Judge rules against Calif. gay marriage ban (Reuters)

  • Thread starter Thread starter stumbler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stumbler

Guest
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Calling marriage a “fundamental human right”, a San Francisco judge has confirmed a preliminary decision that found California’s ban onsame-sex wedlock was unconstitutional, officials said on Friday.

“The state’s position that California has granted marriage-like rights to same-sex couples points to the conclusion that there is no rational state interest in denying them the ritesof marriage as well,” San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer wrote in his final decision.

“The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal,”

The judge then cited the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education civil rights decision against segregation of races.

Kramer’s ruling is a victory for backers of gay marriage, but is seen by both sides as just the first stage of a legal battle that could drag on for years. California Gov. ArnoldSchwarzenegger, who opposes gay marriage, expects the dispute to end up in the California Supreme Court…
Full Article
 
Another judge making law and overruling the legitimate law passed by the legislature. These guys have to be reined in.
 
“The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal,”

This is an interesting argument, and it is one more reason why it is a mistake for States to approve “civil unions” as a sort of compromise while rejecting gay marriage.

If gay marriage provides no particular benefit to the state, neither do civil unions, and neither should be approved.
 
I wonder how much the gay rights people paid him for that ruling? A lot of judges are corrupt, and need to have a muzzle put on them.
 
40.png
davy39:
I wonder how much the gay rights people paid him for that ruling? A lot of judges are corrupt, and need to have a muzzle put on them.
Click to expand...
Sounds like some judges haven’t changed over the millenia. That comes as no surprise, as human nature hasn’t.

These judges fear neither God nor man, but take the expedient route.

Alan
 
Just imagine how peeved you’ll be when the SCOTUS rules that Massachusetts same sex marriages must be given their Constitutional Full Faith and Credit in the other states!! You know it’s going to happen.
 
40.png
Peter_Atlanta:
Just imagine how peeved you’ll be when the SCOTUS rules that Massachusetts same sex marriages must be given their Constitutional Full Faith and Credit in the other states!! You know it’s going to happen.
Click to expand...
Hi Peter_Atlanta!

Somehow I doubt that is much of a concern with the current makeup of SCOTUS. O’Conner and Kennedy, the two Judges who would, in effect, make the decision have both expressed reservations about applying same-sex marriage to the country as a whole.
 
unfortunately, i fear that relying on mr kennedy could end up backfiring. given an ‘eloquent’ arguement, he may feel compelled to further protect the beds of gay couples and extending ‘marriage’ to them could end up seeming reasonable to him.
but i’m real cynical about these things, so hopefully i’m off the mark.

Christ is Risen!
 
Being that marriage began as a religious institution you’d think these godless sodomites would shune it, but the almighty dollar reigns supreme doesn’t it.

“my gay lover had insurance? - GIMME MONEY!!!” :tsktsk:
 
Dj Roy Albert:
Being that marriage began as a religious institution you’d think these godless sodomites would shune it, but the almighty dollar reigns supreme doesn’t it.

“my gay lover had insurance? - GIMME MONEY!!!” :tsktsk:
Click to expand...
Maybe it is time to separate Church and State, at least in terms of marriage. Let them get their little licenses to do the boofoo that they do, and let the government then screw them over harder for taxes like they do actual married people. As a tax preparer, many of my clients walked out because they wanted to pretend they were single but inadvertenly revealed to me that they were hopelessly, legally married. In one case I sent away a couple who convinced me they were just shacking up with maybe $2000+ apiece, whereas if the same couple had been married, same living conditions, same kids, same income and everything else, they would have received maybe $400 total.

Then we can get married in the Church, which will be valid, and forget the legal stuff.

I have to give the pro-gay marriage people credit for one point that they use in arguing. When they ask how they are going to corrupt an institution which is pretty well already trashed, given the situations that come across my desk I’m inclined to ask the same question. It is so refreshing when I get a couple who are married – to each other – with children – living with them and both of them are parents – but it is the exception rather than the rule.

Give to ceasar what is due ceasar, and God what is due God. Give God your marriage vows, not the state of Massachusetts or any other state.

Alan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top