So do the homosexuals get to “marry” now, pending the Supreme Court? Or do they have to wait? Anyone know?
The state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans a form of sham marriage that is banned by a federal law and not addressed in the United States Constitution? Only the 9th Circuit could make that up.
Surprise surprise. Legislating from the bench. By all means, let’s re-elect Obama so he can seat more activists until we no longer have a need for legislators at all. It’s the coming American way y’all.
The same people that want to get rid of the electoral college because it denies the will of the people applaud this decision denying the will of the people.
It is what I expected out of the California Appeals Court. Not a shock.
what a shock, NOT
Now would they also say 4 wives for muslims or 9 wives for mormons on religious grounds be unconstitutional too?
Nah did not think so.
Just because they go to their elitist parties and meet their cross dressing and homo friends does not mean what they do and how they act and what they ask for is normal or constitutional
Anyone on our side saying no big deal tot he queer agenda needs to get their head out of where the sun does not shine, this is not about just marriage
No big surprise here.
Our Senate Legislature in Washington State just approved QUEER marriage. Now it goes to the House and the governor said she would sign it. They said we have until June to get 130,000 signatures for an initiative to get in on the ballot for the people to vote on, but now with the 9th saying it is unconstitutional to not permit QUE ER marriage, what good would voting on it do us?
I am sick in my heart what is happening to our country.
I’m looking forward to the “Yes on 8” legal team’s email detailing the decision and their plan going forward. I’d encourage everyone reading this to donate profusely to this excellent legal team. The are up against an army of Goliaths with deep pockets.
Well that does it. My wife has family in CA. She has been wanting to move back to Thousand Oaks, CA for 5 years now....but is smart enough to realize that it would be insane. I’d rather move to Yuma, AZ and commute to San Diego than become a citizen of CA, where it seems (according to his ruling) that there is no more reason to even have vote if you are conservative.
President Newt will ask Congress to disembowel the Ninth Circus. Good. Perhaps the other social justice tyrants will take heed.
This is judicial tyranny at it’s finest.
What was their argument saying it was unconstitutional because I see no where it states two homosexuals can marry each other but i do understand that the Govt derives it’s power from the people.
The people voted and was told they have to do an amendment.
They did an amendment and now these activists say it is not legal s I ma interested in how they explain that and surely there has to be one person left in Govt who can go after this court and call them out and this 9th district is plain out and out activists.
Black is white and white is black, we’re through the looking glass here, people.
Since when do people have the ‘right’ to get marrried? We heteros don’t! It’s not a ‘right’,it’s a choice.
The absurdity of this offers one more example of a crushing reality. Much of America, today, is in the grips of a pervasive Collectivist/Egalitarian fantasy, which makes Lewis Carroll's description of "Wonderland," seem only stark realism by comparison.
No one who actually understands the concept of marriage-or for that matter the unsanctified procreational mating procedures of other warm blooded creatures--can possibly see this as anything but absurd. Human marriage customs & procedures reflect an understanding of the multi-generational function & purpose of a species. Marriage is our way to sanctify the process. Not surprisingly, therefore, unconsummated marriages have been subject to annulment, even in societies that explicitly outlaw every form of divorce.
Marriage has never been simply a way to sanctify friendship. Nor has anyone ever suggested that friends of the same sex marry, to prove their ties of a lifetime. And yet what else do people of the same sex have to even suggest that they should marry, today? Only an act that most other people find offensive--one or another of muscular acts intended to simulate feelings that may mimic sexual feelings ("sexual" relating not to the feelings, but to the division of the species into sexes, for procreation and continuity).
Again, is this whole agitation--and this Court decision--not totally in the theater of the absurd?!!
As for the demand for "equal rights?" Where is there any right for anyone to force society to jump down the rabbit hole with Alice? But then my metaphor fails, when put in juxta-position with my first paragraph.
IMHO this is reason #1, above all else, why Comrade Zero has got to go. I can only imagine the destruction he will cause if he gets another round of judicial appointments, esp. a USSC vacancy. I don’t see all of the Fab Five holding out another 4 years.
I am sick of abject Judicial activism.
I am sick of liberals extending natural rights, given from God and enumerated in the Constitution, to behavior and ideology to advance their own causes and inclinations...and in an effort to overthrow the constitution to which they swore an oath to faithfully uphold and defend.
The American people, to avoid the hell of chaos and downfall and implosion such trends will inevitably lead to, simply must throw off the political class that has encumbered us and elect American statemen to office who revere and will hold inviolate the fundmanetal moral values upon which this nation and its constitution was founded.
And those are Christian principles and have defined the very reason why America has been so tolerant of so many who have come to these shores. But when those here want that tolerance to extend to the destruction of what has kept the peace, made us free, defined our prosperity and strength as a nation, that we cannot, nay we MUST not tolerate, but fight with every resource at our disposal