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.
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.
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/
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 10:05 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.