Front Page  »  

Gay marriage gets high court look

December 10, 2012

California’s current ban on gay marriages will be scrutinized by the U.S. Supreme Court, which decided Friday it will review a legal challenge to the voter mandate. (Sacramento Bee)

The high court will consider a prior decision by a federal appeals panel which overturned Proposition 8. The conservative-dominated court’s pronouncement surprised legal experts and could lead to reestablishment of the ban.

Justices also will hear arguments on a challenge of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies gay married couples many federal benefits.

The court will consider a February decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which torpedoed the law. At that time, Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote, “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort.”


Loading...
Subjects:                 
Related:


7 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Any number of people of any persuasion have a right to call themselves “married” if they so choose and deserve equal protection under the law. That includes the protection from slavery, being beaten and

being killed (all of which have been condoned as viable principles of “marriage” at times).

Those whose minds are so puny that they find their marriages threatened by the marriages of others

might want to consider D.I.V.O.R.C.E.


0

“Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote, “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort.”

Seems the judge is putting the cart before the horse. Marriage is between a man and a woman, has been so for thousands of years…

That does not say that peoples of other persuasions are less, different or inferior, it just means the standard is between and man and a woman. Nowhere did prop 8 ever say it was reclassifying any relatonships, it is the opponents who say quite the opposite, gays want to reclassify the norm to satisfy their non normal lifestyle.


0

Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote, “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.


The proponents for Proposition 8 can also argue that it lessen the status and human dignity of heterosexuals in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of gay and lesbian couples.


0

Sorry Jorge, it aint about money, as if the courts need divorce “revenue” to stay afloat. It’s all about

neo-con, christo-fascist ‘s wanting to establish and/or maintain a strangle hold on women’s rep-

roductive rights/sexual activity, and minority groups such as LGBT individuals.


0

Killing babies is not a “reproductive right” Nice spin though, but it won’t fly with a reality check.


0

Killing babies is already against the law. killing a human being is murder.

rights are for the living , you get your endowment by breathing on your own .

a foetus is at the mercy of mother for that period of development.

not the republican party.


0

If one were to consider the amount of money, it could easily be understood why the Courts don’t want to overlook the divorce revenue currently not collected from the gay population. Closing a relationship escrow in the Superior Court is big business so let’s include gays too, right? Sad as it seems, this is my read on the subject, a big fat conflict of interest that chimes the equality bell for cover.


0