Gay Marriage Backers Suffer Humiliating Defeat in California

I'm not sure "humiliating defeat" quite catches it. But the 9th circuit doesn't want to create a mess when the constitutional amendment is upheld, either by them (which will surprise the hell out of me) or by the USSC.

Also, it seems that Walker's "opinion" that traditional marriage supporters don't have "standing to appeal" was shot down. Now that could be "humiliating....."

For the 9th Circus to vote against gay marriage the backers must have had a very flimsy argument. But yes I agree, the liberal activist gay judge who said "they weren't allowed to appeal" just got slapped down pretty badly. What an idiot.

Good to hear that the 9th Circuit has had a change in heart and now cares about the messes they create.

We will see...I hope this is only a short delay.

There is no defeat here, despite Apollo's hyperbolic headline. In fact, as predicted, the 9th Circuit Court placed the stay to allow time for an appeal by opponents to same-sex marriage. And, as predicted, the Court has specifically signaled that opponents must show that they have standing to even bring an appeal - which most observers think they do not have.

The stay is a defeat, despite Gerald's hyperbole. Gay marriage backers hoped to have their ceremonies rolling this week. Now they've been put off by several months. They did not want the stay to be extended; it was. That is a defeat.

Not a defeat, a speed bump.

Just more time for the opponents to continue to die off.

Five Ways to Talk to the Left About Same-Sex Marriage
This issue is going to come back to Maine very soon, and we believe it will be even more divisive than last year. The effort to wear down opposition by coming back year after year, Legislature after Legislature, court case after court case, is not a real threat to the truth about marriage. Rather, it is a test of the strength and resolve of those willing to defend God's gift to mankind.

I doubt the headline's author would have used "humiliating defeat" to describe anti-gay marriage supporters when the first judge struck down the gay marriage ban. There is going to be time and resource-consuming legal wrangling over this issue until the US comes to its senses and recognizes marriage for what it is - a legal contract between two people sanctioned by the state.

As hard as it is to express the truths about abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research to Democrats, it can be even harder to talk about homosexuality. Many people wrongly equate opposition to same-sex marriage with opposition to racial equality during the civil-rights movement, applying the emotional power of race issues to homosexuality. The conversation can become even more personal and heated if they have family or friends who are gay.

http://www.insidecatholic.com/feature/five-ways-to-talk-to-the-left-abou...

Great article!

No doubt the 9th Circus will eventually grant this special right to gays. But then it goes to the Supreme Court and that is a whole new ballgame - that's why the backers are trying this argument of "you are not allowed to appeal". Unfortunately, civil rights apply to not only gay people, but straight people too. And gay marriage opponents have as much a right to use the courts as liberals do, despite the pronoucements of some liberal activist judge in California.

Love it..."a speed bump". Same sex partners deserve equal marriage rights. Again, I believe it will be a delay...We will see.

Marriage is a "right"? You are kidding, right?

Try these:
* Marrying an already-married person is illegal. If marriage were a right, then this restriction would be unjust and should be illegal.

* All states restrict certain persons from marrying (to some degree or another): aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, children and parents, even in-laws (who aren't related by blood). These restrictions would constitute another breach of a "right" to marry whomever one chose.

* Marriage has an age of consent; there's no "age of consent" for our rights to speech and religion.

* One must pay the government a fee in order to marry. But rights are free and automatic, not available for purchase.

A right?

Love it..."a speed bump".

Just a little speed bump.

Dist: What about the second amendment? We have the right to keep and bear arms, yet that right is restricted under certain circumstances - concealed carry bans, etc. First amendment rights are also restricted: you cannot shout FIRE in a crowded theater unless there truly is a fire.

In practice, that a concept can or cannot be restricted would not seem to be a good litmus test for whether or not that concept is a right versus a privilege.

I wonder if the majority of heterosexual married couples would call marrying the one they love...a right?

No I don't consider it a right, the govt decided to make some money off a religious ceremony, basically inserting itself where it does not belong. But then again I don't consider health care, housing, cell phone, free money or food a right either.

