Appeals Court Indefinitely Halts Marriage For California Gays And Lesbians

[bobbyw24]

Court Rules No Gay Marriages Pending Appeal

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court put same-sex weddings in California on hold indefinitely Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:9QGu7qn1eruJoM:http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/human-rights-campaign.gif

The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumped a lower court judge's order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.

Lawyers for the two gay couples that challenged the ban said Monday they would not appeal the panel's decision on the stay to the U.S. Supreme Court. They said they were satisfied the appeals court had agreed to expedite its consideration of the Proposition 8 case by scheduling oral arguments for the week of Dec. 6.

"We are very gratified that the 9th Circuit has recognized the importance and the pressing nature of this case by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule," said Ted Boutrous, a member of the plaintiffs' legal team. "Proposition 8 harms gay and lesbian citizens every day it remains on the books."

Attorneys for sponsors of the voter-approved measure applauded the decision. In seeking the emergency stay, they had argued that sanctioning same-sex unions while the case was on appeal would create legal chaos if the ban is eventually upheld.

"I think the basic notion that this case is not final until it's gone through the complete appellate process really prevailed," said Douglas Napier, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal firm.

"Rather than have this kind of pingpong effect of having the decision overturned, appealed and then overturned again, it's better to have this kind of decision," he said.

Under the timetable laid out Monday, it was doubtful a decision would come down from the 9th Circuit before next year.

A different three-judge panel than the one that issued Monday's decision will be assigned to decide the constitutional question that many believe will eventually end up before the Supreme Court and further delay a final outcome.

more

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/prop-8-backers-gay-marria_n_683635.html

[00_Pete]

Let them have their own thing. Why dont they push for a "gay marriage" thing that has nothing to do with traditional marriage?

Could it be that they are just angry children who dont gives a rats ass about marriage (as the statistics in all European countries that legalized gay marriage show) and are just trying to occupy "breeder" and "christian" territory?

They should be careful for what they wish for...one day the NWO might die and a lot of pissed of christians might be in charge and looking for revenge against all NWO tools such as the "gay agenda", it could happen sooner than most think...

This Christian has no problem admiting that Christianity+Anger/Revenge+Mob Mentallity = Very real possibility of downright savagery

And what are so called libertarians doing by making this one of their "pet" causes??

[Original_Intent]

I don't understand the thumbs down...so the will of the people to uphold the traditional meaning of what marriage is - a meaning that has been well defined for thousands of years - the fact that this is staying in place is a bad thing?

Certainly gays should have whatever civil rights - be able to legally co-own property, visit each other in the hospital as "family" etc. Fine so legislate THOSE things. But going after marriage is just demanding that society "bless their union". It is not about rights it is imposing a minority viewpoint on the majority, same old political correctness bullshit in a new package.

Thumbs up on this ruling, I say.

[Slutter McGee]

The whole issue is so damn tricky. Judges should protect the equal rights of the minority. But is marriage a right? One man threw out the votes of millions of people, but that power is necessary to protect from mob rule.

There is no easy answer here.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[LibertyVox]

The government should not issue marriage licences!!!!!!
This is not a Terran Federation (well atleast not yet!)

http://global-shoutbox.smallwebcity.com/phpBB3/styles/prosilver/imageset/site_logo3.jpg




Simple. ;)

[furface]

I read Judge Walker's opinion and his comments in the court room. I personally found his logic to be rather *****.

[erowe1]

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court put same-sex weddings in California on hold indefinitely Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban.

What terrible reporting. There is no "gay marriage ban." And nobody is preventing those couples from having their weddings. Gays have weddings all the time in all 50 states, regardless of whether or not they get pieces of paper from the state.

[MelissaWV]

I don't understand the thumbs down...so the will of the people to uphold the traditional meaning of what marriage is - a meaning that has been well defined for thousands of years - the fact that this is staying in place is a bad thing?

Certainly gays should have whatever civil rights - be able to legally co-own property, visit each other in the hospital as "family" etc. Fine so legislate THOSE things. But going after marriage is just demanding that society "bless their union". It is not about rights it is imposing a minority viewpoint on the majority, same old political correctness bullshit in a new package.

Thumbs up on this ruling, I say.

The bolded part, and that is all (though I disagree with the "legislate" sentiment and would prefer to "address" them in another form). Instead of LGBT pushing for state-sanctioned union, the rest of society should be pulling away from state-sanctioned union.

[ItsTime]

What terrible reporting. There is no "gay marriage ban." And nobody is preventing those couples from having their weddings. Gays have weddings all the time in all 50 states, regardless of whether or not they get pieces of paper from the state.

It really amazes me that they want the government to recognize them marriage. They want the government to give them rights, rather then them saying F you, we HAVE those rights, they are NOT YOURS TO GIVE!

[specsaregood]

I don't see how they can overturn this state law without making it legal at the federal level as well.

[ChaosControl]

This means it'll probably go to the supreme court.

So either all states will be required to recognize it or states will be allowed to not recognize it.
Had it been left alone, only California would be required to recognize it, for now.

