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

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Silhouette, Feb 26, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    None of these:

    apply to single people. Next :bored:
     
  2. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Except the 1400 rights granted to married couples do not apply to single people.
     
  3. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,639
    Likes Received:
    2,049
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  4. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    [​IMG]
     
  5. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  6. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,702
    Likes Received:
    4,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The 9th circuit decision was wrong, but still...

    ...depriving gays of marriage rights is hateful and wasteful. We're basically wasting the courts time because of the middle-ages throwbacks who would still have black people in chains if they had their way.
     
  7. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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?
     
  8. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Attorneys will argue that it is implied, and as evidenced by the fact that grounds for divorce almost always include "refusal to put-out sexually". So, sexuality is implied. And it is specifically described as "between one adult man and one adult woman, not related closely by blood".

    So while our predecessors were perhaps too prude to write out the mechanics of heterosexual sex, the word "marraige" can literally be interpreted in a secular way as "the epitome of the ideal of a sexual relationship". The qualifiers being held out to society as "ideal" being...between adult men and women not related too closely by blood. And the last bit is also proof that sexuality is implied. Sexuality leads naturally to children, and it is for their benefit that marraige was instituted. Sex between a brother and sister was found to lead to weak offspring. Marraige is all about sex and what we agree to hold out for our progeny to aspire to as the "best arrangement for sex" for very practical reasons.

    Of course other arrangements exist. But "best" = between a man and woman. That is what We have decided. If We want to change that, then We will vote on that. We will not have dictated to us by gay judges that the new "best" sexual relationship is "any kind you want". That leads to chaos and We have a right to establish order for the good of the many...
     
  9. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,702
    Likes Received:
    4,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So this is what made-up facts look like.
     
  10. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Oh please do explain how gay marriage will lead to chaos on the streets.

    Dont allow gay marraige this will happen!!! :laughing:

    [​IMG]
     
  11. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well no, the hyperbole you just posted in picture form doesn't adequately address the holding-out to children of a gay-pedophile in CA to emulate. Harvey Milk is the type of chaos I'm referring to.

    As to the previous poster:

    I'll just take New York State for an example. It's called "abandonment" there:


    Pretty sure even a half-baked attorney could then argue that sex is implied in the word "marraige"...
     
  12. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,702
    Likes Received:
    4,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Added the bolded for consistency with your overall opinion.

    And your "best" sexual relationship straw man is the weakest I've ever seen.
    Don't give yourselves too much credit. Just because the masses have the right to prohibit gay marriages doesn't mean they have any idea what they are doing or are taking definitive steps in the direction opposite of chaos.
     
  13. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    True, chaos always threatens any society. It is for that reason that we have laws in the penal and civil arenas. Good, you're beginning to understand. When I say "We", you know I'm talking about voters in a democracy.

    You will notice I put you in your place with regards to sex being implied in marraige.

    You're welcome.
     
  14. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is an issue of "mini-DOMA's" and is unrelated to the Prop 8 decision which is exclusively about Prop 8 revoking the right of same-gender couples to marry under California State Law.

    As noted the decision has absolutely nothing to do with sexual behavior or with same-gender prohibitions in other states. That's a "mini-DOMA" issue of the States and it is tied more to the Boston District Court's decision that the federal DOMA law is unconstitutional. There will be challenges to State "mini-DOMA's" when the federal DOMA law is officially struck down which is going to happen as it is unquestionably unconstitutional. With that then the issue of the violation of equal protection for same-gender couples will be address based upon the State's mini-DOMA's that prohibit same-gender marriage.

    Being knowledgeable about the issues isn't mandatory but it helps if a person is going to present valid arguments.
     
  15. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,702
    Likes Received:
    4,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Duh. I disagree with the 9th's decision. I still think banning gay marriage is a petty waste of resources advocated by feeble-minded bigots.


    Let me get this straight. I called you out for your claim that almost every divorce proceeding is grounded on "refusal to put-out sexually". Do you understand what this means?

