Supreme Court Extends Marriage Equality

[Webster]

....what is with Republicans and wasting taxpayer dollars?

WASHINGTON — Idaho Gov. Butch Otter on Tuesday night asked the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to vote to reconsider the recent decision of a three-judge panel of the circuit that Idaho’s ban on same-sex couples marriages is unconstitutional.

“This issue is also exceptional because, as a practical matter, redefining marriage by judicial fiat will undermine these social norms and likely lead to significant long-term harms to Idaho and its citizens, especially the children of heterosexuals,” lawyers for Otter wrote in requesting en banc, or a full court, review of the decision.

In a broad attack on the decision of the three-judge panel that was written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, Otter’s lawyers, including Gene Schaerr, argued that the 9th Circuit’s opinion “appears to be judicial policymaking masquerading as law.” Calling it “bad law,” Otter’s lawyers wrote that the decision conflicts with “numerous decisions of this Court, other circuits and the Supreme Court.”

They also attacked the decision as “even worse policy,” writing that it “creat[es] enormous risks to Idaho’s present and future children—including serious risks of increased fatherlessness, reduced parental financial and emotional support, increased crime, and greater psychological problems—with their attendant costs to Idaho and its citizens.”

In most federal circuits, an en banc request means that the full court would vote on whether to rehear the case and, if a majority votes for rehearing, all the judges would then rehear the case.

Because the 9th Circuit is so large — with 29 active judges — it has instituted a “limited en banc” procedure. If the judges vote for rehearing, 11 judges, not all 29, would hear the case. Under the rules, the “limited en banc” rehearing “shall consist of the Chief Judge of this circuit and 10 additional judges.”(Buzzfeed)

 

[+paradox]

so, this governor is saying that same-sex marriages will destroy the children?

like same-sex couples are something brand new or something? like same-sex couple have never been around or that same-sex couples with children never existed before and don't exist now...

there's no basis on the governor's claims...

people are going to be gay no matter what the law...

claiming that same-sex marriages will cause harm is idiotic at it's best...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

what a crack-pot judge...

saying that same-sex marriages will lead to people wanting the option of marrying their family members is beyond stupid...

Not really there are groups already demanding government recognizes people marrying there pets. If people want to marry their pets more power to them. Just not government recognition which includes freebies.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

....what is with Republicans and wasting taxpayer dollars?

WASHINGTON — Idaho Gov. Butch Otter on Tuesday night asked the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to vote to reconsider the recent decision of a three-judge panel of the circuit that Idaho’s ban on same-sex couples marriages is unconstitutional.

“This issue is also exceptional because, as a practical matter, redefining marriage by judicial fiat will undermine these social norms and likely lead to significant long-term harms to Idaho and its citizens, especially the children of heterosexuals,” lawyers for Otter wrote in requesting en banc, or a full court, review of the decision.

In a broad attack on the decision of the three-judge panel that was written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, Otter’s lawyers, including Gene Schaerr, argued that the 9th Circuit’s opinion “appears to be judicial policymaking masquerading as law.” Calling it “bad law,” Otter’s lawyers wrote that the decision conflicts with “numerous decisions of this Court, other circuits and the Supreme Court.”

They also attacked the decision as “even worse policy,” writing that it “creat[es] enormous risks to Idaho’s present and future children—including serious risks of increased fatherlessness, reduced parental financial and emotional support, increased crime, and greater psychological problems—with their attendant costs to Idaho and its citizens.”

In most federal circuits, an en banc request means that the full court would vote on whether to rehear the case and, if a majority votes for rehearing, all the judges would then rehear the case.

Because the 9th Circuit is so large — with 29 active judges — it has instituted a “limited en banc” procedure. If the judges vote for rehearing, 11 judges, not all 29, would hear the case. Under the rules, the “limited en banc” rehearing “shall consist of the Chief Judge of this circuit and 10 additional judges.”(Buzzfeed)

Have no problem with same sex couples adopting kids so I do not agree with his analysis. But I do have to support his fight for what I have mentioned previously.

