Reply With Quote
This prop 8 decision never would have happened under President Gingrich.... because there would be no ninth circuit.
Just heard on the news. Need to find link.
BREAKING: Appeals court rules California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages is uncons utional.
This prop 8 decision never would have happened under President Gingrich.... because there would be no ninth circuit.
Christian haters gonna push up to SCOTUS
The out-of-state Mormon Taleban who bought that election will no doubt contribute to the appeal fund
Christian haters gonna push it up to SCOTUS
The out-of-state Mormon Taleban who bought that election will no doubt contribute to the appeal fund
Anyone know the details?
How can a properly approved cons utional change be uncons utional?
Time for SCOTUS to weigh in.
Are you serious?
So a State full of liberals voted to re affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman…Then political judges with an agenda decide that voters opinion does not matter…And Joe is cheering for this?
Will get overturned @ SCOTUS.
If Romney vs. USA is any indication, should be a slam dunk, IMO.
Because it infringes on the religious freedom of Unitarians, among others. Perhaps you've heard of the first amendment?
Didn't we cover this 120 years ago with Polygamy/Mormons? Again: Romney et al. Vs. USA
Assuming you meant this...
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...36/1/case.html
....could you point me to the relevant point(s)?
Looks like to me it means marriage is between one man and one woman.
I think this is much more a matter of equal protection than one of religious freedom.
Isn't great precedent; just liked the fact that Romney was (sometimes referenced) in the le TBH: but from the syllabus:
from the ruling of Justice BradleyThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was incorporated February, 1851, by an act of assembly of the so-called State of Deseret, which was afterwards confirmed by act of the Territorial Legislature of Utah, the corporation being a religious one, and its property and fund, held for the religious and charitable objects of the society, a prominent object being the promotion and practice of polygamy, which was prohibited by the laws of the United States. Congress, in 1887, passed an act repealing the act of incorporation and abrogating the charter and directing legal proceedings for seizing its property and winding up its affairs.
Basically, your marriage practices are not decent. They are un-Christian, therefore they are un-American. We can not only ban Polygamy, we can disband your church and seize its property.The existence of such a propaganda is a blot on our civilization. The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the western world. The question, therefore, is whether the promotion of such a nefarious system and practice, so repugnant to our laws and to the principles of our civilization, is to be allowed to continue by the sanction of the government itself, and whether the funds ac ulated for that purpose shall be restored to the same unlawful uses as heretofore, to the detriment of the true interests of civil society.
Anyone who thinks a right to marry who you want is obvious in the Cons ution, need only look at that case to see SCOTUS could find otherwise.
Again, however, it is weak sauce to cite something that dates back (and featuring Justices of similar bent) to Plessy, but "Romney" being central to the whole thing makes me chuckle. GOT to be an ancestor (although hard to track with all those wives).
Where you see that there?Looks like to me it means marriage is between one man and one woman.
I see no language to that effect, but found this:
The state has a perfect right to prohibit polygamy and all other open offenses against the enlightened sentiment of mankind notwithstanding the pretense of religious conviction by which they may be advocated and practiced.
Reynolds v. United States tbh
The ruling for that case seems pretty sketchy when I look at it, though.
It could, but it's going to have to explain that Loving v. Virginia and Zablocki v. Redhail -- each of which says or suggests that the right to marry is a fundamental right -- don't really mean what they say.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=98&invol=145From that day to this we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the cons utional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of [98 U.S. 145, 166] the people, to a greater or less extent, rests. Professor, Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy. Chancellor Kent observes that this remark is equally striking and profound. 2 Kent, Com. 81, note (e). An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of cons ution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion.
I'm all for polygamy. Let the rich men have as many waives as they can take care of. Let the loser men go without a woman.
Great news for FuzzyLumpkins and ChumpDumper.
Contrats.
Mr. and Mr. FuzzChump... or is it ChumpFuzz?
When's the wedding?
The fundamental rights are all secular and man-made. God is not in that picture, at all.
The fundamental right here not be be discriminated against, with the discrimination being based on sexual orientation.
The financial implications are enormous, since when same sex partner dies, the other could have access to some of the partners' SS checks, and private pension checks.
See, I knew you would jump in.
Not fair, I've got a single undergraduate con-law book, remembered "Romney", and went from there.
Lawyers.
Great news for FuzzyLumpkins and ChumpDumper.
Contrats.
Explain.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