    Instead of demonstrating that nearly every divorce proceeding is based on failure to put-out, you provide a case that you believe demonstrates a link between marriage and sex. This is why I can't take you seriously. I don't believe you have the attention span to argue effectively.

    Regarding the case you cited (yet conveniently failed to provide a date), it is no longer good law. The case is from 1960. Divorce laws changed significantly in the 60's. Moreover, abandonment doesn't refer specifically to "failure to have sex."

    http://family-law.lawyers.com/divorce/Grounds-for-Divorce-Abandonment-or-Desertion.html

    Now that I have called you out on your bull(*)(*)(*)(*), please go away and never vote again.

    Thanks
     
  16. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, so I suggest Shiva that you study up on all the legitimate reasons for divorce [as descriptive by their very nature of marraige] before you go and say there are no mechanical descriptions or implications for "sex" in the word "marraige" as a legally-binding contract.

    Marraige is ALL ABOUT sex. And we have chosen state by state to describe who we will uphold as the "epitome of societally-sanctioned sexual relationship". Why in New York for example is "abandonment" [refusal to have sex] grounds for divorce?

    I have pointed out the Harvey Milk "gay integration" problem as a chaotic offshoot of how promoting gay sex to an acme social more can have real and measurable consequences. What could be more disturbing to a social system than to promote a pedophile to children as "a gay hero"?

    Harvey Milk may be the reason gays lose the case they're trying to make to marry.
     
  17. texmaster

    texmaster Banned

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    10,974
    Likes Received:
    590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL race is a genetic trait. Homosexuality is not. Trying to equate the two is beyond stupid.
     
  18. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,702
    Likes Received:
    4,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not equating the two, amigo. My point was that gay haters are so far behind the times that they'd take us back to the 'good old days' if they could.
     
  19. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,702
    Likes Received:
    4,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Going on my lunch break tex. How about you start by responding to the posts that obliterated your opinions in the last thread.

    kthnxbye
     
  20. texmaster

    texmaster Banned

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    10,974
    Likes Received:
    590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course you related the two. You compared it to racial injustice. Try to keep up with your own arguments.

    Since you are laughably trying to deny the linkage then explain how you equate people who disagree with gay marriage (which isn't hate) and racial injustice.

    Go ahead.
     
  21. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All issues of divorce relate to material breach of contract. The conditions of the contract vary based upon State laws. For example, most states grant "no fault" divorces to my knowledge so no reason is required at all to obtain a divorce.

    BTW explain to me why two 80 year olds can marry when they are basically incapable of sexual relations? Why aren't they barred from marriage and could one of them sue for divorce if the other refused to have sex? Sexual relations is a stupid argument.

    This was just a stupid non-issue unrelated to gender discrimination in marriage. Most pedophiles are heterosexual males and Harvey Milk does not represent anyone in the Prop 8 lawsuit and never did.
     
  22. texmaster

    texmaster Banned

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    10,974
    Likes Received:
    590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You didn't obliterate anything. And if you claim you did repost them here. I can't respond to a message in another thread.

    So lets see it.
     
  23. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,639
    Likes Received:
    2,049
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it's not.

    The basis for the decisions you're pointing to are "adverse possession" and "promissory estoppel." There is no "sexual relationship" implied in the marriage contract.

    Any "sexual relationship" is outside the marriage contract and is not legally enforceable. Unless, of course, you think the government should be telling people when and where to have sex?
     
  24. Goldwater

    Goldwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,825
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Here Tex, here is what people who are way smarter than me found.
     
  25. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Misleading thread title?

    I haven't seen anything in the news indicating that their petition succeeded in obtaining a re-hearing en banc. Anyone got a link?

    As for the rest of the prior posts, I'm going to assume it's nothing more than a rehash of every other thread Silhouette has created of late to bash gay people, based on what I see in the OP.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page