Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Court Rejects California Same Sex Marriage Ban !!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/us/05prop.html?_r=1&hp

1.  Judge says no new same-sex marriage  ceremonies until all the appeals are heard.


2.  Ban on S>S>Marriage is "Un-Constituttional".

10 comments:

JustinO'Shea said...

Perhaps one positive step: this judge ruled that banning gay marriages is actually un-Constitutional because it creates 2 classes of people: those who can and those who cannot marry.

This decision will definitely be appealed before the next higher court, and then likely even go to the US Supreme Court. And. . .

If the Supremes choose to hear this case it is possible this ban could be over-turned again.

You can be sure those who voted for Prop 8 are not yet giving up the fight. Because if the Supremes uphold this CA judge's decision it will legalize same sex marriage thru-out the entire USA.

J said...

Remember, there is still a 5-4 conservative majority on the court, and it doesn't look kindly on invading territory traditionally the province of legislatures, or the electorate through referenda like Prop 8.

Gary Kelly said...

Lemme get this straight. If a limp-wristed, lisping, gay man in fishnet stockings and high heels wants to marry a butch lesbian who wears cowboy denim and boots, rides a Harley, smokes cigars, swears like a trooper and takes hormones to make her voice deeper, will that be okay?

I mean he's biologically male and she's biologically female, so the people who voted for Prop 8 shouldn't have a problem with that.

Or am I missing something here?

JustinO'Shea said...

You got it, "sweetie", it seems to me.
Loverly images you evoke. Enough to be good incentive for celibacy!

Something to be said for "good clear direction", hahahahaa

justin

JustinO'Shea said...

J. . ..though I did not clearly say this in my first post here, I too think it is highly likely the Supremes will not support Judge Walker's [or is it Vaughn?] position.

In fact I'd be surprised if they did. Too many "Catholics" among the Supremes. . .hehehe Many/most conservative RCs do not see same sex marriage as a matter of social justice.

Sorry, I do not mean to offend. . .
justin

Jim said...

I just posted about this on my blog.
I really hope the US government will see the unconstitutionality of this whole debate as did the Canadian government a few years ago.
The basic rights and freedoms of individuals far surpasses any religious belief of any individual or judge for that matter.
It is scary to me how the USA, the most powerful and influential country in the world, still hits a stalemate on issues of 'rights'. Will it take another 100 years to get this thing passed as it did on the rights of Afro-Americans?
Come on Americans!!!Smell the coffee on this issue. It has nothing to do with YOUR religious rights.
This really gets me frustrated!

Unknown said...

Coops is right, the vote is backward and you have to wonder how many people didn't read it right and voted the wrong way.

Many US citzens won't marry until it's available in the US. I went the other way, by getting married in Canada. I, along with thousands of others have sent a small message back home to the US that there are commited relationships already existing whether you like it or not.

Jim said...

I don't feel it should come down to a vote. When it comes to something so vital to our basic human rights and freedom, the Courts should decide and make it law. But what do I know.

J said...

I can't see that you are offending anyone Justin. However, if Justice Kennedy, the only swing vote on the high court, upholds this judgment, Benedict may want to excommunicate him.

Unknown said...

Right again Coop. It was a very close vote in Michigan. And there is hope for the near future. Even my elderly parents voted for equal rights for marriage. Or so they believe. As with California, it was a backward kind of thing. I wasn't even sure until just a week before the vote which was which.