The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Ninth Circuit Court Panel Rules Proposition 8 Unconstitutional

By on 2.7.12 @ 1:25PM

In a move that will shock few people, a panel of the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Proposition 8, a voter-passed California constitutional amendment affirming that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, is unconstitutional. Specifically, the court held that Prop 8 violated the Fourteenth Amendment by not offering sufficiently compelling reason for treating different classes of people differently under the law.

“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,’ which symbolizes state legitimization and social recognition of their committed relationships,” the decision reads. “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.” The judges conclude: “The Constitution does not allow for ‘laws of this sort.’”

The ruling purports to be narrow, addressing only the context of Proposition 8 itself (California already briefly had same-sex marriage, which this initiative reversed) and not the question of whether it could ever be constitutional to define marriage as a man and a woman under California law. This makes it more likely that Proposition 8 and the issue of same-sex marriage will come before the Supreme Court.

Interestingly, the court cites the 1996 Supreme Court decision Romer v. Evans as precedent. Justice Antonin Scalia said at the time that the logic of Romer demanded same-sex marriage. The ruling also comes on the same day that Rick Santorum, the most outspoken opponent of redefining marriage, is expected to have a strong showing in three Republican nominating contests.

View all comments (79) |

RJ| 2.7.12 @ 1:49PM

This was the second California ballot initiative that courts have struck down. A few months before the vote on Proposition 8, (July or August, if I recall correctly) the California Supreme Court struck down an earlier initiative and gay marriage was legal until Proposition 8 took effect (again, about a half a year or so).

I will need to read the opinion, but my initial reaction is that the definition of marriage throughout civilization has been between one man and one woman and what the court is doing is not interpreting the law, but is abusing its authority by changing the law.

Changing the definition of marriage is the job of the state legislature or public vote. California has had two public votes; the first was a big victory for the historical definition of marriage; the second was pretty close. Most people think another election would be in favor of gay marriage. A public vote would make it legitimate; this type of court ruling does not confer legitimacy. America has become a lawless country. Too many times, the government does not follow the Constitution and government's own laws. This opinion is probably another example of that trend.

Vern Crisler| 2.7.12 @ 4:14PM

Personally, I think all law based on ballot initiatives should be stricken from our legal system. They were invented by Progressives as a form of direct democracy, a way to skirt around constitutional government.

However, I'm curious as to how people who indulge in perverted behavior get to be defined as a "class," much less a class that needs to be protected.

RJ| 2.7.12 @ 4:37PM

Ballot initiatives have their problems. In California, they are needed to serve as a safety-value when the state legislature doesn't take action. The best example of this is Proposition 13. People had been complaining about escalating property tax bills for more than 10 years, yet the legislature took no action. It was the legislature's inaction which gave us Prop 13. We needed reform and could only get it through the initiative process.

Diogenes!| 2.7.12 @ 4:50PM

And now, tax cuts have bankrupted California beyond redemption.

RJ| 2.7.12 @ 5:06PM

From a long-time resident of California - It wasn't the 1978 property tax cut; it was and is the spending that has driven the state to functional bankruptcy. (E.G. Governor Davis matters worse when he spiked the government employee pensions up during the tech bubble contending that the stock market returns could handle it.)

hehehe| 2.8.12 @ 2:35AM

Fair enough. how much revenue has been lost since the property tax cut?

Diogenes!| 2.7.12 @ 4:49PM

The Constitution is only viable when it suits YOUR needs and desires? YOU FLAMER! you are a bigger FLAMER than the guys who wanna get married! At least they are honest about it!

The 14th amendment says EXACTLY that! To write a law that violates it is unAmerican. To vote against a class of people is unAmerican! To pretend that a tradition, an ancient concept or idea, a ceremony should be legal for some but not for all is UnAmerican.

Who said it, "I may disagree with you, but I'll stand next to you and defend your right to say it!" But no! Not to you and your ilk.

I bet you could pass a law in Alabama that says hanging gasoline flaming Black boys is the new State sport. Would you say that it's a state's rights issue? The principles are the same here. Which is why an unconstitutional law was struck DOWN TWICE for the same reason.

It is WRONG! 50 years ago, BLACK people could NOT vote. They can be taxed, die fighting for YOUR freedom, be drafted against their will just like a WHITE boy even, but could NOT vote.

100 years ago women could NOT vote... wanna say THAT was Constitutional? I dare you to say it to your wife. OUT LOUD! LMAO, more than once!!!! hahahahaha What would you MOM say?

