9th Circuit: Prop 8 is unconstitutional (BREAKING)

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The Constitution is the very basis for building the case for gay marriage. Read the article. Ted Olson is a very accomplished lawyer who has an impressive record on the cases he advocated before the Supreme Court. He knows that the Constitution is the key to marriage equality. In the real, actual world we live in. Not sure what role, if any, the Constitution plays in your alternate reality.

Only in the broad sense that people should not be discriminated against. However Gays are not a protected class in federal law. So what is the case? It would be unconstitutional for California to ban Blacks or Jews from getting married because race and relgion are protected classes, sexual orientation is not a protected class in Federal law or the US constitution.

My guess is that the Supreme Court will overturn the decision on the grounds that federal law has no jurisdiction in the matter.

I am no constitutional lawyer, I don;t even play one on TV, but it seems a pretty easy read to see "Exactly what is against the constitution?"

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Takes one to know one.

Wow, that's a terribly mature attitude, nonsensical and childish but it doesn't surprise anyone.

[MyLittlePony 340]

Wow, that's a terribly mature attitude, nonsensical and childish but it doesn't surprise anyone.

You have room to speak take a long hard look in the mirror the lines in your face says it all.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

You have room to speak take a long hard look in the mirror the lines in your face says it all.

Slow down before you type and you won't mix up your metaphors. Your answers are getting downright silly, the only lines in my face are from laughing so hard at your absurd responses. Thanks for reminding what you are truly capable of, Eric.

[MyLittlePony 340]

Slow down before you type and you won't mix up your metaphors. Your answers are getting downright silly, the only lines in my face are from laughing so hard at your absurd responses. Thanks for reminding what you are truly capable of, Eric.

You make yourself look a fool way before i step in here now you have me to help escalate your silliness.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

You make yourself look a fool way before i step in here now you have me to help escalate your silliness.

Silly boy, keep trying, perhaps one day you'll catch up. Sound out the big words and there's always a slim chance that an actual clear convincing argument might yet emanate from that feeble organ that you refer to as a brain. Stranger things have happened, besides I believe in miracles.

[Nagishkaw 510]

You make yourself look a fool way before i step in here now you have me to help escalate your silliness.

[james&olya 1,121]

Is government also to quit recognizing the contract of marriage?

The ideal solution would be for government to only recognize a civil contract that could be a part of marriage if individuals wanted it. This contract would be specific and spelled out in plain English and would have to be signed by the parties involved. Then it would be much more clear and fair when a party to the contract wished to end it. This civil contract could be written with a range of options to fit whatever unique circumstances and desires of the parties entering into that contract. And of course it should apply to homosexual, as well as heterosexual relationships!

'Marriage' should remain a religious term, as in 'sacred vows of marriage' and, as in all things regarding religion, the government should keep its nose out of it. 'Marriage' would be optional as an addition to the civil contract. Each religion could have its own rules and traditions. Most importantly, no religious rule could be enforced by civil courts and certainly not applied to people not members of that chuch! As it is now, we have one large religious group and its Vatican leader attempting to have its views codified into civil law in a number of areas and enforced on all of us.

[james&olya 1,121]

Marriage is a contractual agreement run by the state and requirements vary state to state at that. It's not a federal matter and nor should it be. Any argument in cases like these should begin and end at the State supreme court as marriage is not recognized in federal law. Until it is, any act by the Scotus, no matter which way it rules, is judicial activism.

Really? You mean to tell me that all of my efforts with my wife and her K-1 visa was not a federal issue? My trip to that federal building in Detroit to prove our marriage was real for our AOS was not controlled by federal laws?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Really? You mean to tell me that all of my efforts with my wife and her K-1 visa was not a federal issue? My trip to that federal building in Detroit to prove our marriage was real for our AOS was not controlled by federal laws?

Did you go to a Federal entity to get married? Was there a federal option available if some state were not willing to marry you?

K1's allow if you're going to be married a way into the country. They do not signify that a state has to marry you.

[MyLittlePony 340]

Silly boy, keep trying, perhaps one day you'll catch up. Sound out the big words and there's always a slim chance that an actual clear convincing argument might yet emanate from that feeble organ that you refer to as a brain. Stranger things have happened, besides I believe in miracles.

All bark and no bite just a wanna be internet bully has nothing to show for in life but to make people smaller so they can make themselves stronger. Nice try but no cigar.

[Ban Hammer 13,548]

you two stop the bickering.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

'Marriage' should remain a religious term, as in 'sacred vows of marriage' and, as in all things regarding religion, the government should keep its nose out of it. 'Marriage' would be optional as an addition to the civil contract. Each religion could have its own rules and traditions. Most importantly, no religious rule could be enforced by civil courts and certainly not applied to people not members of that chuch! As it is now, we have one large religious group and its Vatican leader attempting to have its views codified into civil law in a number of areas and enforced on all of us.

The Catholic Church goes one step further. It defines marriage as a civil contract, and matrimony as an unbreakable bond between a man and a woman. While a marriage may end in divorce, under Canon law, matrimony can only be dissolved through death, or by annulment.

2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” Mark10:2-12

[MyLittlePony 340]

Still a sad day for California for gay people to be allowed to get married.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Still a sad day for California for gay people to be allowed to get married.

Same sex marriage will continue to advance across the nation. The old farts that still oppose it will eventually die. The next generation is quite comformatble with marriage equality. You can fight it all you want. You may still be able to slow progress. You just can't stop it. The fight against same sex marriage is a futile exercise.