 

[+paradox]

you mean the fight to suppress and deny americans a right that others have?

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

Not really there are groups already demanding government recognizes people marrying there pets. If people want to marry their pets more power to them. Just not government recognition which includes freebies.

Isn't a marriage between two consenting adults? How does an animal fall into that category? They don't even know what the concept of marriage is.

 

[+paradox]

Not really there are groups already demanding government recognizes people marrying there pets. If people want to marry their pets more power to them. Just not government recognition which includes freebies.

Isn't a marriage between two consenting adults? How does an animal fall into that category? They don't even know what the concept of marriage is.

people that are against same-sex marriage love to try to make up arguments to try to justify not letting them get legally married... ignorance is bliss as well as denying people right to marry another adult human... so they try to make up things like oh, what about people demanding to get married to a tree? yet that type of argument is null and void since it's not even close to be the same thing as what the same-sex issue issue is...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Not really there are groups already demanding government recognizes people marrying there pets. If people want to marry their pets more power to them. Just not government recognition which includes freebies.

Isn't a marriage between two consenting adults? How does an animal fall into that category? They don't even know what the concept of marriage is.

I am just telling you what is happening. I dont care what or who people want to marry as long as tax dollars are not used.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Not really there are groups already demanding government recognizes people marrying there pets. If people want to marry their pets more power to them. Just not government recognition which includes freebies.

Isn't a marriage between two consenting adults? How does an animal fall into that category? They don't even know what the concept of marriage is.

people that are against same-sex marriage love to try to make up arguments to try to justify not letting them get legally married... ignorance is bliss as well as denying people right to marry another adult human... so they try to make up things like oh, what about people demanding to get married to a tree? yet that type of argument is null and void since it's not even close to be the same thing as what the same-sex issue issue is...

I am not against same sex marriage. You can go and get married today in any state of your choosing. No one is stopping anyone from getting married. I am against government recognized marriage that uses tax dollars.


Nothing made up.

California Allows First-Ever State Recognized Human-Animal Marriage. San Francisco, CA — On Monday history was made at the Chapel of Our Lady at the Presidio in San Francisco as the first-ever state recognized human-animal marriage took place.

Local resident 35-year-old Paul Horner was the groom during the ceremony. Joining him was his faithful dog Mac who is 36-years-old in dog years. Mac also decided to be the groom but ended up wearing a white veil at the last moment.

Father McHale who officiated the outdoor wedding told reporters he was extremely happy to be a part of this joyous moment of life. “This is the definition of true love my friends. There is nothing more sacred than the bond between a man and his faithful dog,” McHale said. “Now, since it is recognized as a legally binding marriage in the state of California, Mr. Horner and Mac will have all the same tax benefits and everything else coming to them that a regular married couple would receive. It’s a fantastic day to be alive!”

So how could this have happened?

In the book of California’s State Laws and Regulations there is a little known law that was passed as the state was first forming in 1850. According to article 155, paragraph 10, it clearly states:

If a man and a man can get married and a woman and a woman can get married, if ever comes that day, then a human and animal will have the exact same rights to marriage in every eye of the law. God help us if this ever is to happen! http://nationalreport.net/california-allows-first-ever-state-recognized-human-animal-marriage/

 

[Webster]

...ah, someone should remind Sen. Berger that public officials don't get to choose what laws they wish to enforce...

Since marriage equality’s arrival in North Carolina this month, at least two magistrates have resigned from their roles in the state judicial system to avoid having to officiate marriages for same-sex couples. This week, Senate Leader Phil Berger (R) said he will introduce legislation that allows officiants to refuse to perform marriages that violate their religious beliefs.

According to Berger, who is continuing to fight the marriage equality ruling with House Speaker and Senate candidate Thom Tillis (R), “The court’s expansion of the freedoms of some should not violate the well-recognized constitutional rights of others.” He doesn’t believe complying with marriage equality should “require our state employees to compromise their core religious beliefs and First Amendment rights in order to protect their livelihoods.”