150 years ago, that same black boy that is hanging on fire from that tree in Alabama because of a matter of 'State's Rights' (in your mind) was only 3/5 of a person and could be bought, sold and traded like a bushel of corn. I dare you to say that owning people (People are commodities) is right ANYWHERE in America today. Anywhere!

520 years ago, the EARTH was "provably" FLAT! until but 500 years ago, what had existed fro billions of had become "The New World".

1000 years ago, only men of noble birth could be king. Now you RED menaces proclaim Barack Obama is 'king'!!! hahaha

But about 2000 years ago, the most powerful lie ever preached was soon turned into the most powerful organization on earth. "jesus will come and save you if you believe." You don't even have to click your heels three times.

Do you REALLY think JESUS thinks your worth saving after vehemently denying love between two of his brothers? you had best hope that the reason Jesus turned Magdalene down and forgave her WASN'T that he was gay.

Missouri Dave| 2.7.12 @ 9:57PM

Homosexuality is a perversion and a sin, just look at what happened to Sodom. Being sick and perverted is not to be relegated as to a "class" of people. Prop 8 was an attempt to stand for decency, morality, and society. As we dismiss with Jesus we lose our liberty and blessings. Thanks and Merry Christmas

hehehe| 2.8.12 @ 2:39AM

They have NEVER found a remnant of Sodom or Gommorrah. the are allegorical stories told as a lesson to children. Just like the boogie man, the werewolves and vampires... to keep the kids in bed at night so parents could get some sleep!

Derek Leaberry| 2.7.12 @ 1:58PM

It will go to the Supreme Court and be overturned by a 5-4 vote. Within a few years California voters will reverse their vote on banning same sex marriages and the legal point will be moot. Perversion will rule in California as it will in about fifteen more states in the next decade. Deep down, our liberal enemies are profoundly evil.

RJ| 2.7.12 @ 2:01PM

I wouldn't count on the current Supreme Court overturning this decision. The key will be Justice Kennedy and his history on the bench regarding gay rights indicates he will probably support the outcome of the ruling if not its precise reasoning.

Diogenes!| 2.7.12 @ 4:55PM

Perhaps it is a perversion to deny love. Perhaps it is a perversion to legal standing to consumers of insurance products. Perhaps it is a perversion to be YOU!

Missouri Dave| 2.7.12 @ 10:02PM

Love seeks to do best for others and legalizing sin is not in best interest of our society and morality. God said homosexuality is an abomination, and so it is. Our Biblically illiterate society assumes evil is good, and good is evil, but then was it not foretold!!?
Thanks and Merry Christmas

hehehe| 2.8.12 @ 2:40AM

God ALSO said Newt Gingrich should have been STONEDto death! AT LEAST twice!

Hobbes| 2.7.12 @ 2:06PM

Good. Need to get the damn government out of our bedrooms. Live and let live.

Anommynous| 2.7.12 @ 2:06PM

I have an honest question for any smart lawyer who happens to read this. The court has effectively ruled here that a particular state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, correct? In this case, the state happens to be California, but if this ruling is upheld, the logic would seem to apply to all 50 states. If the SCOTUS does uphold this ruling, would this not nullify any bans on same-sex marriage throughout the country? And if this is indeed the case, then why hasn't the word gotten out that this case has wider reach than the borders of California?

I am not a lawyer, so maybe I'm not understanding this correctly.

George S| 2.7.12 @ 2:28PM

No. It violates the sensibilities of a liberal judge(s). The 14th Amendment was to prevent the unequal application of both federal and state laws to blacks. Which means that a black gay couple cannot have any more or any less consideration than a white gay couple. But it doesn't mean the states must recognize marriages of two men to a horse or a mother to her son. The standard is public policy. Californians stated their policy, the court disagreed with gay marriage but tacitly agreed on maintaining a ban on polygamy and incest by not including them in the ruling. But give it 50 years.

Anommynous| 2.7.12 @ 2:36PM

I'm fully aware that the modern interpretation of the 14th Amendment has reached far beyond the original intent. My question is about the implications of this particular ruling. I've read a few stories that state that this ruling is narrowly scoped for California, but I don't understand how that can be. A state either has a right to ban homosexual marriage or it doesn't; if it isn't allowed for California, how could it be allowed for any other state?

