9th Circuit Affirms: Prop 8 Unconstitutional!

[_Jaybear]

Children growing up in homes thinking homosexuality is okay and lacking proper male and female role models.

Parents are free to teach their children that homosexuality is immoral or its "okay."
Reversing prop 8 will just make your job harder, because you have to teach against the reality of open committed, loving and married gay couples.

... or easier because of the reality of gay debauchery spilling out into the streets at these gay weddings.

As we have also shown, homosexuality presents significant additional risk factors making it a serious public health issue.

Pregnancy presents significant additional risks. SO does driving, scuba diving, and eating hamburgers.

Your concern for gays is touching.

[_schreech]

Parents are free to teach their children that homosexuality is immoral or its "okay."
Reversing prop 8 will just make your job harder, because you have to teach against the reality of open committed, loving and married gay couples.

... or easier because of the reality of gay debauchery spilling out into the streets at these gay weddings.

He is just sad because he will have a harder time instilling his bigotry in his children now...

I also don't understand why its bad to think homosexuality is okay...Does BC think his kids are more likely to turn gay? Or is he just bummed that he has had to live unfulfilled and unhappily in the closet his whole life and wants other people to suffer as he has? I can see absolutely nothing wrong with telling my kids that its ok to be homosexual...

[_RAJ]

So, assuming Supreme Court upholds the finding, what will be the faith promoting spin here? The brethren specifically directed membership to devote time and money to making sure Prop 8 passed. And if Prop 8 is the catalyst that actually makes gay marriage legal nationwide...

Twisted, labyrinthine, convolutions of logic are a Mormon specialty. In just the right light, from just the right angle, with a slightly altered perspective, ANYTHING can be made to look according to plan.

I don't know what they're going to do with this Prop 8 turkey, but Mormons and Mormon apologists have proved themselves to be more than up to the task.

Also, just as a bit of seasoning, remember it was Mitt Romney, as Governor of Massachusetts who presided over the first legal marriages between same-sex couples in the United States. Not that he wanted that distinction, but maybe Heavenly Father is trying to tell the good brethren something.

[_Equality]

I have read the decision and dissent through once very quickly. The majority opinion is solid and reasonable, and not overreaching. I was concerned that with Reinhardt on the panel, the Ninth Circuit might overreach. This is a very restrained and, dare I say it, even conservative opinion. It is decided on rational basis, not heightened or even intermediate scrutiny. That is, the Court held that Prop 8 had not rational basis other than to target a minority group to violate its rights. The Court did not find that gays are a "protected class" the way members of a specific race are a protected class. The decision is grounded in the Supreme Court's decision in the Romer case, which struck down a Colorado city's ordinance permitting discrimination against gays in the house leasing context. I was also concerned that the Court might overreach by making a broad ruling that would apply throughout the 9th Circuit. It did not. This decision applies to California, meaning that gay marriage is now legal again in California (but not in any of the states within the 9th Circuit that have not legalized gay marriage). For this reason, I think it is uncertain whether the Supreme Court will even hear the case on appeal.

[_RAJ]

This decision applies to California, meaning that gay marriage is now legal again in California (but not in any of the states within the 9th Circuit that have not legalized gay marriage).

As I understand it, the stay remains in place (temporarily at least), so marriages between same-sex couples will not resume at this time in CA.

[_Jaybear]

He is just sad because he will have a harder time instilling his bigotry in his children now...

I also don't understand why its bad to think homosexuality is okay...Does BC think his kids are more likely to turn gay? Or is he just bummed that he has had to live unfulfilled and unhappily in the closet his whole life and wants other people to suffer as he has? I can see absolutely nothing wrong with telling my kids that its ok to be homosexual...

I have struggled with the question of whether I should loathe or pity the closeted gay who is an outspoken advocate against homosexuality.

Perhaps there is a german word that best expresses a mixture of loathing and pity.

[_TrashcanMan79]

The dissent was authored by Judge N. Randy Smith. A Mormon. Who'd a thunk.

It starts on page 90.

[_Jaybear]

This decision applies to California, meaning that gay marriage is now legal again in California (but not in any of the states within the 9th Circuit that have not legalized gay marriage).

As I understand it, the stay remains in place (temporarily at least), so marriages between same-sex couples will not resume at this time in CA.

From the ruling, p. 80, footnote 27:

“The stay pending appeal issued by this court on August 16, 2010 remains in effect pending issuance of the mandate.”

[_DarkHelmet]

Good. It's time we reigned in the mobs.

[_Fence Sitter]

From MAD - Color me stunned.

All of the above. Any decision which is against the doctrines of Christ's (LDS) Church is corruption.

BC,

The decision may or may not be wrong in law.

The decision may be (and I would argue is) wrong as a matter of morality.

But to accuse the court of corruption on no other ground that it has reached a morally wrong decision is seriously overreaching.

Courts are not there to do what is right; they are there to do what is legal.

You don't go to court to get justice; you go there to get judgement. In that respect, both sides got what they asked for.

And since neither you nor I nor any other supporter of marriage integrity has any evidence that the judges did anything other than weigh the facts before them in the light of the law as they understood it, the charge of corruption is uncharitable and unsupportable.

Regards,
Pahoran