Thread: Same sex marriage

Check this out - In a stay issued by an unanimous vote, the Supreme Court Blocks Gay Marriage In Utah.

You reckon Justice Sotomayor going to be named America’s second “white Hispanic?”

Elections have consequences and this one is good for Virginia

Virginia to fight same-sex marriage ban

Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring will announce Thursday that he believes the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and that Virginia will join two same-sex couples in asking a federal court to strike it down, according to an official close to the attorney general with knowledge about the decision.

The action will mark a stunning reversal in the state’s legal position on same-sex marriage and is a result of November elections in which Democrats swept the state’s top offices. Herring’s predecessor, Republican Ken Cuccinelli II, adamantly opposes gay marriage and had vowed to defend Virginia’s constitutional amendment banning such unions, which was passed in 2006 with the support of 57 percent of voters.

Nigeria Arrests Gays Under Controversial New Law

About half of Nigerians are Muslim and half are Christian. Recently, the two religions have come together in support of a new law that criminalizes gay organizations and punishes gay marriage with up to 14 years in prison.

Nice to see the Waring Nigerians unite and try to help the ill homos and not encourage them, like the faggot enablers are over keen to do in the west .

It's like if a human thinks they are a dog stuck in a persons body , and walk about on all fours sniffing everything .
What should Society do ?
A : tell them to pull themselves together and offer treatment .
or
B : pat them on the head , say good dog and throw them a stick .

Same with Homos.
Russian and Nigeria are doing A , while the west B - thus condemning them to suffer their mental illness unaided.

These new rules will apply to all states

New legal protections for same-sex couples under US Justice Dept rules

SAME-SEX married couples will receive many of the same federal legal protections and benefits as their opposite-sex counterparts under Justice Department guidelines to be issued on February 10, Attorney General Eric Holder said.

The moves will affect procedures in US courtrooms and the aid provided surviving spouses of slain law officers, among other matters.

The policy will “formally instruct all Justice Department employees to give lawful same-sex marriages full and equal recognition, to the greatest extent possible under the law,” Holder said in remarks on Saturday night in New York City.

The change will apply to same-sex couples residing in states where such marriages are not recognized.

It also represents the first time the Justice Department has officially interpreted the words “spouse” and “marriage” in federal laws it enforces to apply to same-sex couples.

“As attorney general, I will not let this department be simply a bystander during this important moment in history,” Holder said.

Under the policy, the Justice Department will recognize that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as their opposite-sex counterparts in civil and criminal cases, according to Holder.

As a result, Holder said, federal prosecutors won’t object if a same-sex spouse declines to provide testimony that might incriminate his or her partner.

The Justice Department will also provide death and educational benefits, through the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Program, to same-sex spouses of law-enforcement officers killed in the line of duty.

“The federal government should stand by that hero’s spouse, no matter whether that spouse is gay or straight,” Holder said in the speech at the Human Rights Campaign’s Gala at the Waldorf Astoria hotel. The Human Rights Campaign is a Washington-based group that promotes gay rights.

The policy change also should permit same-sex married couples to jointly apply for bankruptcy protections, Holder said.

The Justice Department’s US Trustee Program will “take the position” that same-sex couples should be treated the same as those in traditional unions in bankruptcy proceedings, he said.

Other beneficiaries will include federal inmates who are part of a same-sex marriage. These inmates will be permitted to have spousal visits and be escorted to their partners’ funerals, Holder said.

The new policy follows a US Supreme Court decision last June that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act’s definition of marriage as a heterosexual union, a provision that had denied legally married gay couples federal benefits. On the same day, the court let stand a ruling that California’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

Gay marriage is legal in 17 US states and the District of Columbia.

Holder’s move also comes as polls have shown a growing public acceptance in America of gay marriage.

In a Gallup Poll released last July, 52 percent of Americans backed laws that permitted gay marriage, up from 27 percent in 1996.

Can’t give Kentucky a number yet, but it is close.

