Supreme Court Hears Prop. 8 Case (Full Audio)
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2024
- Gay marriage was heard before the Supreme Court, which heard arguments on the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, that defined marriage between one man and one woman. The proposition was approved by California's voters in the 2008 General Election, but struck down later by the district court.
The basic history of how the case came to the court:
Hollingsworth v. Perry (formerly Perry v. Schwarzenegger, initially, and then Perry v. Brown) is a case currently before the United States Supreme Court, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. There, a three judge appellate panel held that California's Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot initiative that amended the state constitution to allow only opposite-sex couples to marry, was unconstitutional. Lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 were filed in state and federal courts nearly immediately after the initiative's passage. In Strauss v. Horton (2009), the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 8 was a valid enactment under California law. However, in August 2010, Judge Vaughn Walker of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Proposition 8 violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judgment was stayed pending appeal. On February 7, 2012, a divided three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision of the district court, though it did so on much narrower grounds than the District Court did. On June 5, 2012, the Ninth Circuit denied a request for a rehearing en banc. The proponents of Proposition 8 appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court on July 31, 2012. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case by granting a writ of certiorari on December 7, 2012. Oral arguments were heard on March 26, 2013.
The full case:
Subscribe to The Daily Conversation
bit.ly/WZnLnd
Join the conversation on Facebook
/ thedailyconversation
Add TDC to your circles on Google+
plus.google.co...
Follow The Daily Conversation on Twitter
/ thedailyconvo
Thanks for posting this!!
You're welcome.
The state would need a form 2 b filed by the religious morality to withdraw their marriage from state files. The religious no longer conform 2 the states definition of marriage and secondly cannot lie. Amendment 1 protection of marriage and case law. Married men and women cannot participate and must suffer 4 their religious beliefs.
Mr. Cooper seems like he could use a little help:
Bottom line: Marriage is something far more than and outside of any legal contract. It is a PERSONAL agreement/recognition between the parties involved of a mutual commitment of love and devotion to and for one (or more, for you polygamists out there) another-- having to do spiritually with no other party than yourselves to dictate to you whether or not your union is spiritually and morally sound. ... (of course then you get into things (cont
.. applies as much to and no more or less to marriage as it does to any other law(s) or stipulation(s) within such law(s). So the right of the states, and (even more important;y) the PEOPLE within the states, retain the right to regulate independently the matter of marriage and the legal recognition or lack of, and would not therefore be required to recognize any marriage from any other state which does not fall within that state's own definition of marriage if it so chooses not to (cont...
... like bestiality and such.... incest......sex and marriage at different ages.....things like that.
Being that this is something apart from and outside of any legal contracts, doesn't it make more sense to leave what is the actual "definition of marriage" to the individual, if they so wish to change it, rather than to one or more government bureaucracies, at ANY level? (Remember the tenth amendment --the individual has whatever right and power and protection not taken away by the (cont..
... state or by federal law, and the state has every power of regulation and/or protection not taken away by the constitution or by federal law. And the federal govt. has every power not expressly forbidden to it by the Constitution or by their it's own law. The 14th amendment's equal protection applies as much to a ban on GM as it does a ban on marriage between different ages, or different numbers of people, or even between different species, (no seriously, "it happens in nature"). It (cont.
... recognize it. And even if we choose to go purely on popular opinion as opposed to the CONSTITUTION ITSELF, if you look at the true majority of the population, the people have already spoken, and it ain't in favor of govt. recognition of marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman, if to be a matter of state recognition at all.
If ANY two people wish to engage in any legally enacted contracts under present constitutional provisions, the states should (and currently do, (cont
... under the 10th) have the right to regulate such matters. So if a particular state DEMOCRATICALLY elects to enact contracts by which two or more people, (APART from the fact of or legitimacy of or even EXISTENCE ALTOGETHER OF ANY SAID "MARRIAGE -- iow, including even people who aren't "married"), can by regulation of the state choose to engage in with one another, then the states retain the right to do so under present law, -- to provide such contracts with whatever stipulations or (cont...
So the Supreme Court were wrong when they overturned the democratically enacted anti miscegenation law of Virginua?
...regulations they see fit.
you are discriminated dont have no power hear dont no what you where doing and i dont appreciate it why dont you live in a shelter and your children kidnapped i want a apology in person after i deal with these punks mr johnson