*** Marriage Ruling in Federal Court

[TSD]

[quote name="sth"]

All I have to say to those people is look at marriage now. With all the divorces and loveless marriages how could it get lessened?[/quote]





Bang on.



Marriage is not taken seriously by the vast majority of people anymore.



The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage

50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri. -divorcerate.org (how original)



Nobody respects the institution anymore, how can letting gays marry trivialize it anymore than it already is.



Its just a piece of paper, and some BS, let em have it if they want it. I don't really want to bring this in the discussion so I will only say it once, I am convinced most of the opponents of *** marriage have their belief rooted in religion, failing to realize that marriage in this country is a secular legal agreement, not a religious one, whether or not it is religious is a personal choice. Its not like your local baptist church will be forced by the government to perfom marriage cermony's for *** people.

 

[CLWolf81]

[quote name="R K"] Either way I'm not against *** Marriage, just don't feel it's a constitutional right. I do believe the States can do what they want and then it will be twisted some how into the Constitution. [/quote]



Just wait until the "religious right" believe they'll have a say into the twist of things. Funny thing about the whole thing... I thought there was a separation of church and state.... yet the Church believes it should have a say in the government.



I wouldn't mind that if they decided to pay their monetary taxes to the government for the many years of their establishments in the USA.



And getting to the issue of Marriage in particular, I read that some guy wants to get rid of marriage altogether in California. I knew they were nuts, but that is just plain funny.

 

[JOVE23]

[quote name="winos5"]





Our justice system is doomed because it is defending the rights of citizens that are being discriminated against?



Your 700 club/Glenn Beck/ Rush Limbaugh colored glasses are distorting the facts in this case.[/quote]



No, the justice system is doomed because it thinks marriage is part of the pursuit of HAPPINESS.

 

[jakobeast]

Ok, someone give me a reason why homo's can't get married without citing religion or the fuckin bible and I may listen.



May.



Also, if this is the land of freedom, why can't the *** folk get married and be miserable like everyone else.

 

[bri]

[quote name="jakobeast"]Ok, someone give me a reason why homo's can't get married without citing religion or the fuckin bible and I may listen.



May.



Also, if this is the land of freedom, why can't the *** folk get married and be miserable like everyone else.[/quote]





I feel life is tough enough and people should take happiness where they can find it. If they are lucky enough to fall in love and find someone they want to spend eternity with, they should not throw that away. It's nobody else's business anyway.

 

[mikita's helmet]

From the San Francisco Chronicle



Bob Egelko,Jill Tucker, Chronicle Staff Writers.

Friday, August 6, 2010



Schwarzenegger: Let gays and lesbians marry now



(08-06) 17:04 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown joined *** rights advocates Friday in asking a federal judge to allow gays and lesbians in California to marry immediately while opponents appeal the ruling that overturned Proposition 8.



Allowing same-sex couples to wed "is consistent with California's long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect," Schwarzenegger's lawyers said in a written filing with Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.



Brown, like Schwarzenegger a defendant in the suit that challenged the November 2008 ballot measure, agreed that Walker's ruling Wednesday declaring Prop. 8 unconstitutional removed any legitimate interest the state has in enforcing the ban on same-sex marriage.



And lawyers for *** and lesbian couples said they continue to suffer from Prop. 8's "irrational deprivation of their constitutional rights."



Prop. 8's defenders have already appealed Walker's decision to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and asked the judge for a stay that would maintain the prohibition on same-sex weddings during the appeal process, which could last a year or more.



By passing Prop. 8 and an earlier ballot measure in 2000, "the people of California have declared clearly and consistently that the public interest lies with preserving the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman," lawyers for Protect Marriage, the Prop. 8 campaign committee, told Walker in a filing the day before he ruled.



If the ruling takes effect, they said, "same-sex marriages would be licensed under a cloud of uncertainty, and should (Protect Marriage) succeed on appeal, any such marriages would be invalid."



Lawyers for the two couples and a *** rights organization that challenged Prop. 8 replied that the possibility of an unfavorable ruling in the future doesn't justify the continued deprivation of their rights.



"*** men and lesbians are more than capable of determining whether they, as individuals who now enjoy the freedom to marry, wish to do so immediately or wait until all appeals have run their course," the plaintiffs' lawyers told Walker.



They also asked the judge, if he issues a stay, to limit it to seven days while Prop. 8's sponsors seek a longer suspension from the appeals court. Lawyers for the sponsors also suggested that as an option if they cannot obtain a longer stay.



Walker asked for written arguments on a stay by Friday and has not said when he will rule.