RJ| 2.7.12 @ 2:51PM

We can't be sure as of now because it depends on how broadly the court decides to base its decision, but you are right; there is a definite possibility that a Supreme Court ruling will apply nationally.

irmaladuce| 2.7.12 @ 3:52PM

you have hit the nail on the head here. Here is what the legal affairs writer at gay blog towleroad had to say before the decision:

"...in the Perry case, the record shows all the psychological evidence that shows that gay parents make excellent parents, that their children grow up to be just as productive as the children of heterosexual parents, and that the state's other justifications for a ban on same-sex marriage have no foundation in facts. The record is also devoid of any evidence contradicting the conclusion that marriage is not about procreation, but about an enduring and emotional union of two people in love.

A federal appellate court is limited to the record before it. It cannot make decisions based on outside information or anything not raised at trial... A positive Ninth Circuit decision, then, will not only affirm a right to marry under federal law, but it will affirm these facts and conclusions we all know to be true as a matter of federal law, and these facts can be used in other gay rights cases.

This is the main reason why Perry v. Brown is so important... No hypothetical ballot initiative to overturn Prop 8 -- even if successful! -- could help every other gay rights matter like a positive Ninth Circuit decision in Perry could. Advocates would have circuit court precedent for the true equality of gay people as a matter of fact and law, and that would play well in cases related to the Defense of Marriage Act, adoption and surrogacy, employment discrimination, federal benefits for gay service members, anti-harassment laws, and so on.

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2012/.....z1ljNwTgCo

hehehe| 2.8.12 @ 2:43AM

Thank you. But can a corrupt SCOTUS that says an engraved portrait of a dead President has the RIGHT of personhood in the for m of free speech make an honest legal decision?

Diogenes!| 2.7.12 @ 4:58PM

you are correct. And this is why so many of the minority (vehement believers in millenia of dogma) are becoming violent. Why they are willing to violate their own commandments. Why this crap must be stopped.

Kingofthenet| 2.7.12 @ 2:20PM

If it isn't religious inspired what possible reason could the STATE say is the reason they don't allow gay's to marry?

Mike 3/505| 2.7.12 @ 2:27PM

because the civil/state institution of marriage, is to give state legitimacy and sanction to to certain relationships that enhance civil society. Two adults may wish to enjoy a perversion that is unnatural...fine and good. They have every right. But, there is no obligation on the part of the state to sanctify it.

Kingofthenet| 2.7.12 @ 2:33PM

No the State can't 'sanctify' anything because it isn't a religion.In fact the State has no real 'Morals' in this area, How could it? based on what in the Constitution?

Paul McGrath| 2.7.12 @ 2:40PM

The argument against gay marriage is a secular one. The fundamental reason that there is an institution of marriage is that a male and female are biologically capable of having children. Marriage as an institution helps to protect the child.

Gay couples are not biologically capable of having children. It is that simple.

Kingofthenet| 2.7.12 @ 2:48PM

I say the PRIMARY reason for Marriage at the state level, is a Property Rights issue. After all you can have 'Common law' marriage with NO kids and just property to separate. Also if there are benefits to Marriage besides 'Protecting' kids, why not share them with everyone who could benefit?

George S| 2.7.12 @ 3:11PM

And you can do that with simple cohabitation laws; a person can name anyone as his beneficiary; or appoint a power of attorney; or to allow privilege of contract; or to put on a health insurance policy.

Why must the state give out a marriage license for that?

RJ| 2.7.12 @ 3:12PM

I view your question as one for the voters or, through their representatives, the state legislature; not the Courts because their authority limited to applying the law, not changing it.

Diogenes!| 2.7.12 @ 5:00PM

VEry exactly the point of separation of hysteria, madness, voodoo, whitchcraft, superstition, tradition and STATE. THAT's in the spirit of the Constitution, even if the wording is vague. Not ONE man knows the heart of another, certainly NOT the heart of those 2 centuries DEAD!

Derek Leaberry| 2.7.12 @ 2:54PM

Because for thousands of years mankind has treated homosexuality beneath contempt. The state should not give sanction to something dishonorable.

Kingofthenet| 2.7.12 @ 2:57PM

Well give thanks the USA doesn't base it's laws on 1000's of years of Mankind or any other silliness.

Diogenes!| 2.7.12 @ 5:04PM

Not true, Alexander the GREAT may have been 'married', but he died in the arms of his lover, or vice versa. What is dishonorable about love Derek? Exactly WHAT did CHRIST say? "Love GOD and love one another as you love yourself" period! no distinctions and no exeptions.

