• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Montana could lose Same Sex Marriage Ban

A

Anonymous

Guest
In support of momentous acts of self-determination
by: Jay Stevens
Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 21:20:04 PM MDT
You probably already know, but Reagan-appointee federal judge Vaughn Walker ruled that California Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages, unconstitutional. Slate's Dahlia Lithwick has an excellent analysis of Walker's opinion:

Among his most notable determinations of fact, Walker finds: states have long discriminated in matters of who can marry; marital status affects immigration, citizenship, tax policy, property and inheritance rules, and benefits programs; that individuals do not choose their own sexual orientation; California law encourages gay couples to become parents; domestic partnership is a second-class legal status; permitting same-sex couples to marry does not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, or otherwise screw around. He found that it benefits the children of gay parents to have them be married and that the gender of a child's parent is not a factor in a child's adjustment. He found that Prop 8 puts the force of law behind a social stigma and that the entirety of the Prop 8 campaign relied on instilling fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay....He found that stereotypes targeting gays and lesbians have resulted in terrible disadvantages for them and that the Prop 8 campaign traded on those stereotypes.
And then Walker turned to his conclusions of law, finding that under both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses:


Code:
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.


Simply put, because the state is involved in marriage and confers advantages on married couples, it cannot discriminate against same-sex couples because there's no compelling interest for the state to do so. And if the SCOTUS upholds Walker's ruling, Montana's constitutional same-sex ban will be deemed unconstitutional.

In reading up on Judge Walker- who is labeled an "independent conservative"- and some of his rulings/beliefs it appears Reagan appointed a Libertarian to the Federal Bench.....
 

Mike

Well-known member
There should be no need for a ban on same sex marriage.

If there was.......................

Next thing you know, there will be a need to ban marriage between brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, etc. You get the drift.
 

Bullhauler

Well-known member
Mike said:
There should be no need for a ban on same sex marriage.

If there was.......................

Next thing you know, there will be a need to ban marriage between brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, etc. You get the drift.

You forgot about first cousins. Isn't Alabama one of the few states where that is legal?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Section 30-1-19
Marriage, recognition thereof, between persons of the same sex prohibited.
(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the "Alabama Marriage Protection Act."

(b) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting the unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state.

(c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which is recognized by the state as a civil contract.

(d) No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex.

(e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.

(Act 98-500, §§1, 2.)
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Bullhauler said:
Mike said:
There should be no need for a ban on same sex marriage.

If there was.......................

Next thing you know, there will be a need to ban marriage between brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, etc. You get the drift.

You forgot about first cousins. Isn't Alabama one of the few states where that is legal?

I thought you didn't read Mike's posts. :roll:

Was this guy really appointed by Reagan?

On September 7, 1989, Walker was nominated by President George H. W. Bush to the seat on the federal district court vacated by Spencer M. Williams.[1] Walker was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on November 21, 1989, on unanimous consent and received commission on November 27, 1989.


Walker's original nomination to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987 stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics".[4] Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his perceived "insensitivity" to gays and the poor. Years later, the San Francisco Chronicle noted the irony of their opposition given his sexual orientation.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_R._Walker




In 2010, the San Francisco Chronicle reported it is an 'open secret' that Walker is gay.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTL#ixzz0esRGmxwJ
 

hopalong

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Bullhauler said:
[marriage.

If there was.......................

Next thing you know, there will be a need to ban marriage between brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, etc. You get the drift.

You forgot about first cousins. Isn't Alabama one of the few states where that is legal?

I thought you didn't read Mike's posts. :roll:


[[/quote]

He doesn't admit to it unless it suits him,
Remind you of anyone else? :wink: :wink: :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
When Brown is running for Governor of a State that voted to ban same sex marriage was it smart of him to speak up and file papers to have the ban lifted by the judge that put a stay on his own ruling so the ban would not be lifted? Has he hurt his chances to win a majority?
 

hiptfarms

Active member
This country was founded on the priciples of securing freedoms- not on restricting them. Marriage is a civil union and since all citizens of this country are supposed to be equal and free, marriage should be available to any citizen who is of age and wishing to enter into it of their own free will.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Well, if we are going to allow gays to marry and enjoy the benefits, we may as well open the whole can of worms. If a gay state employ marries, then that means my tax dollars that help pay for his/her wage and benefits will be extended to include his/ her partners benefits. So in a roundabout way I'm supporting their choices and lifestyles. OK fine, but let's go further. Let's allow plural marriage. I'm not really a fan of this either, but some people are. As a matter of fact one group of people in this country had to denounce this practice in order for their area of the country to become a state. How can this be any different than gay marriage. When will it stop? Will we someday allow a person to marry their pet? Who are we to say what others can do in the privacy of their own home? Keep chiseling away folks and someday you will wakeup wondering where in the hell you are.
 

hiptfarms

Active member
Enough with the "whole can of worms" argument. The 10 percent of the population that is gay is paying taxes and helping support the schools your children attend, the roads you drive on, and the government services you enjoy. They are your neghbors, your coworkers and even your family members. They aren't the polgymous cult members that are subjegating multiple young girls into "marriages" through brainwashing them from the time they are born. Last I checked pets could not give consent for marriage or anything else. If they could there would probably be a whole lot less neuter surgeries going on at the local vets offices.