Schwarzenegger raised eyebrows with his strong support for allowing *** and lesbian marriages as soon as possible. The governor remained neutral during the lawsuit and praised Walker's ruling Wednesday, but he has also said he believes marriage should be limited to a man and a woman.



He twice vetoed bills to legalize same-sex marriage, saying they contradicted the will of the people as expressed at the polls.



Jumping into the case now is "just irresponsible," Douglas Napier, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, which took part in Prop. 8's defense, said Friday. "He should have just let the judicial process take its course without sticking his nose into it."



Across the aisle, opponents of the measure said they were surprised - and overjoyed - the governor decided now to speak up.



"He has now weighed and said, 'Enough,' " said Geoff Kors, executive director of the *** rights organization Equality California. "Having the state say there's no reason to keep a stay, and urging the court to lift the stay, is incredibly powerful."



Kors also praised Brown, who refused to defend Prop. 8 in court and has argued that it violated the rights of gays and lesbians to equality under the law.



"Equality California will stand firmly with Brown in his candidacy for governor, just as he has stood with our community and on the side of justice," Kors said.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1EQGH7.DTL

 

[CLWolf81]

[quote name="Mikita's Helmet"]Schwarzenegger: Let gays and lesbians marry now[/quote]



Pot, meet kettle.



I swear I thought there couldn't be a more wishy-washy governor in the world. No Illinois governor can compare to this idiot. He could have easily taken care of this issue years ago, except he vetoed this proposition in the senate. All of a sudden, he's supporting the movement?



Pick a side, stick with it. Its a common rule in politics. How hard is that?



First off, if the Governator decided to defend his stance, he would have been in the courtroom, defending the group Protect Marriage. He should have been in there since he was going by the will of the voters, who they themselves went for Prop 8. Even I can understand that and accept that. Its how the law works. Plain and simple.



Now ever since the decision, the Judge himself is being blamed for everything. If anyone should be "blamed" for this little issue in the Republican eye, it should be the Governator and not the Judge who made the decision in the case. Its not the judge's fault in his decision. He's going by what he should, and that is within the laws of the Constitution. That is his job as the neutral party in the case.



What I find sad is I actually voted for this hypocrite back in California during the recall election.



Of course, I'm happy about the fact I can actually go back to California again, but I still feel uneasy about it, because I know who my real friends are now.

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

 

[JOVE23]

[quote name="Mikita's Helmet"]Schwarzenegger: Let gays and lesbians marry now[/quote]

GET TO DA CHAPEL!

 

[noon]

[quote name="Mikita's Helmet"]



Griswold is the contraception case, right?



what are the other two about?[/quote]



Yes. Griswold v. Connecticut was the 1965 U.S. Supreme Court case that concerned a law in Connecticut that made all forms of contraception illegal. The statute, reflecting the will of the voters of the state, also made it illegal for third parties to give any information or medical advice to anyone with respect to contraception. The appellants in the case had been arrested for giving "information, instruction, and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception." The Court overturned the conviction of the appellants and struck down the Connecticut law as unconstitutional. In doing so, it cited the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and articulated the well-established doctrine of Penumbral Rights implicit in the Constitution (citing, as examples of penumbral rights flowing from but not literally expressed in the Bill of Rights, the right of association, the right to privacy in one's associations, the right of parents to educate their children as they choose, and the right to study any subject or language one chooses as examples) debunking a strict literalist interpretation of the Constitution, which, as a living document, must address in principle topics that could not have specifically been foreseen at the time of drafting and recognizing that rights emanate from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights "that help give them life and substance." And here's where the rubber meets the road for our present purposes: the Court recognized marriage as being within the province of that penumbral constitutional protection. Quoting from the decision:



"The present case, then, concerns a relationship [i.e. marriage] lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288, 307 . Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The [381 U.S. 479, 486] very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.



"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."



Skinner v. Oklahoma was a 1942 case that involved the forced sterilization of persons with 2 felonies. In the decision, the Supreme Court stated that marraige is "one of the basic human rights of man."



Maynard v. Hill is an 1888 case that involved a legislative divorce decree and its effect upon a land grant in Oregon. It is not as directly related, which is why I cited it as a "see also," but nonetheless, in the course of its decision, the Supreme Court recognized marriage as creating "the most important relation in life" and quoted the Maine Supreme Court with approval when it wrote that marriage is "a relation the most important, as affecting the happiness of individuals, the first step from barbarism to incipient civilization, the purest tie of social life, and the true basis of human progress."



