Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage

[saveliberty]

No, what the federal judges had a problem with was that California had granted recognition to gay marriage and then took it away. You can't do that.

Where did they say that?

In their decision.

The two judges on Tuesday stated explicitly that they were not deciding whether there was a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry, instead ruling that the disparate treatment of married couples and domestic partners since the passage of Proposition 8 violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently,” Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt wrote in the decision. “There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.”

“All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation ‘marriage,’ ” the judge wrote, adding, “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gay men and lesbians in California.”
In his dissenting opinion, Judge N. Randy Smith wrote that the court was overreaching in nullifying a voter initiative.

The flaw here is that the government cannot demand equal protection to a religious institution. If they had applied that to civil unions, they would be correct.

 

[g5000]

Do you have some link to the section where it talks about it? I don't recall that being a basis for their ruling.

I have the decision:
www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf

See page 6.

It doesn't seem to be the crux of the decision, imo.

It is not just the crux, it is the whole biscuit. They plainly state, "We need not and do not answer the broader question in this case". The question being, "Whether under the Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry, a right that has long been enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, is an important and highly controversial question."


They state that Prop 8 is unconsitutional "because California had already committed to same-sex couples both the incidents of marriage and the official designation of ‘marriage,’ and Proposition 8’s only effect was to take away that important and legally significant designation, while leaving in place all of its incidents."

And they plainly state, "This unique and strictly limited effect of Proposition 8 allows us to address the amendment’s constitutionality on narrow grounds."

 

[saveliberty]

Marriage is a religious institution, the state should only be ruling on civil unions. This ruling takes away the dignity and status of religious peoples.

 

[FactFinder]

Isn't all that a moot point if the case goes beyond what is nationally recognized as a biased 9th circuit?

 

[freedombecki]

Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage

Actually I think government belongs out of marriage. I agree that marriage is between a man and a woman but that can conly be sanctified by God.

Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. In this case I think that is beyond Ceasar's bounds.

I think you are correct, FactFinder.

 

[del]

Marriage is a religious institution, the state should only be ruling on civil unions. This ruling takes away the dignity and status of religious peoples.

then they must not have had much to begin with

 

[saveliberty]

Marriage is a religious institution, the state should only be ruling on civil unions. This ruling takes away the dignity and status of religious peoples.

then they must not have had much to begin with

As compared to gays and lesbians?

 

[FactFinder]

Marriage is a religious institution, the state should only be ruling on civil unions. This ruling takes away the dignity and status of religious peoples.

then they must not have had much to begin with

I agree. Anyone who has to suck the teat of government to establish they are right probably are in a big stretch.

 

[del]

Marriage is a religious institution, the state should only be ruling on civil unions. This ruling takes away the dignity and status of religious peoples.

then they must not have had much to begin with

As compared to gays and lesbians?

as compared to anyone.

 

[del]

Marriage is a religious institution, the state should only be ruling on civil unions. This ruling takes away the dignity and status of religious peoples.

then they must not have had much to begin with

I agree. Anyone who has to suck the teat of government to establish they are right probably are in a big stretch.

 

[FactFinder]

then they must not have had much to begin with

I agree. Anyone who has to suck the teat of government to establish they are right probably are in a big stretch.

Well...think on it for awhile. It really is not that difficult.

 

[saveliberty]

then they must not have had much to begin with

As compared to gays and lesbians?

as compared to anyone.

Interesting when you consider all the important times in life seem to invite a religious element. Most Americans believe in God. Yet, no dignity, hmmm.

 

[Toro]

Dick Cheney Lobbying for Gay Marriage - The Daily Beast

Dick Cheney, the former U.S. vice president known for his hard right stance on almost all matters political, is taking a stand in Maryland for gay marriage. Cheney, whose daughter is openly gay, has been lobbying Maryland lawmakers as they debate whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage in the state. Cheney believes states should legalize gay marriage individually.

