Get PJ Media on your Apple

Foes and Proponents of Gay Marriage Demonstrate Outside Court

“I believe that everyone has the right to make their husband as miserable as I do,” read one poster held by a woman.

by
Rodrigo Sermeño

Bio

March 26, 2013 - 6:42 pm
<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Justice Anthony Kennedy, seen as a swing vote between the four liberal and four conservative justices, suggested that children of same-sex marriages would suffer an “immediate legal injury” under the ban.

“There are some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red [State] Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status,” said Kennedy.

But Kennedy also said the court is being asked to head “into unchartered waters” because they have “only five years of information to pose against 2,000 years of history.”

The justices may be eager to dismiss the appeal on jurisdictional grounds to avoid any sweeping ruling on the issue.

Kennedy raised concerns about whether the possible legalization of same-sex marriage was enough to establish that those in favor of the ban could suffer harm. If no harm can be proven, it would allow the justices to dismiss the appeal without any ruling at all.

“I just wondered if the case was property granted,” said Kennedy.

If the court dismisses the appeal, it may mean lower federal court rulings declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional would stand in California.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
Rodrigo is a freelance writer living in Washington, D.C.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
I don't know why we are making this so hard. Marriage is actually a license, and it is for a bride and groom. The homosexuals wanting to marry is like someone with a car license demanding to pilot a plane with that same license. Different license, folks. This is not about love - I know two sisters who live more happily together in their love than most married people. This is about the children, who deserve a mom and dad.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (16)
All Comments   (16)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Here is what I wanna know; If its two guys then who sucks off who first on the honeymoon? And if two women, then who licks who first and why? And should the LGBT society give special consideration to Trannies who marry women instead of men? It's very confusing with these lovely folks on this stuff.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I don't know why we are making this so hard. Marriage is actually a license, and it is for a bride and groom. The homosexuals wanting to marry is like someone with a car license demanding to pilot a plane with that same license. Different license, folks. This is not about love - I know two sisters who live more happily together in their love than most married people. This is about the children, who deserve a mom and dad.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This is what it's come to, petitioning the court. The court is a legal and not a political body, you petition your representative, not the court. The only thing to tell the court is to apply the law.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Personally, I don't give a rat's *** about this whole non-issue. If two people of the same sex want to get married, let 'em. Do not equate that with support of gay marriage. I simply support their right to make the same mistakes that heterosexual partners make. Marriage, as it stands today, is a joke. Heterosexual marriages dissolve with such regularity it's little more than a business agreement/partnership. This country faces far more important issues than "gay marriage" today.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Agreed. I fail to see where the constitution authorizes the feds to be involved in the issue, with the exception of the separation of Church (where the concept of monogamous heterosexual marriage is rooted) and state. I feel that the 10th A applies here -- this should be a state or individual matter. Christians (like myself) and Jews who feel that monogamous heterosexual marriage is the only valid type are free to practice as such but have no business forcing other, non-believers to observe that doctrine as well.

I feel that we have a whole lot of more important issues to be solved than this. We are wasting our time, resources and political capital here. It is a sideshow, a diversion. Let's move on to more important matters.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The comparison of SSM to slavery as justification for SSM is one of the silliest self-serving straw man arguments I've ever heard.

That said there is an easy way to cure the whole dang thing, easy that is if not for the the big gubmint left.

Simply remove all advanatges to traditional marriage in federal law by not using the income tax code for social engineering of any kind. Make it a straight tax, establish a baseline poverty level for INDIVIDUALS, levy 15% on every individual or corporation for every dime in income over the baseline, and voila, 90% of the SSM argument goes away.

To solve the remaining 10% create a civil couples contract and allow all signees to receive any federal benefits that now accrue to spouses.

If the prohibition on SSM is declared unconstitutional, Jerry Lee Lewis should sue the hell out of a bunch of people.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Federal law on marriage covers a lot more ground besides income taxes.

U.S. laws dealing with marriage include:

Medicaid and SSI disability benefits
Social Security pension benefits
joint filing for bankruptcy
spousal visitation rights in hospitals and prisons
laws against spousal abuse
bereavement benefits upon death of spouse
making medical decisions for incapacitated spouse
conflict-of-interest laws
and others.

Over a thousand laws in all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

And that does not include state laws and local laws involving marriage.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Discrimination is the law applied differently for one group than another, I can use this facility, you can't as an example.

It is equally illegal in most states for a heterosexual to marry someone of the same sex as it is for a homosexual to marry someone of the same sex. That seems a pretty evenly applied law, its the same for everyone.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
That argument was refuted when laws against interracial marriage were shot down.

Proponents of anti-miscegenation laws had the same argument: Everybody--white or black--has the equal right to marry someone of their own race.

The obvious rejoinder was that no citizen should be banned from marrying the person to whom he is attracted. It's no consolation to tell a white man that he can't marry the black woman he fell in love with, but he can marry some white woman he doesn't care about.

Since the Renaissance, a major component of marriage has been *romantic love*. You can't be banned from marrying the one you love.

Your argument made more sense long ago when marriages were arranged by the parents or even by the tribes.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
But homosexuality is not ethnicity, it's a choice or preference that like an eating disorder and disorders is the result of sexual abuse or severe parental issues. The APA decided to "normalize" homosexuality based on the premise that the stigma attached to the mental disorder was emotionally harmful to people with the disorder. That smacks of money talking to me, that or enough homosexuals joined the APA to change their stance.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
How do parinas take on injured animals,alligators and other large game,,,they organize.
Same sex marriage was designed to proceed, not reproduce, and pass away quietly into old age.God's mistakes,leaving no offspring.But who am i,they already know.We are all a cocktail of fluids,chemicals and bones all an experimental home brew.
As any divorced father already knows,when one door closes,another opens.For me,i was glad for it as I'm now free to travel the world with my children.
My deepest sympathies for those who cannot conceive children of their own.
This march can be considered a minority report,3% at best.My heart goes out to them,those who cannot continue their genetic family.Their celebration of their end of too short life,complete with bag pipes.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"My heart goes out to them,those who cannot continue their genetic family."

Guess no one gave you the memo on surrogacy, sperm banking, etc.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Wow! Priests! lawyers and journalists! 130 GOP "Traitors" Drag Queens!
Women admitting they enjoy making their husbands miserable!
Yikes!
I admit I was very happy looking at the three Islands on Holy Mary Lake and seeing the trinity. Now I see the three Abraham faiths. I was very happy with just three heavens. Life was far more simple and more time to sunbath next to my private lake but now I sun bath next to my private lake in the 7th heaven
Now I have 13 heavens and this is good Egypt is ready to stamp out the gang rapes going on why Sodom was nuked Can you believe it ? 30 men raping one woman.
"Mark C. Taylor’s summary of deconstruction: “The guiding insight of deconstruction is that every structure—be it literary, psychological, social, economic, political or religious—that organizes our experience is constituted and maintained through acts of exclusion.’ [What is excluded does not disappear but always returns to unsettle every construction, no matter how secure it seems.”
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
footnote
2000 years ago Saint Paul's vision of there being 3 heavens was very confusing and but still time moves on
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Everyone in America has marriage equality.
Everyone of majority age can marry.

What's love got to do with it?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Frum Dumb
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All