Get the federal benefits from marriage removed and it no longer is an issue though as no one would be discriminated against with the use of tax funds, then a community can decide whatever it wants to recognize or not. But unfortunately society wants to centralize everything it seems.

[LibertyVox]

The homosexuals are on the right side of the conflict. LOL
As long as the state mandates and issues marriage licenses and defines marriage or the bounds of tradition within which it can be recognized, the homosexuals shall be on the right side. Let's be clear on that.

[MelissaWV]

This means it'll probably go to the supreme court.

So either all states will be required to recognize it or states will be allowed to not recognize it.
Had it been left alone, only California would be required to recognize it, for now.

Get the federal benefits from marriage removed and it no longer is an issue though as no one would be discriminated against with the use of tax funds, then a community can decide whatever it wants to recognize or not. But unfortunately society wants to centralize everything it seems.

If that particular law in California is overturned, it will need to be overturned on a specific basis. Further laws can be made and ratified, with that "basis" corrected. The pingpong game could be eternal, but people don't want to make it such. On the flipside, the USSC declaring the law unConstitutional wouldn't necessarily mean anything. The states have decided to abide by the USSC's rulings, but they could just keep on going with their laws. They don't want to make it such, either.

I wish people would just think about this. You can walk around, right now, and introduce someone of your same gender as your spouse. No one's going to go after you for misrepresentation... UNTIL you go for a benefit. Benefits have strict guidelines pertaining to eligibility, and if you tell them you're married (even without false documentation) when you are legally not, you might find yourself in a heap of trouble suddenly.

[Krugerrand]

The homosexuals are on the right side of the conflict. LOL
As long as the state mandates and issues marriage licenses and defines marriage or the bounds of tradition within which it can be recognized, the homosexuals shall be on the right side. Let's be clear on that.

The whole concept of "defines marriage" I find amusing. Marriage had been defined for a long time and it was not defined by the government. The government simply used the word as it was already defined.

It's the gay activists that are trying to change the definition of marriage and force that change on the rest of society using the violence of government.

[MelissaWV]

The whole concept of "defines marriage" I find amusing. Marriage had been defined for a long time and it was not defined by the government. The government simply used the word as it was already defined.

It's the gay activists that are trying to change the definition of marriage and force that change on the rest of society using the violence of government.

Yep! Marriage has been defined for a really, really long time... as a contract. Men would marry multiple women for prestige and land long before anyone walked down an aisle in a white dress, but that's not legal anymore, either ;)

[furface]

It's the gay activists that are trying to change the definition of marriage and force that change on the rest of society using the violence of government.

There's something very Orwellian about homosexuality as a political movement. A major part of it deals with re-engineering language. They took away 2 very important and politically potent words in the English language, "gay" and "*****" and are now trying to change the meaning of "marriage."

I could care less what people do with each other, but forcing other people to sanctify it is authoritarianism, pure and simple. The gay marriage movement is all about a small minority centrally re-engineering society against the common will.

[erowe1]

The homosexuals are on the right side of the conflict. LOL
As long as the state mandates and issues marriage licenses and defines marriage or the bounds of tradition within which it can be recognized, the homosexuals shall be on the right side. Let's be clear on that.

What side are "the homosexuals" on?

And what makes it the right side?

[Krugerrand]

Yep! Marriage has been defined for a really, really long time... as a contract. Men would marry multiple women for prestige and land long before anyone walked down an aisle in a white dress, but that's not legal anymore, either ;)

True. Polygamy is not legal in the United States. However, polygamy has long been defined as marriage. Age requirements / how close couples may be related / number of spouses, and such have been regulated for some time. Those are regulations of marriage - not the definition of marriage.

Please note, in my distinguishing between regulations and definitions, I made no statement as to which, if any, of those regulations I support.

[jmdrake]

I don't see how they can overturn this state law without making it legal at the federal level as well.

For the record they didn't overturn the state law. They put in an injunction barring implementation of a federal ruling overturning a state law. It remains to be seen if they will actually overturn the ruling overturning the state law and/or if the Supreme Court will overturn their ruling overturning a federal ruling overturning the state law. Ultimately this may renew calls for a constitutional amendment overturning the Supreme Court ruling overturning that appeals court ruling overturning the federal judges ruling overturning the state law. Hope that's clear as mud now. ;)

[BlackTerrel]

I can't believe this court had the audacity to disenfranchise this one judge (after he disenfranchised 17.2 million Californian voters).

[Kylie]

What terrible reporting. There is no "gay marriage ban." And nobody is preventing those couples from having their weddings. Gays have weddings all the time in all 50 states, regardless of whether or not they get pieces of paper from the state.

And that's what they should be happy about, not vying for the right to institutionalize their matrimony. You shouldn't need the government to condone what you do. Just effing do it. All government should have nothing to do with the marriage of the people. Any people.

I sure wish I knew then what I know now. We'd be hippies living in a small(but clean) house with all of our shit owned(like it used to be) and "living in sin". Our kids wouldn't have SSN's, and the boy probably wouldn't have a birth cert either...I'da had him at home.

The only reason we actually got married was for the health benny's and the tax deductions. We got married on the last day of the last millennium, which was kind of cool, but we'd been together and had our children by then, so we weren't going anywhere.