Cheney is for gay marriage?

Holy shit! Maybe the world IS going to end in 2012!!!

Cheney's daughter is gay.

 

[del]

I agree. Anyone who has to suck the teat of government to establish they are right probably are in a big stretch.

Well...think on it for awhile. It really is not that difficult.

why would i bother?

 

[FactFinder]

Dick Cheney Lobbying for Gay Marriage - The Daily Beast

Dick Cheney, the former U.S. vice president known for his hard right stance on almost all matters political, is taking a stand in Maryland for gay marriage. Cheney, whose daughter is openly gay, has been lobbying Maryland lawmakers as they debate whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage in the state. Cheney believes states should legalize gay marriage individually.

Cheney is for gay marriage?

Holy shit! Maybe the world IS going to end in 2012!!!

Cheney's daughter is gay.

Animals eat their own shit too. Any partakers?

 

[Darkwind]

"I am adhering to what I've said since this bill was first introduced — an issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide,"

Seems like he wants the people to make the decision. And you have a problem with this?

Yes, you cant violate anothers constitutional rights, voting like prop 8 in cali was just that.im not sure how many times this has to be told to you people, but seriously buy a clue.

Two things.

No ones rights are being violated. "The People" as in, We the People, have every right to amend our Constitution.

I don't know how it is that people can walk and chew gum at the same time if they cannot understand that basic premise.

 

[Flopper]

Dumb, dumb dumb...

U.S. News - NJ Gov. Christie vetoes same-sex marriage bill

I've always been a critic of judges who decide they are going to disregard the will of legistlatures and the populace and impose these things, but here's a case where they did it the right way, they passed a bill, and Christie the Hutt decides he's stull sucking up to be RomBot's running mate.

The governor wants voters to decide yet polls show that a majority of N.J. voters favor same sex marriage. This veto is a political statement from a governor who needs Tea Party support to move into national politics. His veto simply delays the inevitable.

NJ Gov. Christie Vetoes Gay-Marriage Bill - Bloomberg

 

[Harry Dresden]

It's called representative gov't fcs. More Pub dupe balderdash...It's referendums that have ruined California...

yea referendums voted in by Democrats you stupid troop hating asshole...

 

[saveliberty]

I wish to be called a diplomat. Diplomats have rights that I don't

 

[WorldWatcher]

Where did they say that?

In their decision.

The two judges on Tuesday stated explicitly that they were not deciding whether there was a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry, instead ruling that the disparate treatment of married couples and domestic partners since the passage of Proposition 8 violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently,” Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt wrote in the decision. “There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.”

“All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation ‘marriage,’ ” the judge wrote, adding, “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gay men and lesbians in California.”
In his dissenting opinion, Judge N. Randy Smith wrote that the court was overreaching in nullifying a voter initiative.

The flaw here is that the government cannot demand equal protection to a religious institution. If they had applied that to civil unions, they would be correct.

The flaw in your statement is that "marriage" is not a religious institution (as on only a religious institution). "Marriage" in our society exists in two distinct and separate realms: Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage: Those marriages established as a function of a religious organization. There are some religious organizations that recognize same-sex marriages, there are others that do not. There are religious organizations that don't recognize valid Civil Marriages also if the Civil Marriage occurs outside the dogma of the specific religious organization.

Civil Marriage: Civil Marriages are established under the rules and authority of civil government. Individuals can be married by a religious organization, but if they don't follow civil law, then, as it pertains to Civil Marriage - those religious marriages are not recognized for governmental purposes. A couple can be "married" in a Church/Temple/Synagogue, but if they don't obtain the requisite paperwork from the State that marriage is not valid under Civil Law.​

As soon as "marriage" was written into secular law, it was no longer simply a religious institution, it because a separate civil institution also.

If it were only a religious institution, then the government would need to recognize all religious institutions of "marriage" equally - such as Same-sex Marriages performed by religious institutions.


>>>>