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and it thus must recognize same-sex marriages performed such marriages performed in other states. The decision stops short of forcing Kentucky to perform same-sex marriages in-state. According to Judge John G. Heyburn II, an appointee of President George H. W. Bush whose nomination was supported by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Kentucky’s amendment that denies recognition to valid same-sex marriages violates those couples’ equal protection under the law:

As in other cases that have rejected the amicus’s arguments, no one in this case has offered factual or rational reasons why Kentucky’s laws are rationally related to any of these purposes. Kentucky does not require proof of procreative ability to have an out-of-state marriage recognized. The exclusion of same-sex couples on procreation grounds makes just as little sense as excluding post-menopausal couples or infertile couples on procreation grounds. After all, Kentucky allows gay and lesbian individuals to adopt children. And no one has offered evidence that same-sex couples would be any less capable of raising children or any less faithful in their marriage vows. Compare this with Plaintiffs, who have not argued against the many merits of “traditional marriage.” They argue only that they should be allowed to enjoy them also.

Other than those discussed above, the Court cannot conceive of any reasons for enacting the laws challenged here. Even if one were to conclude that Kentucky’s laws do not show animus, they cannot withstand traditional rational basis review.

_______________

Nevada is working its way to a number.

The state of Nevada will no longer be defending its ban on same-sex marriage. In a brief filed Tuesday by the office of state Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D), the state explained that now that the Ninth Circuit has precedent to treat sexual orientation as a suspect class, none of the state’s previous arguments — that banning same-sex marriage does not violate the equal protection of gay people — can now “withstand legal scrutiny.” Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) agreed with this conclusion.

the courts have their hands full

Judge: Va. Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional - ABC News

A federal judge ruled Thursday that Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, making it the first state in the South to have its voter-approved prohibition overturned.

U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen issued a stay of her order while it is appealed, meaning that gay couples in Virginia will still not be able to marry until the case is ultimately resolved. Both sides believe the case won't be settled until the Supreme Court decides to hear it or one like it.

Allen's ruling makes Virginia the second state in the South to issue a ruling recognizing the legality of gay marriages.

nice to see some are moving forward

Illinois’ marriage equality law is not set to take effect until June 1, but a federal judge has ruled that same-sex couples can begin marrying immediately, at least in Cook County, where a lawsuit was filed. Friday afternoon, 46 couples rushed to the County Clerk David Orr’s office to be the first to get marriage licenses.

In a brief decision, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman actually ruled that Illinois’ ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and should not prohibit couples from marrying. It follows a similar ruling in November allowing couples in which one or both individuals had a terminal illness to begin marrying without having to wait. Coleman explained that all couples’ rights were clearly violated and no one should have to wait for the new law to take effect:

There is no dispute here that the ban on same-sex marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and infringes on the plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry. Indeed, the defendant and intervenor have joined in plaintiff’s motion, with the caveat that David Orr is bound to follow the law in Illinois. Since the parties agree that marriage is a fundamental right available to all individuals and should not be denied, the focus in this case shifts from the “we can’t wait” for terminally ill individuals to “why should we wait” for all gay and lesbian couples that want to marry. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: the time is always ripe to do right.

Texas and the last name of the judge. Ya think the crazy right will have a fit about this?

Texas Gay Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional By Federal Judge

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia (nominated by President Bill Clinton on November 19, 1993) ruled Wednesday that Texas' ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, the Houston Chronicle and the Dallas Morning News report.

Garcia issued a preliminary injunction on the state's ban, citing Supreme Court precedent. However, Garcia issued a stay on his order, meaning the ban will remain in effect pending appeal.

“Today’s court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedent,” Garcia wrote in the order. “Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our U.S. Constitution.”

Arizona passes law allowing shopkeepers to refuse to serve bent people !!!!!

Is the tide finally turning against tuttii fruttii poofters ? and good clean common sense and decent normal values returning to USA ?