A right? Heck no. If God designed it and the stability of modern society depends on it, I think of mine more like the frickin' draft.

I wonder if the majority of heterosexual married couples would call marrying the one they love...a right?

Marriage is not a "right." It is a commitment and an obligation.

Lefties think everything is a potential "right and benefit" for them.

A commitment, an obligation, a duty and an honor. A sacrifice, an adventure, a mission and challenge. A gift from God and a joy to undertake. A duel to the death and a state of perpetual crisis. A wonder, a mystery, an exciting roller-coaster ride and a long line to the cash register. Marriage is all these things and more... two things marriage is most defineitely not - a fairy tale nor a right. And marriage is most definitely not possible between two people of the same sex. A relationship, partnership, civil union perhaps, a contract, a deal, an arrangement, all that and more, but not a marriage.
As long as a marriage is founded on a good solid incompatibility, that marriage has a fair chance of continuing to be a happy marriage, and even a romance. GKC, ILN, “Incompatibility in Marriage,” 9-19-08

Mr. Udall:

That was pretty funny. Sadly true, but still.

Islander almost gets it, albeit be accident. The "govt decided to make some money off a religious ceremony, basically inserting itself where it does not belong," but turned what was a religious ceremony into a legally binding civil contract. If there is any doubt about this, please consider which has the legal standing to grant a divorce: a State Court or a house of worship.

Since the government provides this service, and it really is just that, this service to help two different-sex couples enter into a contract of "marriage," then it must not discriminate as to which adults can do so. If same-sex couples want to enter into this civil contract, so be it.

::

As an aside, I thought that this was pretty funny: there has been much hand wringing in Texas because a legally married lesbian couple wants to divorce in the Lone Star State, but it's constitution now defines marriage as that between a man and woman. You can see the difficulty.

Just wondering.......?

By this logic isn't the prohibition against a man marrying his sister discrimination too? Shouldn't we, by this logic, then have the "right" to marry whomever we want to marry? Just saying.

Dist,

I like your last piece above. If it was called anything else but marriage, as you suggest, there would be little objection IMHO.

But they choose to want to call it marriage as they wish to rub our noses in it.........and convince themselves that it is equal to the marriage between a man and a woman.

It is not so much the quest to obtain a "right" as it is the quest to force us to accept it is okay.

I suspect that there are millions of Americans who feel gay marriage is "'wrong". The gay political movement can use all the political tactics they can think up, and pay for, and they can haul appeals before gay activist judges and overturn laws and so on, but they cannot make it OK to the millions who stand against it.

But they will never stop trying.

WC

By this logic isn't the prohibition against a man marrying his sister discrimination too?

Why should you deny marital "rights," such as health insurance and pension, to a person's sibling?

Was it Tom C who said gay marriage was an idea that has come and gone? Better rethink that one, Tom C.

While the announcement that conservative pundit Ann Coulter agreed to headline a party for gay conservatives may have ruffled some feathers…

…Conservative Union gave sponsorship status to GOProud for the Conservative Political Action Conference, ....Glenn Beck voiced support for gay marriage and a national CNN poll found that 52 percent…agreed with the statement that “gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid.”

They went on to mention that polling shows support for bans on gay marriage is dwindling among younger voters.

Not exactly a liberal shill.

Nobody is right 100% of the time. They dropped the ball on that one.

But younger voters get older and their values will change, do young people vote much?

According the the U. S. Census in 2008, your answer is here. While it's true that the percentage of reported voting increases with age up until the age of 75+, it begins with 44.3% of the 18-24 year olds (or a total of about 12.5 million). Add in th 48.5 of the 25-34 group and that's a grand total of about 18 million young voters.

Of course, I consider anyone under 60 to be young, so your definition may vary.

And here's a question for those opposed to gay marriage -- have your values changed over the years? Were you once in favor of gay marriage? I don't have statistics for that, but my guess is the answer is "no." I don't believe this issue is like fiscal issues where some people do tend to evolve in their opinions as age sets in.

The recent release of supposedly pro-gay marriage polls was a publicity effort designed to coincide with Walker's California ruling.