St Paul said, it is not what goes into the body that defiles. It is what comes out that is defiled. That could be interpreted as 'Spitting is a sin'. LMAO

Derek Leaberry| 2.7.12 @ 5:16PM

The Bible and Christianity itself is pretty clear on homosexuality and how abhorrent it is. The rubbish about Alexander's sexuality is pretty much hard to prove or disprove. However, the left is pretty good at propaganda and all of them are certainly excellent liars.

darcy| 2.7.12 @ 11:01PM

All this talk of "love" is beneath contempt. What two homosexual men feel for each other is not "love." It is EROS -- erotica, and this has nothing to do with love.

Love God? Give me a break. How old are you, Diogenes, 15? The last laugh will be on you.

You're nothing but a fly on the wall. Go away.

hehehe| 2.8.12 @ 2:45AM

The earth is flat and is the center of the universe... yeah yeah we get you Derek!

George S| 2.7.12 @ 3:06PM

It's called a compelling interest; has nothing to do with religion but everything to do with morality as a bedrock of a civil society. Such bedrocks are the foundation of laws. There is a compelling state interest to protect life, thus the people borrow from the Judeo-Christian philosophy of thou shalt not kill. Thus manslaughter laws are not religiously based per se but acknowledge the moral basis of the act of preserving life -- as does the Fifth Amendment.

The state has a compelling interest for people to marry because that encourages a family unit. Family units make a society, raising children and strengthening society. The state has a compelling interest to not allow a 40 year-old man to marry a ten year-old girl; a mother to a son; a man to five women because those go against a healthy society.

The Bible recognized that homosexuality has a destructive effect on the social bond (ask any military historian) and therefore we, as a society, said we do not recognize the sanctity of marriage being misapplied by trivializing it.

Liberals want nothing more than to remove morality because then it becomes the state that defines what is right and wrong and not the people. All made the more possible when people smugly shake their heads at quaint traditions.

Kingofthenet| 2.7.12 @ 3:21PM

Well considering this Govt. is currently RUN by Liberals, I'd imagine you don't mind if they have the 'last word' ?

Paul McGrath| 2.7.12 @ 3:30PM

I don't have a problem with a referendum by the people or laws passed by the people's representatives.

I DO have a problem with de facto law passed by unelected and unaccountable judges.

Kingofthenet| 2.7.12 @ 3:35PM

It's literally a fight over terminology. How is there a rational policy motivation for denying some people the use of a word?

Diogenes!| 2.7.12 @ 5:06PM

Did you ask any of the ROMAN centurians, or ALexander the Great perhaps? Your assumption is crap with ZERO foundation. They use the same logic to keep women out of foxholes. The truth is that a deep affection for one another is EXACTLY what has made one soldier fight to the death to save another.

Derek Leaberry| 2.7.12 @ 5:19PM

Your answer is excellent. However, it will go over the heads of the lefties who have jumped this site. Lefties not only have no belief in absolute truths, most of them would be happy to spit in the face of Christ. The late Christopher Hitchens exemplifies their way of thinking.

hehehe| 2.8.12 @ 2:46AM

There ARE no absolute truths. Lefties are more likely to recognize Christ in the street or in bar than a RED party quack would be, simply because his mind is open to it.

Paul McGrath| 2.7.12 @ 2:38PM

The people of California no longer govern themselves. They are in fact, ruled, by those who consider themselves their betters.

An appalling, but sadly not surprising, decision.

Marc Jeric| 2.7.12 @ 2:54PM

Let us continue this progress as shown us by the Communist Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Let us confer family rights to unions between man and his goat, or between man and his horse...or even between a father and his daughter...And don't forget to confer Social Security benefits to such "unions".

Kingofthenet| 2.7.12 @ 3:00PM

Most 'Red' States do approve of relatives marrying each other.

Paul McGrath| 2.7.12 @ 3:34PM

Name the "red" states and define the term "relatives." You won't, because once you do, your statement will be exposed as foolish.

And by the way, if a state wishes to confer marriage on anyone or anything or in fact, NOBODY, that's fine with me also. As long as it is the people that get to choose the nature of the society under which they wish to live.

Kingofthenet| 2.7.12 @ 4:02PM

The majority does not have the right to vote on a minorities civil rights.

Paul McGrath| 2.7.12 @ 4:17PM

How in the world is marriage between anybody a civil right? Where in the constitution do you see anything having to do with marriage?

Kingofthenet| 2.7.12 @ 4:35PM

14th Amendment, Equal Protection clause.

Derek Leaberry| 2.7.12 @ 5:22PM

Even Thad Stevens and Charles Sumner would be shocked that the 14th Amendment would be used to pass a "right" to sodomite marriage.

