POLL: Prop 8 Overturned by Appeals Court

Bob Ogden February 7, 2012 at 09:42 pm

Good for them. Civil rights should not be a popularity contest.

Wonderboy February 8, 2012 at 01:49 am

And I care about what's happening on the Left coast? No reports on Illegals though, huh huffy?

Jill Gertz February 8, 2012 at 02:23 am

The 9th court is most overturned in America. Like many things in California its dysfunctional. Homosexuals have the same right to marry everyone else does - they just cant marry each other - nor can brothers and sisters. In most cultures incest and homosexuality are similarly avoided. The same amoral/immoral left that said marriage is just a piece of paper and/or a defunct institution now want to marry boys to each other. Its the kind of thing you see in a society deteriorating (like Weimar Germany).

Timothy Judge February 8, 2012 at 11:45 am

Jill...The US Consititution has the separation of church and state as a fundamental principal. That is the State (Federal, State or local governments) can not tell you what, how or who to worship, and no religious insititution, church or faith can impose its will on the people. This is the First Amendment. The concept of equality in the law is found in the 14th Amendment where the State has to provide equal protection and to treat all peoples equally. This was the basis for overturning slavery and miscegnation laws that prohibited people of different races from marrying, (The Weimar Reich supported miscegnation). I agree that no church should be forced to marry any two people who do not share in the churches beleifs and tenets, but the government has an obligation to marry any two people who ask to be joined in marriage, including people of different races, and of the same sex.

Walt February 8, 2012 at 01:05 pm

Timothy...The separation of Church and State is not a fundamental right. The fundamental rights listed in the First Amendment are Religion, Assembly, Speech Press and Petition(use the acronym RASPP to help you remember). Stop making things up as you go along to suit your needs.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Mike February 8, 2012 at 01:30 pm

Interesting that the Government will support and defend the rights of homosexuals to marry, but that same Government issues regulations requiring the Catholic Church to provide birth control and abortion services which clearly prohibit the free exercise of their religious believes. It is just another example of the disingenuousness anti-Constitutional bent of this President and his administration.

Teleman February 8, 2012 at 02:04 pm

It's all part of the liberal anti-christian agenda- Their assault on the traditional family has been going on for a long time- They could have had same-sex partnerships that offered the EXACT same benefits as marriage- but that wasn't enough for them- they had to claim "marriage" as their own.

Bob Ogden February 8, 2012 at 02:27 pm

Why don't we all act like Christians and embrace our fellow human beings instead of attacking them. To paraphrase the court decision it said that same sex partnerships have all the same rights as marriages and that prohibiting them from marrying served no purpose other than to make them a lower class citizen and that in the courts opinion the Constitution did not allow this. It is somewhat unfortunate that this case must go to the Supreme Court but sometimes we have to stand up for freedom, even when that freedom is not our own.

Timothy Judge February 9, 2012 at 01:35 am

Walt...point taken and you are correct in your statement, but the prohibition on the government establishment of religion in the first amendment is in fact commonly know as the separation of church and state, and keeps the government from telling someone how or what to worship. I am not making things up as I go along. Mike...I agree that the state can not tell a religious institution what it provides its employees in terms of health care coverage, anymore than a church can dictate what it considers moral to people who do not follow its tenets. As for the 9th Circut ruling it is as Peekskill Pete detailed. That the state can grant marriage to same sex couple does not require any church to do so.

Mike February 9, 2012 at 12:36 pm

Timothy- glad that you agree that the Obama administration has overreached with its recent HHS ruling forcing Catholic institutions and employers to provide services that would violate their religious beliefs. In fact, this ruling is anti-Constitutional and an infringement on the 1st Amendment protections of freedom to practice one's faith as one see's fit.

Walt February 9, 2012 at 12:47 pm

Tim...I still say you are twisting it. Freedom of Religion and the separation of Church and State are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Liberals use the argument of separation of Church and State to keep Religion OUT of the public domain. For example, taking under God out of the Pledge or removing the Ten Commandments from a public school.

SLJ February 9, 2012 at 12:58 pm

Why put it on the ballot and then have two individuals rule against the majority of voters ? Doesn't make much sense.

Ded Yorick February 9, 2012 at 01:23 pm

Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. Neither should heterosexuals. Marriage is an archaic institution with no legitimacy in this country. How can people talk about marriage seriously when half the population is divorced? If you can get married on a Monday and divorced with no consequences on Tuesday, the institution is a sham. If society wants to keep it, then divorce should be banned. Then we’ll see who’s really serious about it. But until then, as Hamlet said, “We will have no more marriages!”
The Prince of Denmark Has Spoken.