In his resignation letter, Rockingham County Magistrate John Kallam, Jr. said that he believes marrying same-sex couples “would desecrate a holy Institution established by God Himself.” Swain County Magistrate Judge Gilbert Breedlove said that he resigned because performing a same-sex marriage “was just something I couldn’t do because of my religious beliefs.” According to his reading of the Bible, “marriage is between a man and a wife; any other type of sexual activity other than that is what is defined as fornication.”

The North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts has warned magistrates that their oath of office requires them to fulfill their duties for any couple with a valid marriage license. Alamance County Chief District Court Judge Jim Robertson similarly instructed all magistrates in the county to perform all valid marriages.

In the first days after the marriage equality ruling, a Pasquotank magistrate refused to perform a same-sex marriage earlier this month, but so far has not yet been disciplined. The couple returned the following day and were married by a different magistrate.
Berger is not the only one who believes taxpayer-funded magistrates should be free to discriminate. The North Carolina Values Coalition, which helped pass Amendment One banning the recognition of same-sex unions in the state’s Constitution, is also encouraging magistrates to refuse to marry same-sex couples.

The coalition references a letter from the anti-LGBT Alliance Defending Freedom, which asserts that if the state does not accommodate magistrates unwilling to perform their duties, it “suggests an unconstitutional, discriminatory intent on the part of the state or others demanding that the official violate their conscience.” The Associated Press notes that in 1977, a similar conflict arose when two Forsyth County magistrates refused to marry a black man and white woman.

Chris Sgro, executive director of Equality NC, responded that “Sen. Berger continues to waste taxpayer dollars and ignore the real issues of the day” when what’s really at stake is simply “employees of the State of North Carolina doing their jobs.”(Think Progress)

Sen. Berger, shut the hell up...and magristrates, do your damn job or get the hell out!

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

I am against government recognized marriage

Hello? You're legally married in a govt recognized marriage yourself. Come back and preach that when you're not in one.


Also what are these freebies? Everyone I've ever known didn't become more financially well off after getting married. They're just as broke as they always were. Doesn't seem like people are in it for financial gain because there is none.

 

[+paradox]

...ah, someone should remind Sen. Berger that public officials don't get to choose what laws they wish to enforce...

Since marriage equality’s arrival in North Carolina this month, at least two magistrates have resigned from their roles in the state judicial system to avoid having to officiate marriages for same-sex couples. This week, Senate Leader Phil Berger (R) said he will introduce legislation that allows officiants to refuse to perform marriages that violate their religious beliefs.

According to Berger, who is continuing to fight the marriage equality ruling with House Speaker and Senate candidate Thom Tillis (R), “The court’s expansion of the freedoms of some should not violate the well-recognized constitutional rights of others.” He doesn’t believe complying with marriage equality should “require our state employees to compromise their core religious beliefs and First Amendment rights in order to protect their livelihoods.”

In his resignation letter, Rockingham County Magistrate John Kallam, Jr. said that he believes marrying same-sex couples “would desecrate a holy Institution established by God Himself.” Swain County Magistrate Judge Gilbert Breedlove said that he resigned because performing a same-sex marriage “was just something I couldn’t do because of my religious beliefs.” According to his reading of the Bible, “marriage is between a man and a wife; any other type of sexual activity other than that is what is defined as fornication.”

The North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts has warned magistrates that their oath of office requires them to fulfill their duties for any couple with a valid marriage license. Alamance County Chief District Court Judge Jim Robertson similarly instructed all magistrates in the county to perform all valid marriages.

In the first days after the marriage equality ruling, a Pasquotank magistrate refused to perform a same-sex marriage earlier this month, but so far has not yet been disciplined. The couple returned the following day and were married by a different magistrate.
Berger is not the only one who believes taxpayer-funded magistrates should be free to discriminate. The North Carolina Values Coalition, which helped pass Amendment One banning the recognition of same-sex unions in the state’s Constitution, is also encouraging magistrates to refuse to marry same-sex couples.