So, in short, aside from Loving v. Virginia, which is the most directly precedential and analogous case, yes, there is a well-established string of Supreme Court authority recognizing marriage among the basic human rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

 

[jakobeast]

[quote name="noon"]



Yes. Griswold v. Connecticut was the 1965 U.S. Supreme Court case that concerned a law in Connecticut that made all forms of contraception illegal. The statute, reflecting the will of the voters of the state, also made it illegal for third parties to give any information or medical advice to anyone with respect to contraception. The appellants in the case had been arrested for giving "information, instruction, and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception." The Court overturned the conviction of the appellants and struck down the Connecticut law as unconstitutional. In doing so, it cited the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and articulated the well-established doctrine of Penumbral Rights implicit in the Constitution (citing, as examples of penumbral rights flowing from but not literally expressed in the Bill of Rights, the right of association, the right to privacy in one's associations, the right of parents to educate their children as they choose, and the right to study any subject or language one chooses as examples) debunking a strict literalist interpretation of the Constitution, which, as a living document, must address in principle topics that could not have specifically been foreseen at the time of drafting and recognizing that rights emanate from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights "that help give them life and substance." And here's where the rubber meets the road for our present purposes: the Court recognized marriage as being within the province of that penumbral constitutional protection. Quoting from the decision:



"The present case, then, concerns a relationship [i.e. marriage] lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288, 307 . Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The [381 U.S. 479, 486] very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.



"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."



Skinner v. Oklahoma was a 1942 case that involved the forced sterilization of persons with 2 felonies. In the decision, the Supreme Court stated that marraige is "one of the basic human rights of man."



Maynard v. Hill is an 1888 case that involved a legislative divorce decree and its effect upon a land grant in Oregon. It is not as directly related, which is why I cited it as a "see also," but nonetheless, in the course of its decision, the Supreme Court recognized marriage as creating "the most important relation in life" and quoted the Maine Supreme Court with approval when it wrote that marriage is "a relation the most important, as affecting the happiness of individuals, the first step from barbarism to incipient civilization, the purest tie of social life, and the true basis of human progress."



So, in short, aside from Loving v. Virginia, which is the most directly precedential and analogous case, yes, there is a well-established string of Supreme Court authority recognizing marriage among the basic human rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.[/quote]



God, it's like you are a lawyer or something.

 

[noon]

[quote name="R K"]





I love you Joe. Lets get married.[/quote]



I love you, too, Ronnie! But, like I told you before, you missed your chance with me. :lol:

 

[noon]

[quote name="jakobeast"]

God, it's like you are a lawyer or something.[/quote]



Or as bri put it: boring.



Damned lawyers.

 

[Guest]

[quote name="noon"]



I love you, too, Ronnie! But, like I told you before, you missed your chance with me. :lol:[/quote]



FYI, I'm sad.







pffft if you were my ***** you could be mowing the Lawn right now damnit!

 

[mikita's helmet]

[quote name="noon"]



Or as bri put it: boring.



Damned lawyers.[/quote]



I find many to be boring and damned. :shock:

 

[noon]

[quote name="R K"]



FYI, I'm sad.







pffft if you were my ***** you could be mowing the Lawn right now damnit![/quote]



Awwww...Michelle won't mow your lawn anymore? :violin:

 

[jakobeast]

[quote name="noon"]



Awwww...Michelle won't mow your lawn anymore? :violin:[/quote]



I can only assume you two are talking in code.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvFSgXpyhoM

 

[noon]

[quote name="jakobeast"]



I can only assume you two are talking in code.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvFSgXpyhoM[/quote]



Hahaha -- awesome. Inspiration for your new shorn look? Does the hardwood floor match the window valances? :lol: (Hey -- what happened to the Jako smilies?)

 

[mikita's helmet]

[quote name="CLWolf81"]



Pot, meet kettle.



I swear I thought there couldn't be a more wishy-washy governor in the world. No Illinois governor can compare to this idiot. He could have easily taken care of this issue years ago, except he vetoed this proposition in the senate. All of a sudden, he's supporting the movement?



Pick a side, stick with it. Its a common rule in politics. How hard is that?[/quote]



Schwarzenegger may personally be opposed to *** marriage and may have been following the will of the people when he twice vetoed bills by the California state legislature to legalize same-sex marriage, but when the court ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, he may now feel compelled, and advised by government lawyers for the state of California, to follow the law. (see, Marbury v. Madison)



"Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared something "unconstitutional", and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government). The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison



In Marbury, the Court held:



It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.



So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.



Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law [e.g., the statute or treaty].



This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 131, 177-78 (1803).



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=137



http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... ialrev.htm



http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Marbury/

 

[Guest]

[quote name="jakobeast"]



I can only assume you two are talking in code.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvFSgXpyhoM[/quote]





MOW YOUR LAWN!!!!