California Same-Sex Marriage Ban On It's Way to Supreme Court

A federal appeals court in San Francisco refused Tuesday to rehear a legal challenge to the state's same-sex marriage ban, sending the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals made the decision, which was based on whether a majority of its active judges had agreed or refused to reconsider a ruling in February in which two of its member judges declared the ban unconstitutional.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Going back to June 5, 2012...

Court Says Gay Rights Trump Religious Rights

The New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by the state’s Civil Rights Commission that a Christian photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couple’s commitment ceremony violated the state’s discrimination law.

...

“Americans in the marketplace should not be subjected to legal attacks for simply abiding by their beliefs,” senior counsel Jordan Lorence said in a statement. “Because the Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling artists to promote a message they disagree with, we will certainly appeal this decision to the New Mexico Supreme Court.”

radio.foxnews.com...


Here's what I say...

Get rid of government recognizing a civil union. Get rid of the 1,500 laws that go with it.

Remove the government, from yet again, another dabbling with the economy...

Let gays be gays and heterosexuals produce offspring. Let freedom rule.

Was not the act of marriage first recognized as a religious ceremony ?

Where in the constitution does it say that we have the right to marriage?

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


People were getting married... or what ever they called it... before religion existed.

many animal mate for life. If religious idiots want to slap a name on it fine... but its not exclusive...

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

 

People were getting married... or what ever they called it... before religion existed.

many animal mate for life. If religious idiots want to slap a name on it fine... but its not exclusive...

I would honestly LOVE to see some substantiation of that first claim you make, since I'm not personally aware of a documented period of human history in which religion of one sort or another didn't exist, especially seeing as how religious tendencies appear to stretch back all the way to neanderthal...

Regardless - just put this thing to rest already: if government needs to be involved on some level, let it issue civil unions for those who want no religion involved. For those of faith, let them have their marriages. Apply these equally to any legal situation regarding property rights, children, and anywhere else these topics come to bear.

And you don't like what someone else does - well, sod off already. You don't have to approve it or participate in it, but it is NOT YOUR PLACE TO INTERJECT YOURSELF IN IT, EITHER.

reply to post by PeterWiggin


Marriage existed before Christianity was ever even schemed up. Marriage is a PAGAN institution.

Originally posted by cetaphobic
reply to post by PeterWiggin

 

Marriage existed before Christianity was ever even schemed up. Marriage is a PAGAN institution.

I'm not sure that's been substantiated, but regardless, it's a matter of semantics, fine - let the faithful have their RELIGIOUS unions before whatever god they claim, and let everyone else have their marriages.

I couldn't care less what it's called, just divorce the faithful version from the civil version and everyone stay out of everyone else's business. Let one be officiated by clergy and the other by civil servants. Just...stop...quibbling over it.