Federal Appeals Court Blocks Same-Sex Marriage in California as Case Continues

A federal appeals court put same-sex weddings in California on hold indefinitely Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban.

Source

Well On again Off Again.

This should head to the Supreme Court soon.

It probably won't be heard by the supreme court.

As gay marriage in my opinion is not a constitutional matter.

And before anyone jumps me as being a homophobe, I'm for gay marriage.

reply to post by Miraj


Well the way I have seen it Gay people do have the right to marry. They just want a special privledge to marry the same sex.

That is outside the right of fare an equil treatment.

reply to post by SWCCFAN


I agree.

But the constitution doesn't define marriage, or protect it as a right.

Therefore it is not a constitutional matter.

I am iffy on whether they will choose to hear it. It's a hot potato.

This case is actually not about homosexuality or marriage. It's about states rights and whether the states can pass a law than can be deemed as discriminatory when the constitution prohibits it.

I am 50/50 on whether they will pick it up... I say the chances of it getting upheld and Prop 8 being reinstated is low, though.

As for the "special rights" argument, that comes down to definition. Yes, they already have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. The question is what the intent and pupose of marriage is according to common interpretations. Most would say marriage is meant to be between two people who love each other. By stating that people cannot marry people they love, that does indeed infring on their rights.

[edit on 8-16-2010 by rogerstigers]

Originally posted by rogerstigers
I am iffy on whether they will choose to hear it. It's a hot potato.

This case is actually not about homosexuality or marriage. It's about states rights and whether the states can pass a law than can be deemed as discriminatory when the constitution prohibits it.

I am 50/50 on whether they will pick it up... I say the chances of it getting upheld and Prop 8 being reinstated is low, though.

As for the "special rights" argument, that comes down to definition. Yes, they already have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. The question is what the intent and pupose of marriage is according to common interpretations. Most would say marriage is meant to be between two people who love each other. By stating that people cannot marry people they love, that does indeed infring on their rights.

[edit on 8-16-2010 by rogerstigers]

One could also state that marriage historically has been between a man and woman and that it was made to insure the survival of the species.

Even in loving vs virginia the court said that marriage was meant as the bedrock of human society.

reply to post by Miraj


Marriage is historically a religous privledge. The States found a way to tax it and then we wind up where we are today.

Rights can be best described a being homonious with natures laws. For example we all have the right to speak freely and to defend ourselves.

Homosexuals Are seeking a privledge that is not bound by the Constitution. Thefore it's Up to the State that you live in to make the laws regarding Marrage. ( See 9th & 10th Amendments )

The Federal Government has no say on the matter.

Any State can choose to allow or Disallow same sex unions. Just as any state can refuse to recognize them.

When a Majority of people in a state vote overwhemingly to Oppose gay marrage the Buck should stop there. That is my opinion on the issue.

reply to post by Nofoolishness


I'm not really qualified to debate the point, honestly. I am not a proponent of any marriage. I find the whole idea abhorent and obsolete. But it is my understanding that ultimately, that is what the "special rights" argument comes down to -- basically, what is the common intent of marriage.

reply to post by rogerstigers


I understand the argument the Pro Gay Marrage crowd is making. They want to reconized for tax and entitlement purposes. They can love each other with out a Government Endorced peice of paper.

The Anti Gay Marrage crowd says its Immoral and will destroy the traditional Family Unit. I tend to agree.

However I also beleive that they have the right to do what they please as long as it dosen't injure anyone.

This issue should be resolved with 10th Amendment

The Feds should stay out of the issue, and states should challenge the FED with 10th amendment.

Drug legalization, abortion, marriage should all be handled by individual states. Allowing the FED to do anything only increases the FED's power.

I don't support gay marriage or drug legalization in my state, but I do support the idea for states that want it legal. That way people can gravitate to the state they want to live in & deal with the results.





[edit on 16-8-2010 by zzombie]

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
The Anti Gay Marrage crowd says its Immoral and will destroy the traditional Family Unit. I tend to agree.

Mind if I ask what the traditional family unit is? My drunk dad I never saw? My single mom working late nights to feed us? Was it the eventual arrival of my abusive stepdad because he had a house?

sounds like you want people to be free and do what they want so long as its not in your state lol.. kinda off their pall rofl...

I'm torn over the issue. The legality of it that is.

Obviously it's ridiculous to NOT allow gay's to marry, other than the ideological dispute there is no reason for it to be banned.

I mean really, what's the downside here? Will it destroy America? No.

Does it affect anybody else than homosexuals? No.

Does it somehow make "regular" marriage less or more valid? No.

So really, I don't see the problem here, but as some posters have mentioned, it's up to the states to decide whether they want to allow it or now as listed in the constitution.

I disagree with Prop8, for obvious reasons, but it doesn't make the people's will any less valid I suppose.

Either way, why in this day and age has this become an issue? Aren't there far more pressing and important issues at hand than who gets to mary who?

~Keeper

Well, we'll see. I do see it going to the SC if for no other reason than political correctness will dictate so. It's not a constitutional issue, no matter how hard some push for it to be, and states rights do come into play here. It'll be interesting to see how it goes. At least they put it on hold until it's decided instead of allowing people to jump the gun.