Diogenes!| 2.7.12 @ 5:09PM

it is also fine within the law. Provided that you don't exclude a class of people doing it. They tried that with excluding blacks. WOld LOVE to see some brave RED try to exclude Asians or Latinos and keep his seat after the next election.

Diogenes!| 2.7.12 @ 5:06PM

You have a thing for GOATS we don't know about?

Kingofthenet| 2.7.12 @ 3:09PM

The 'State' isn't just some Radial Far-Right American-Taliban in Congress like Michelle Bachmann, it's also made up of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and the President. They have VERY different views on these moral issues, so rather than consult the 'good book' i.e. The Koran how about we look to JUST the Constitution?

Dr. X| 2.7.12 @ 3:59PM

Legal arguments mean nothing. Referenda and public voting means nothing. Federalism means nothing. States' rights do not exist.

We don't live in a constitutional republic any more. We haven't for five decades. We live under a dictatorship of the judiciary.

The more you think about this, the more you'll recognize how true it is.

RJ| 2.7.12 @ 4:12PM

There is much truth to what you have said. Our society has become lawless where the government no longer obeys the Constitution nor its own laws. The Executive Branch is increasingly dictatorial and the courts are increasingly political.

Diogenes!| 2.7.12 @ 5:11PM

SO, should we have Obama do as Charles the II in 1845? Close the Parlament? Pad lock the courts? It'd be cheaper to tunnel under their bottled water supplier and pee in the pool!

Kingofthenet| 2.7.12 @ 4:14PM

It amazes me how some people don't get the fact that the role of government is not to uphold the will of the majority, but to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.
Our founders got that, but somewhere since the founding of this country, that civics lesson was forgotten.
In a country founded on the basic freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the 14th Amendment guarantees that the rights and benefits afforded to one couple in a loving committed relationship shall not be denied to another couple in a loving committed relationship. That is all this is about. Nothing more, nothing less!

RJ| 2.7.12 @ 4:46PM

I like your first paragraph. Much of modern, big government tramples upon the rights of the minority and the people in general.

Diogenes!| 2.7.12 @ 5:13PM

The lovings went to JAIL in Virginia in 1957 because they were a mixed race couple and THAT was a crime. Any KKK'ers out there today wanna stepup and speak their mind on THAT? Newt? Ron? Rick? Anyone???

Dr. X| 2.7.12 @ 6:29PM

So... does the 14th Amendment require that you have the right to marry your sister, or your mother, if you happily love her?

Homosexuality is a sickness and a perversion. It is an abomination.The Constitution was not written to protect perversion and deviancy. The Constitution was not written so that men could have the "right" to insert their penises in the excretory organs of other men.

hehehe| 2.8.12 @ 2:52AM

Legal means are not for the regulation of morality. They are for the definition of respect for your fellows. You are just as welcome to keep your virginity, boink your wife ONLY when you want to make a baby... BUT... how do you feel about ME taking away that right? GOD gives you the biblical right to give your maid to your husband. What if you lost that right? God also demands that yo marry your brother's widow AND father her children to keep his bloodline flowing. CAN you mandate THAT with the 14th Amendment?

For the same reason YOU have no right to infringe upon anyone else's. The law only protects you from Me infringing upon YOUR freedom to worship as you please. It DOES NOT ALLOW you to impede My worship.

tonypal| 2.7.12 @ 10:40PM

No it's not. The role of government is maintain the civil society and protect the rights of everyone. When you start your post with such drivel on such a fundamental point, the rest of what you say is immaterial.
As for this notion that homosexuals are somehow being denied a right reserved for others, please point to the passage in the US Constitution that guarantees the right of heterosexuals to marry. I spent 3 year in law school studying the Constitution and never came across anything to do with marriage. Oh right, substantive due process, a means to get around everything. Never mind.

Paul McGrath| 2.7.12 @ 4:28PM

The role of the government is to act upon the will of the people. It is prevented by the Constitution to enact laws against certain things, primarily freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to assemble. The Constitution does not mention the word "marriage." Therefore, the people are free to determine what laws they wish to pass regarding marriage.

The fourteenth amendment was enacted to protect the rights of black people. Period. The people who wrote it, debated it, and enacted it did so without any thought whatsoever to gay marriage.

To argue otherwise is delusional.

Kingofthenet| 2.7.12 @ 4:36PM

Equal Protection ONLY applies to Blacks?

Paul McGrath| 2.7.12 @ 5:10PM

I did not say that. The 14th amendment states, in part, that the state can not, "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I know you on the left love to bandy about the phrase, "equal protection," but what you fail to consider is the phrase which follows it: "of the laws."