Bob Ogden February 9, 2012 at 01:34 pm

JLS,
My point really isn't that the court should overturn the vote. My point is it should never have been voted on in the first place. I consider this a civil rights issue just like any other. Years ago it was illegal in many states for an inter-racial couple to marry. It wasn't put on the ballot, it was handled in the legislature where laws were passed. . That's the way civil rights issues should be handled. Putting it on the ballot is the cowards way out for legislators. It reduces it to a popularity contest where whoever can bring out the most voters wins There are times when the populace doesn't like something but it needs to be done out of social responsibility. In this case I agree wholeheartedly with the court. You've already agreed that gay couples can form a civil union that gives them all the rights and privileges of married couples and the only purpose this law serves is to make them a lower class of citizen.

dleighg February 9, 2012 at 01:56 pm

That's patently false. Even legally married gays in New York do NOT have the same rights and benefits of marriage as heterosexuals, due to the Defense of Marriage Act (check SS benefits, joint income tax statement, taxes on health care benefits, etc. etc. etc.) Because "spouse" or "husband/wife" is written into thousands of laws and statutes, a civil union does not in any way give the EXACT same benefits.

Bob Ogden February 9, 2012 at 02:02 pm

Dleighg, Wake-up Call!!. Same sex couples already get legally married in New York, hence they have all the same rights, because they're the same. The 9th Circuit ruled on California.

dleighg February 9, 2012 at 02:05 pm

The California prop 8 ruling has nothing to do with NY. Absolutely nothing. Check it out yourself. And even though gay couples can get married in NY, and have NY benefits the same as any heterosexual couple in NY, the Federal Government does NOT recognize those marriages. Period. Nada. Check that out too. That's what the Defense of Marriage Act is all about.

dleighg February 9, 2012 at 02:07 pm

Pete: here's a summary of DOMA: The law, specifically Section 3, codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, which include family insurance benefits for employees of the government, survivors' benefits from Social Security, and joint tax filings.

Bob Ogden February 9, 2012 at 02:31 pm

dieghg, I agree with you that this is a California issue, what I was talking about was NYS, and not taking into account federal issues. I agree with you about DOMA, however, I think that too will be struck down by the Supreme Court at some point. DOMA, by the way, proves my point, these issues need to be dealt with by legislators, not voted on. The safeguard is the Supreme Court and that's the way the system is designed. For the life of me I don't understand why this is even an issue. Having a gay couple marry doesn't effect my marriage in any way, so why not let people be happy? Seems to me that it's one of the last places where people can be openly prejudiced and somehow wrap up their bigotry in their marriage vows.

dleighg February 9, 2012 at 02:51 pm

So if we're on the same side, why were you arguing with me? :) I was just telling Elmer that "civil unions" do not equal "marriage" no matter how you slice it, and even legal marriage for gays does not (currently) equal legal marriage for heterosexuals, due to DOMA. That's just plain wrong. My husband and I got married in Pennsylvania, years ago. We weren't even residents there. We lived in NY, and NY considered us legally married, as did the federal gov't. The fact that we have a crazy quilt of laws is not a situation we can live with forever.

Bob Ogden February 9, 2012 at 02:54 pm

dieghg,
Sorry if I upset you. It was just a matter of us not understanding each other. Now we do.

Timothy Judge February 9, 2012 at 05:11 pm

Walt...all due respect, but freedom of religion and the separation of Church and State are one in the same. Your example of displaying the 10 Commandments in a public school is exactly what the Founding Fathers were prohibiting. The 10 Commandments are a Judeo-Christian construct. The public school; aka the government, can not impose any religion on anyone, this is the establishment clause in action
Displaying the 10 commandments is establishing a particular religious belief. This is different than a class discussing religion and talking about the 10 comandments as a Judeo-Christian construct. As for having God in the pledge of Allegiance it was not in the original text, but was added in 1954. I agree that the administration of President Obama is oversteping its bounds by requiring religious institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives. I think the Catholic church should change its prohibition on contraception, but thats my opinion. The constitution is clear that no government can tell a church how to act anymore than a government can establish a religion. If a church does not want to marry a homosexual couple ok, but the churches prohibition against such marriage can not extend to the state. The state has to stay secular if it is to adhere to the constitution and not to establish a religion.