[Rael]

Hopefully gays and lesbians will use the opportunity to reconsider the foolishness of a state approved marriage.

[00_Pete]

I can't believe this court had the audacity to disenfranchise this one judge (after he disenfranchised 17.2 million Californian voters).

eheheheh...people forget that judges and their laws are one of the main responsibles for the current state of things.

[Stary Hickory]

It really amazes me that they want the government to recognize them marriage. They want the government to give them rights, rather then them saying F you, we HAVE those rights, they are NOT YOURS TO GIVE!

By all means just krap ignorance out right here on the forums. What BLEEPING rights do they not have??? Answer this please... The right to force others to accept THEIR redefined term of marriage. By all means look and see what rights they do have before saying they don't have any.

The gay community is not fighting for rights they are fighting to social engineer society to fit their wants and seek government force to do it. Gays already have rights under state law under civil unions. But by god they do not have the right to force their idea of marriage on the rest of society. And this is exactly what is going on in CA. A right to equality under the law and Legal rights yes, the right to socially engineer society NO and HELL NO.

[Golding]

It really amazes me that they want the government to recognize them marriage. They want the government to give them rights, rather then them saying F you, we HAVE those rights, they are NOT YOURS TO GIVE!You make a really good point, and it's probably the only thing that makes me rethink my stance. Good on you.

Though there is still the issue of heterosexuals being granted uneven favor by the government. How would people go about fixing that? Will people simply surrender what benefits they receive, especially in a climate where the government is taking from everyone as much as possible, because it is right?

[Minuteman2012]

So I assume all of you who say gays don't need a piece of paper either are married and don't have that "piece of paper", or don't plan on getting that "piece of paper" when you do tie the knot?

Because I know I will, one, because I am not religious, so I don't want a religious ceremony, and I want all the tax breaks that come with marriage.

As long as the state offers marriage licenses, they must do so in a equitable manner in accordance with the 14th amendment. Constitutionally, it is illegal for the government to discriminate on the basis of gender, race, and religion.

[00_Pete]

so i assume all of you who say gays don't need a piece of paper either are married and don't have that "piece of paper", or don't plan on getting that "piece of paper" when you do tie the knot?

Because i know i will, one, because i am not religious, so i don't want a religious ceremony, and i want all the tax breaks that come with marriage.

As long as the state offers marriage licenses, they must do so in a equitable manner in accordance with the 14th amendment. Constitutionally, it is illegal for the government to discriminate on the basis of gender, race, and religion.

i want my subsidized breast cancer screening like females of the opposite sex have??!! I have breasts too! Why does the state discriminate against me?!? Its not my fault i have balls!

I want my mammograms!

[Minuteman2012]

i want my subsidized breast cancer screening like females of the opposite sex have??!! I have breasts too! Why does the state discriminate against me?!? Its not my fault i have balls!

I want my mammograms!

Actually, men do get breast cancer...

Do a google search next time before you do one of your witty retorts.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/male-breast-cancer/DS00661

[00_Pete]

Actually, men do get breast cancer...

Do a google search next time before you do one of your witty retorts.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/male-breast-cancer/DS00661

Thanks for the info! Now i REALLY want my mammograms! :mad:

Where are my mammograms!? I want my gamma rays! :mad:

Why does the State discriminate against me? Is it because im male and hetero? :mad:

[YumYum]

Its not my fault i have balls! I want my mammograms!

I don't think they mammogram balls.

[Minuteman2012]

Thanks for the info! Now i REALLY want my mammograms! :mad:

Where are my mammograms!? I want my gamma rays! :mad:

Why does the State discriminate against me? Is it because im male and hetero? :mad:

I wasn't aware they gave out free mammograms. I also wasn't aware they discriminate against men, I doubt they do if they did.

[Krugerrand]

As long as the state offers marriage licenses, they must do so in a equitable manner in accordance with the 14th amendment. Constitutionally, it is illegal for the government to discriminate on the basis of gender, race, and religion.

There is no discrimination ... gay men may marry a woman just as any heterosexual man may marry a woman. A lesbian may marry a man just as any heterosexual woman may marry a man.

Oh, wait ... you want to redefine what marriage is ... well ... off you to the voting booth.

[MelissaWV]

Mammograms would be ineffective on most men, but you can get screened for breast cancer if you have underlying factors... it's just not something done as automatically because of the low rates.

[erowe1]

As long as the state offers marriage licenses, they must do so in a equitable manner in accordance with the 14th amendment. Constitutionally, it is illegal for the government to discriminate on the basis of gender, race, and religion.

If the 14th Amendment requires the states to give marriage licenses to people who don't meet a particular definition of the word "marriage", then does it require them to to give them to all people who don't meet that definition (in other words, every single human being), or do you have some criteria by which you define marriage that still excludes some people (like new born babies for example), but that don't exclude same-sex couples?

If "marriage" is to be expanded so that states must indiscriminately recognize the entire population of the world as married, then what's the point? But if they're still allowed to define that word in a way that differentiates people, some as married and others as unmarried (i.e. discrimination), then aren't you left with the same problem you think you're solving, only with the boundary lines drawn somewhere else?