If the "law" is that marriage is between a man and a woman, then nobody's rights--as defined by those enumerated in the constitution--are being denied.

Diogenes!| 2.7.12 @ 5:15PM

CLever misinterpretation. When does the law become more important than the people it is created to serve? It's a prelaw concept. You don't pass THAT, you don't get Torts 101.

tonypal| 2.7.12 @ 10:44PM

Gee pre law, another thing I missed in law school. That sounds like the kind of course someone who never actually went to law school might take in undergrad. Perhaps you're a paralegal. Between "pre-law" and the invisible right of heterosexuals to marry, I'm thinking of asking for my money back.

hehehe| 2.8.12 @ 2:54AM

YOu probably should, certainly for the Constitutional law classes. Pre law is an undergrad course that explains WHAT law school is about Tony. What website did you get your bar license from again?

Kingofthenet| 2.7.12 @ 5:39PM

If the "law" is that marriage is between a man and a woman, then nobody's rights--as defined by those enumerated in the constitution--are being denied.

If the "law" is that marriage is between a white and a white, then nobody's rights--as defined by those enumerated in the constitution--are being denied.

Paul McGrath| 2.7.12 @ 6:49PM

No, King, you're wrong. We are talking about the institution of marriage from a biological standpoint--a procreative standpoint, to dredge up the legal term--not a racial standpoint. You are obviously and intentionally muddying the issue.

If you deny the right of a black man to marry a white woman, you are denying their right to marry based on the color of their skin, not their ability or inability to produce children. Which, again, is the reason the institution of marriage exists in the first place.

tonypal| 2.7.12 @ 10:49PM

Paul, forget trying to make this point. Liberals don't get it. Anything that has even a hint of biblical context is to be rejected.
The 14th amendment argument is bogus for the reason I keep bringing up. Again, where does a fundamental right to heterosexual marriage exist?

Paul McGrath| 2.7.12 @ 11:50PM

I agree Tony. If a state decided to ban marriage altogether, it would be perfectly within its rights to do so. There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage; therefore, the people are free to make laws regarding it.

And, as you know, they do. Every state has rules and regulations regarding the marriage of minors. Incest is banned in all states. In some states, first cousins can't marry. In all states, polygamy is banned. Don't polygamists, first-cousins, pedophiles, minors, and brothers and sisters have the right to have their love for each other publicly legitimized, and indeed, sanctified by society?

OF course not. We truly have become an absurd society.

hehehe| 2.8.12 @ 2:57AM

But Paul, you are arguing a legal point with a medical definition. MANY marriages between men and women are about property, status or money. They are NEVER intended to produce embryos. (What a GREAT name for a kids cereal!)

beebop2| 2.7.12 @ 5:44PM

oh goodie. we're all fags now.

PCP Smoker| 2.7.12 @ 9:05PM

Perhaps we can introduce sharia into this country. Time to clean up our culture. Let's sweep these homosexuals. It's time.

hehehe| 2.8.12 @ 3:00AM

EXactly! What the KKK wants is sharia law on this point and on the abortion issue. The Khristian Konspiracy would choose to deny the living rights and enforce a cultural ideology, further denying freedom, of speech (here, let Me wrap a dollar bill around My erection!), of worship, of action, of assembly, and of religion because they can NOT abide FREEDOM at all.

Oldefarte| 2.8.12 @ 12:08AM

This ruling simply defines how MORALLY PERVERTED that this nation has become due to the creeping evolution of radical liberalism. We have to reverse course in November if we are to survive as a nation!!!!!!!!

hehehe| 2.8.12 @ 3:05AM

So Farte, move if you don't like America any more. DON't go to gay bars, gay churches, gay movies or read gay books. you have you freedom to NOT do anything you want.

And your GOD's WILL bullshit is exactly that. GOD's will is expressed by HIS action on these issues. He does NOTHING, because he IS nothing! only an ancient book of stories to teach a history and a philosophy to children of a minute and comparatively insignificant tribe of thieves and vandals.

It is the eternal Ponzi Scheme. Forever promising, never delivering, always asking for another investment of even more and more faith.
Enjoy your heaven. But leave Me to Mine or sTOP lying about being a Patriot or an American.

More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/07/ninth-circuit-court-panel-rule

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

State Department: Iran Has Soldiers in Syria

Kaylin Bugos | 3:12PM

Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong

Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|132 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|75 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|12 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|29 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|23 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.