose yes or no on gay marriage....all 49 of them... Loving v Virginia was about race, not polygamy or homosexuality, etc.

  2. Default

    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.
    rstones199 - The Voice Of Reason!
    When you say 'god', which one are you referring to?

    I'm not saying let's kill all the stupid people, I'm just saying let's remove all the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out.

  3. Default

    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...
    Last edited by Silhouette; Feb 26 2012 at 09:32 AM.
    DOMA Opinion, Pages 16-17: "The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations ... the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”... In so Saying, the Highest Court said all the 49 states get to choose yes or no on gay marriage....all 49 of them... Loving v Virginia was about race, not polygamy or homosexuality, etc.

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silhouette View Post
    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.
    rstones199 - The Voice Of Reason!
    When you say 'god', which one are you referring to?

    I'm not saying let's kill all the stupid people, I'm just saying let's remove all the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out.

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rstones199 View Post
    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.
    There's people in the world today
    Who say they're Jewish, Christian and such,
    They're all ignorant fools.

    They'll tell you you can't have your own way
    unless you pay money and dedicate your life
    Or you'll be d*mned in hell.
    ~ "Faith in God" - Bad Religion

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paco View Post
    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.
    Being left handed or right handed is genetics. Fail.

    And as long as the government hands out 1400 rights that come with marriage, then it is a right. And per the 14th amendment, the government cannot deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Let me know hen health clubs start handing out rights
    rstones199 - The Voice Of Reason!
    When you say 'god', which one are you referring to?

    I'm not saying let's kill all the stupid people, I'm just saying let's remove all the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paco View Post
    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.


    so homosexual acts are choice and homosexuality just like heterosexuality where your attracted to one gender is not got it but im not gay

    and likening the same gender is what come naturally for homosexuals that’s what makes them homosexuals and not heterosexuals having homosexual sex

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paco View Post
    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.


    A driver's license is a privilege too. We don't have Jewish driver's licenses and we don't deny drivers licenses based on race. Neither should we have a separate same-sex marriage license nor should we deny marriage licenses based on a couples sex.

    People have a right to discriminate, so do the clubs and businesses they own. Playboy practices sexual discrimination when it hires models, your country club might discriminate based on race, and you might choose to discriminate based on religion when you pick a spouse. Yes, her gym might also practice sexual discrimination. That's freedom of association -- it's legal.

    When states deny privileges to folks based on their race, religion, or sex the right that's being abridged is the right to equal protection under the law. The law we all pay for, the law that applies to us all, isn't free to favor one group over another in the same way you might prefer a group of people based on their race, religion, or sex. Her gym can discriminate based on sex, his golf course can discriminate based on race -- our law cannot.
    A man approaches you and says "gimme $100," you respond that you'd prefer not to. He says "we should compromise; gimme $50." The next day he approaches you: "gimme $200." At what point is it reasonable to stop compromising and just say no?

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silhouette View Post
    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.
    Not a single marriage law in the United States is based upon "sexual behavior" and no references related to sexual orientation are included on any marriage license or application.

    This issue purely about "gender discrimination" based upon religious intolerance and nothing more. The 14th Amendment protects the Rights of the individual ensuring equal protection under the law for all individuals. The prohibition of marriage based upon gender criteria, not sexual behavior, is a direct violation of the equal protection clause and the full 9th District Court of Appeals is going to support the lower 3-judge panel's decision. A person can bet money on that.

    Once the full 9th District Appeals Court confirms the lower court ruling then NOM (National Organization for Marriage which is a front organization for the Mormon Church) will attempt to appeal the decision to the US Supreme Court and the Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case. The decision only relates to California and isn't even applicable to the entire 9th District. It does not establish a "national precedent" and does no conflict with any other Appeals Court rulings. There is no reason for the Supreme Court to hear this case.
    Republicans were more likely than Democrats to express racial prejudice in the questions measuring explicit (anti-black) racism (79% among Republicans compared with 32% among Democrats).
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...erica/1662067/

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva_TD View Post
    There is no reason for the Supreme Court to hear this case.
    Sure there is. As more states recognize gay marriage, we will see more law suites being filled on both sides.

    Why flood the system with the law suites when Prop 8 is only 1 step away from SCOTUS?
    rstones199 - The Voice Of Reason!
    When you say 'god', which one are you referring to?

    I'm not saying let's kill all the stupid people, I'm just saying let's remove all the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out.

Closed Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Federal Appeals Court Holds Prop 8 Unconstitutional
    By Osiris Faction in forum Gay & Lesbian Rights
    Replies: 168
    Last Post: Mar 05 2012, 11:12 AM
  2. DC Circuit Court of Appeals completely ignores Founding Intent in Decison
    By SiliconMagician in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Nov 11 2011, 02:40 PM
  3. U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit rules against Obama healthcare mandate!
    By James Cessna in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Oct 04 2011, 07:20 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Aug 31 2011, 06:02 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks