Ninth Circuit indefinitely stays homosexual "marriages" in California

[Phoenix]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100816/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial

Court halts Calif. gay marriages pending appeal
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer Mon Aug 16, 7:28 pm ET

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.

The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumps 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 Supreme Court.

In its two-page order granting the stay, the 9th Circuit agreed to expedite its consideration of the Proposition 8 case. The court plans to hear the case during the week of Dec. 6 after moving up deadlines for both sides to file their written arguments by Nov. 1.

"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.

A different three-judge panel than the one that issued Monday's decision will be assigned to decide the constitutional question.

Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker decided last week to allow gay marriages to go forward after ruling the ban violated equal protection and due process rights of gays and lesbians guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

The Proposition 8 legal team quickly appealed Walker's ruling in the case many believe will end up before the Supreme Court.

Lawyers for two same-sex couples had joined with California Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the appeals court to allow the weddings, arguing that keeping the ban in place any longer would harm the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

Walker presided over a 13-day trial earlier this year that was the first in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the constitutional guarantee of equality.

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

Opponents said that tradition or fears of harm to heterosexual unions were legally insufficient grounds to discriminate against gay couples.

Currently, same-sex couples can legally wed only in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.

[cortez]

fuuny quote from MSM:

"This delay is just really going to screw us up," said Harry Seaman, who was planning to marry his boyfriend Friday afternoon.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/17/same.sex.marriage/index.html?hpt=T2

[Ash_Williams]

This just never goes away. If you are asking permission from someone to do something, you are then giving them the authority. That's the marriage issue in a nutshell. Want to get married, then go do it, don't ask the gov so they can say no.

If the issue is really benefits then that's a different story. They should be pushing for equal treatment of everyone. It has nothing to do with a real marriage.

[Phoenix]

This just never goes away. If you are asking permission from someone to do something, you are then giving them the authority. That's the marriage issue in a nutshell. Want to get married, then go do it, don't ask the gov so they can say no.

If the issue is really benefits then that's a different story. They should be pushing for equal treatment of everyone. It has nothing to do with a real marriage.


The issue is ramming the homosexual agenda up the asses of all normal people. Homos can "marry" in the manner you describe, or, if they merely want "legal" benefits, they already have registered domestic partnerships.

[Ash_Williams]

It blows my mind how the debate stays alive. It's sooo important to both parties that the state use their definition of marriage! I mean since when does the state ever use anyone's definition of anything?

And why the hell does it matter what the gov says? The gov could say marriage is only between a man and a registered motor vehicle for all I care. Oh now I can't get a piece of paper from them saying I'm married? Gee what a shame, how the hell am I going to survive without the state saying I'm hitched?

I hope they'll be nice enough to issue a death certificate to me some day so I can die instead of living on as a fucking zombie.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

If you need the state or the church to approve your love,

you've already lost.

[Still Barbaro]

This just never goes away.

That's for sure. Especially during election cycles in the past. I recall in WA state having these initiatives on the ballot to get the Christians and Christian-Right voters to go to the polls on election day.

As a straight guy, I don't follow the issue. Honestly I don't have much of an opinion, as I don't like the state (government) getting involved in relationships between two people of any kind.



If you are asking permission from someone to do something, you are then giving them the authority. That's the marriage issue in a nutshell. Want to get married, then go do it, don't ask the gov so they can say no.

Exactly. No matter what the situation is in life: if you are asking permission you are automatically giving someone or something or some organization authority.



If the issue is really benefits then that's a different story. They should be pushing for equal treatment of everyone. It has nothing to do with a real marriage.


This part might interest me.

I think recognition is a part of it for many; I think benefits are a part of it for many.

Some that oppose the gay marriage are saying "they want benefits" and they are using that is an argument against it.

I don't see it as a big deal.

What is the percentage of gays in the general population in the US and the world?

I read it was about 10%.

So, 90% are straight. Many out of this 90% get married --> get benefits. And of course, just over 50% of these straight marriages end up in divorce.

I don't care about 10%.

And out of this 10% of the gay population, how many will actually get married? Less than 10%.

Who cares? I don't.

[Fortyone]

It blows my mind how the debate stays alive. It's sooo important to both parties that the state use their definition of marriage! I mean since when does the state ever use anyone's definition of anything?

And why the hell does it matter what the gov says? The gov could say marriage is only between a man and a registered motor vehicle for all I care. Oh now I can't get a piece of paper from them saying I'm married? Gee what a shame, how the hell am I going to survive without the state saying I'm hitched?

I hope they'll be nice enough to issue a death certificate to me some day so I can die instead of living on as a f*cking zombie.


Truth is marriage IS a religious item, it was hijacked by Governments long ago to suit their needs. No Christian,or Islamic faith and most others perform same sex marriages.(Except Anglicans, run by Jews) A true Marriage is a religious ceremony ,anything else is a contract between the couple and the State.Fags want to have their marriages recognized, not for benefits, but to force Churches to perform them,under some sort of threat of discrimination.thereby infringing on the Church's freedom of religion.they then can destroy the Church. religion removed, worship of the State, classic Zionist move.

[Stop Making Cents]

Despite the fact that voters have rejected gay marriage every time it comes up for a vote, liberal judges across the nation will overturn the will of the people with one stroke of the pen - rule by judicial fiat. Is this what our founders envisioned?

[Joe King]

Despite the fact that voters have rejected gay marriage every time it comes up for a vote, liberal judges across the nation will overturn the will of the people with one stroke of the pen - rule by judicial fiat. Is this what our founders envisioned?
Actually, they did.

Ours is a Republic where under the principle of "equal Rights for all", the Rights of the minority are supposed to be protected from the will of the majority if their will is to diminish and/or remove those Rights.

It matters not what the issue at hand is.

[Phoenix]

Ours is a Republic where under the principle of "equal Rights for all", the Rights of the minority are supposed to be protected from the will of the majority if their will is to diminish and/or remove those Rights.


Homo "marriage" is an assault on the majority's right to continue their ancient institution as it has always been.

[zap]

Homosexuality is as ancient as marriage, probably older .

[Joe King]

Ours is a Republic where under the principle of "equal Rights for all", the Rights of the minority are supposed to be protected from the will of the majority if their will is to diminish and/or remove those Rights.


Homo "marriage" is an assault on the majority's right to continue their ancient institution as it has always been.


The majority doesn't need to have what they do protected, as the majority, relative to themselves, always get to do what they want anyways.

Again, the answer is to get the gov out of marriage.


As far as acceptance and tolerance, I will quote from an article that says it better than I can.
Pay extra attention to the second paragraph as it applies to this topic too.

Crack cocaine and racist job discrimination should both be legal. They should both be tolerated. To say this is not necessarily to endorse them or to say that everyone needs to accept them.

It seems that a lot of people have trouble with this concept because they tend to believe that their own idea of what's good and bad naturally corresponds to what should be enforced by the state. It is discouraging that most people accept using the government to force their way on others and see government as a proper moral guide.

Tolerance, Acceptance, and Civility (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory115.html)

[Phoenix]

Homosexuality is as ancient as marriage, probably older .


Homosexuality has been a degeneracy since the beginning.

[Phoenix]

The majority doesn't need to have what they do protected, as the majority, relative to themselves, always get to do what they want anyways.


Simply not correct.

Homos want their perversion recognized as the equal of real marriage, and they want the government to force this to be so. Anyone who objects and refuses to accept it will be fined or worse.




Again, the answer is to get the gov out of marriage.


That's not going to happen.




Tolerance, Acceptance, and Civility


Mine is correct: TOLERANCE --> ACCEPTANCE --> PARTICIPATION.

They don't want just tolerance, they don't want just acceptance, and they don't want to be civil to those who disagree. They want homosexuality to be the new norm.

[Ash_Williams]

Homo "marriage" is an assault on the majority's right to continue their ancient institution as it has always been.

It's an assault on the word "marriage" and that's it.

They can live together in a monogamous sexual relationship. But they can't get "married".

I don't remember the bible saying you had to have a ceremony in a church with a priest to be married.

The church hijacked marriage too. According to the church you need them to baptize a new born, marry you, and have a priest at your funeral. The state did the same thing saying you need a birth certificate, marriage licence, and death certificate. I don't remember the part of the bible where they said you need a church to do those things.

The trick of both institutions was to convince people they were necessary. People are convinced now that a marriage isn't real unless the church or state approves it!

[DMac]

Homo "marriage" is an assault on the majority's right to continue their ancient institution as it has always been.

It's an assault on the word "marriage" and that's it.

They can live together in a monogamous sexual relationship. But they can't get "married".

I don't remember the bible saying you had to have a ceremony in a church with a priest to be married.

The church hijacked marriage too. According to the church you need them to baptize a new born, marry you, and have a priest at your funeral. The state did the same thing saying you need a birth certificate, marriage licence, and death certificate. I don't remember the part of the bible where they said you need a church to do those things.

The trick of both institutions was to convince people they were necessary. People are convinced now that a marriage isn't real unless the church or state approves it!




It's all about the benefits now Ash. Very hard to have kids these days if you are not licensed by the state (via marriage license, shared employer benefits).

[LuckyStrike]

They can let these sodomites run rampant let them turn our land into a state of utter moral degeneracy like Sodom, but they can't stop the Anally Inflicted Death Sentence

If you think these queers are just like you and me think again, the following link is extremely NSFW but if you wanna see what the "gay" culture is all about stripped of the jew media sugar coating this is it.

http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/index.php
http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_2/


http://embruns.net/images/folsom-street-fair.jpg

You let this abomination stand in your land and yet you make no connection with the downfall of Western society. You stop this by any means necessary the same way you stop pedophilia it is a tumor on society and unchecked it will destroy you.