I say if you're against same sex marriages then DONT have one!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
And the rest of us are paying the other 90% taxes that support the roads the and the schools of this country. It has been voted against in just about every state that it has came up. To legalize it is to say that that is an acceptable societal behavior. In some of the more liberal states it is already being taught to grade school children. I just heard about a book being used in some schools called "My Two Mommies". In most states where gay marriage has been an issue a majority of voters have said that they don't want their kids exposed to this stuff or taught this crap. So what if 10% are gay and paying taxes. That means 90% ARE NOT gay and paying taxes. Last time I checked this was a democratic republic and the majority is against gay marriage. You may not like the analogies I used earlier but the fact remains that the fringe will always try to find sympathy for their cause and try to justify themselves. This country was founded on a set of principles set forth by the majority. This may not be the best system but it's the system we have.
 

hiptfarms

Active member
90 percent of the population does not necessarily equate to 90 percent of the tax base. On average, gays are better educate and higher paid than their neighbors. And since the tax law gives significant benefits to married couples filing jointly, gay couples a required to pay significantly higher taxes.

By the way, I can assure you that the vast majority of the south did not agree with the emancipation of the majority of their own poulation before
the War of Northern Agression. That does not mean that slavery should
have been upheld simply because the White slave owners wanted it.

Obviously we are not going to sway each other's opinions. I am thus not going to waste any more time replying. I have far too much work to do around my farm. There's fencing and barn building waiting on
me and unfortunately I don't have anybody else - gay or straight- to help get it done.
[/list]
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
hiptfarms said:
90 percent of the population does not necessarily equate to 90 percent of the tax base. On average, gays are better educate and higher paid than their neighbors. And since the tax law gives significant benefits to married couples filing jointly, gay couples a required to pay significantly higher taxes.

By the way, I can assure you that the vast majority of the south did not agree with the emancipation of the majority of their own poulation before
the War of Northern Agression. That does not mean that slavery should
have been upheld simply because the White slave owners wanted it.

Obviously we are not going to sway each other's opinions. I am thus not going to waste any more time replying. I have far too much work to do around my farm. There's fencing and barn building waiting on
me and unfortunately I don't have anybody else - gay or straight- to help get it done.
[/list]


the majority of people are not against Gays having some sort of civil union, just not a "marriage"

Marriages are not seen as something the government created, but the church.

Despite a majority opposing gay marriage specifically, most believe there should be some form of legal recognition for same-sex marriages (66 percent).

Thirty-seven percent of voters think gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry legally, up from 33 percent in 2009 and 20 percent in 2004.

Another 29 percent support allowing a "legal partnership" similar to but not called marriage. About one in four think there should be no legal recognition given to gay and lesbian relationships (28 percent).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/13/fox-news-poll-gay-marriage-immigration-wikileaks/
 

hiptfarms

Active member
hiptfarms said:
90 percent of the population does not necessarily equate to 90 percent of the tax base. On average, gays are better educate and higher paid than their neighbors.
[]

Obviously I meant EDUCATED not educate. Sometimes my iPhone takes over and edits for me. I guess it thinks it's smarter than I am and apparently it is since I didn't cach the mistake til it was too late!
 

hiptfarms

Active member
hiptfarms said:
90 percent of the population does not necessarily equate to 90 percent of the tax base. On average, gays are better educate and higher paid than their neighbors.
[]

Obviously I meant EDUCATED not educate. Sometimes my iPhone takes over and edits for me. I guess it thinks it's smarter than I am and apparently it is since I didn't cach the mistake til it was too late!
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
hiptfarms said:
hiptfarms said:
90 percent of the population does not necessarily equate to 90 percent of the tax base. On average, gays are better educate and higher paid than their neighbors.
[]

Obviously I meant EDUCATED not educate. Sometimes my iPhone takes over and edits for me. I guess it thinks it's smarter than I am and apparently it is since I didn't cach the mistake til it was too late!

It seems that sometimes your iPhone thinks it also needs to post twice. :lol:
 

MoGal

Well-known member
I guess this is what saddens me the most..... the moral and spiritual decline of this nation.

A few weeks ago, I read the "Book of Jasher" (Yasher) and I found it very interesting. For the last several months, God has been showing me that "judges" who rule over you make rulings that the people would never vote in and they overrule the people's vote....... this is not right and this brings judgment upon a nation especially when it is ungodly.

Sodom and Gomorrah and the other 2 towns destroyed (Adma and Zebain) were destroyed because of the "acceptance" of homosexuality.
The "judges" who ruled over these towns decided that men could put beds out in the streets and have sex with strangers. Same sex relations curse the city. Zoar didn't have a judge to pass such a law and that is why Lot could go there.

Unless this country repents and puts God back at the head of this nation, there will be severe judgment coming upon this nation. We must do something about the supreme court judges who make rulings against the people's wishes.
 
Top