The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

mesquite wrote:

Well Ms McClure, you simply could have told your pastor that constitutional amendments are for protecting rights not limiting them.

Nonsense. Constitutional amendments are for enacting whatever sufficiently large majorities want enacted. They are a tool of democratic government, not of moral philosophy.

Meanwhile the homophobes in Arizona try again for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages after being defeated in 2006.

Same-sex-marriage ban advances

Quote:

Also supporting the move was Rep. Marian McClure, a Tucson Republican, who said she thought a constitutional amendment was unnecessary because same-sex marriage already is banned by state statute. But ultimately she voted for sending it to the ballot because of her personal religious briefs.
"If I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, how do I go into church next Sunday and try to explain to my pastor and to my Christian community that I voted saying that marriage was not between a man and a woman?" she said. "The average individual looks at the bill number and the title. What do they see? Marriage between one man and one woman."

Well Ms McClure, you simply could have told your pastor that constitutional amendments are for protecting rights not limiting them.

I am unaware of any issue other than the gay marriage issue where a constitutional amendment has been used in the US to restrict individual liberty.

I'm going to marry my buddy for the tax break!!!! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

The issue will almost certainly be decided by SCOTUS as opponents to the ruling vow to fight on.

The issue will almost certainly be decided by SCOTUS as opponents to the ruling vow to fight on.

The real issue here is a judicial body ruling against the will of the people and the law as defined by the state legislature. They redefined a specific contract that discriminated against nobody. The ruling based on 'equal rights' is a real stretch as well as a huge possible Pandora's box for similar redefinitions in the future.

I fully expect SCOTUS to uphold the California law. If not, I think within a generation, marriage as we currently define it will cease to exist.

Foxfyre wrote:

The issue will almost certainly be decided by SCOTUS as opponents to the ruling vow to fight on.

You're wrong. The California supreme court's ruling does not have any federal constitutional implications.

Foxfyre wrote:

The issue will almost certainly be decided by SCOTUS as opponents to the ruling vow to fight on.

You're wrong. The California supreme court's ruling does not have any federal constitutional implications.

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

The issue will almost certainly be decided by SCOTUS as opponents to the ruling vow to fight on.

You're wrong. The California supreme court's ruling does not have any federal constitutional implications.

Sure it does.

When the gay couple gets married in Ca and goes home to a State that will not recognize the marriage, they can sue at the Federal Level which could ultimately lead to the USSC.

I disagree.

woiyo wrote:

I disagree.

It's your right to disagree, but you should realize that the SC will never hear this case.

Cycloptichorn

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

The issue will almost certainly be decided by SCOTUS as opponents to the ruling vow to fight on.

You're wrong. The California supreme court's ruling does not have any federal constitutional implications.

I believe anything decided as an 'equal rights' issue is likely to wind up as a SCOTUS issue in the same way as any ruling based on civil rights can wind up as a SCOTUS issue.

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

The issue will almost certainly be decided by SCOTUS as opponents to the ruling vow to fight on.

You're wrong. The California supreme court's ruling does not have any federal constitutional implications.

Sure it does.

When the gay couple gets married in Ca and goes home to a State that will not recognize the marriage, they can sue at the Federal Level which could ultimately lead to the USSC.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

woiyo wrote:

I disagree.

It's your right to disagree, but you should realize that the SC will never hear this case.

Cycloptichorn

How do you know? Are you a "effing" fortune teller? You are not an attorney either. Therefore, you are just another person with an opinion.

I have no idea if a case will rise all the way to the USSC. Yet, it would be interesting to see if a case will go to Federal Court and on and on. I am not even sure how this current court would rule or if they would even take such a case.

Foxfyre wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

The issue will almost certainly be decided by SCOTUS as opponents to the ruling vow to fight on.

You're wrong. The California supreme court's ruling does not have any federal constitutional implications.

I believe anything decided as an 'equal rights' issue is likely to wind up as a SCOTUS issue in the same way as any ruling based on civil rights can wind up as a SCOTUS issue.

You're still wrong. The California case was decided according to the California constitution, not the federal constitution. The supreme court doesn't take cases from state courts that are decided on state constitutional grounds.

The issue will almost certainly be decided by SCOTUS as opponents to the ruling vow to fight on.