The coalition references a letter from the anti-LGBT Alliance Defending Freedom, which asserts that if the state does not accommodate magistrates unwilling to perform their duties, it “suggests an unconstitutional, discriminatory intent on the part of the state or others demanding that the official violate their conscience.” The Associated Press notes that in 1977, a similar conflict arose when two Forsyth County magistrates refused to marry a black man and white woman.

Chris Sgro, executive director of Equality NC, responded that “Sen. Berger continues to waste taxpayer dollars and ignore the real issues of the day” when what’s really at stake is simply “employees of the State of North Carolina doing their jobs.”(Think Progress)

Sen. Berger, shut the hell up...and magristrates, do your damn job or get the hell out!

this is so stupid...

if you get a job in the government, your religious beliefs are null and void when it comes to doing your job, and if you don't like going against your religion or beliefs by doing your job in the government then resign and find another job... people these days... *facepalms*

 

[+paradox]

I am against government recognized marriage

Hello? You're legally married in a govt recognized marriage yourself. Come back and preach that when you're not in one.


Also what are these freebies? Everyone I've ever known didn't become more financially well off after getting married. They're just as broke as they always were. Doesn't seem like people are in it for financial gain because there is none.

instead of him crying about freebies and marriages, he should be crying about freebies and corporations...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

I am against government recognized marriage

Hello? You're legally married in a govt recognized marriage yourself. Come back and preach that when you're not in one.


Also what are these freebies? Everyone I've ever known didn't become more financially well off after getting married. They're just as broke as they always were. Doesn't seem like people are in it for financial gain because there is none.

And I have explained on a few occasions in this topic.

And go back and look at the link I think was justice provided and you will see all the money being put into marriage because of government.

 

[+paradox]

it's not that the government is putting "monies" into marriages...

it's more of marriage rights that have certain rights that has nothing to do with money and others are about tax... so no, the government is not sending money to married people like how you're trying to make it out to be...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

it's not that the government is putting "monies" into marriages...

it's more of marriage rights that have certain rights that has nothing to do with money and others are about tax... so no, the government is not sending money to married people like how you're trying to make it out to be...

No it's not more about marriage rights. the link provided above on government benefits shows it clearly. If the government wanted to be about something else then money they could have simply put in protections for couples who decide they are making a commitment to each other. Plus most of those rights for gay unions were already being recognized in most states.

 

[+paradox]

okay, so tell me a few examples of how married couples get free money...

one corporation got more free money than all married couples combined...

 

[Dee]

I am against government recognized marriage

Hello? You're legally married in a govt recognized marriage yourself. Come back and preach that when you're not in one.


Also what are these freebies? Everyone I've ever known didn't become more financially well off after getting married. They're just as broke as they always were. Doesn't seem like people are in it for financial gain because there is none.

Well, at least none worth getting MARRIED for. xD But yes, Nebulous, you're right. I know several people who went through the process of getting married, but it was never ever because they got "benefits". It was mainly out of love or a perceived love at the time. Some are still married, some aren't, but they're just as bad/well off as they were before, and the marriage either added debt or didn't do anything to alleviate it. Where are the benefits going? Where are they coming from? Why aren't these married couples being benefited by their marriage status?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

okay, so tell me a few examples of how married couples get free money...

Here is the link that I believe you provided. http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples
It starts with a long list of benefits for social security. Then a huge list about taxes.

one corporation got more free money than all married couples combined...

So? Thats a different story and a different fight.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Well, at least none worth getting MARRIED for. xD But yes, Nebulous, you're right. I know several people who went through the process of getting married, but it was never ever because they got "benefits". It was mainly out of love or a perceived love at the time. Some are still married, some aren't, but they're just as bad/well off as they were before, and the marriage either added debt or didn't do anything to alleviate it. Where are the benefits going? Where are they coming from? Why aren't these married couples being benefited by their marriage status?

And I will repeat what I wrote before. I think government has done a good job of brain washing on people decade's after decade's made to believe the only way a person can get married is if government somehow endorses it. So people do marry for love and not benefits.

But just because you are getting government freebies does not mean that it fixes poor management skill in marriage.

Where many gays have been convinced and learned that they are missing out on the tax payers freebies others are getting.