Arizona passes law allowing shopkeepers to refuse to serve gay people - Telegraph

The conservative southern state of Arizona has passed a controversial law allowing businesses to refuse to serve gay people if it goes against the owners' religious beliefs.
After sailing through the state legislature, the law now awaits final confirmation from firebrand governor, Jan Brewer, who has built a national reputation with her right-leaning stance on similarly-sensitive social issues such as immigration and abortion.
Arizona is the only state to have passed such a law. It rules that any obligation to serve gays is a violation of a person's religious freedom if their beliefs tell them that homosexuality is wrong.
If Mrs Brewer, a Republican, now signs the legislation it will mean, for example, that restaurants could legally turn away gay couples or individuals seeking a meal, or a baker could refuse to bake a cake for a gay commitment ceremony

Originally Posted by blue

and good clean common sense and decent normal values returning to USA ?

People also use that spurious argument against interracial marriage. What's your stance on that Mrs Whitehouse?

Originally Posted by blue

Arizona passes law allowing shopkeepers to refuse to serve bent people !!!!!

Is the tide finally turning against tuttii fruttii poofters ? and good clean common sense and decent normal values returning to USA ?

Arizona passes law allowing shopkeepers to refuse to serve gay people - Telegraph

The conservative southern state of Arizona has passed a controversial law allowing businesses to refuse to serve gay people if it goes against the owners' religious beliefs.
After sailing through the state legislature, the law now awaits final confirmation from firebrand governor, Jan Brewer, who has built a national reputation with her right-leaning stance on similarly-sensitive social issues such as immigration and abortion.
Arizona is the only state to have passed such a law. It rules that any obligation to serve gays is a violation of a person's religious freedom if their beliefs tell them that homosexuality is wrong.
If Mrs Brewer, a Republican, now signs the legislation it will mean, for example, that restaurants could legally turn away gay couples or individuals seeking a meal, or a baker could refuse to bake a cake for a gay commitment ceremony

Well that's gone out of the window, so you can stop jumping up and down like an excited gay person.

Arizona governor vetoes anti-gay bill

Arizona governor vetoes anti-gay bill

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by blue

and good clean common sense and decent normal values returning to USA ?

People also use that spurious argument against interracial marriage. What's your stance on that Mrs Whitehouse?

Well that question fall outside the scope of this thread , whose sole purpose in life is to highlight and chart the spread, of sick poofters / paedpohilia across a once great nation.

However as an English Gentleman it would be rude not to answer.

When I see a European master race male with a different race female I tend to smile and think :
''Go on son ! give the dog a bone !! ''
And
when I see a lower race male with a white chic I'm shaking my head thinking :
''You filthy slapper, what a waste ......''

Originally Posted by blue

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by blue

and good clean common sense and decent normal values returning to USA ?

People also use that spurious argument against interracial marriage. What's your stance on that Mrs Whitehouse?

Well that question fall outside the scope of this thread , whose sole purpose in life is to highlight and chart the spread, of sick poofters / paedpohilia across a once great nation.

However as an English Gentleman it would be rude not to answer.

When I see a European master race male with a different race female I tend to smile and think :
''Go on son ! give the dog a bone !! ''
And
when I see a lower race male with a white chic I'm shaking my head thinking :
''You filthy slapper, what a waste ......''

How do you define "lower race"? Because if it's by IQ, you are definitely at the bottom of the pile.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

How do you define "lower race"?

The top race is the one containing the most Neanderthal genes, and the races with less, are thus less blessed races, or in Latin the lower races...

A wonderful people the neanderthals were , who had to meet the challenge of living at the edge of the Ice age, and did so !
and have passed down those wonderful attributes needed to us - hard work, planning , community spirit , honour, a sense of humour etc and they live on in us the Europeans.
We probably got our special artist talent from them too, and there are theories that the Neanderthals might have painted some of the earlier cave art.
Eg the ones at lascaux france.




The Neanderthals no doubt were homosexual free, no way could an effete mincer survive in the ice , maybe they had some gene to prevent the defective gay cells taking hold .
Sadly these were not passed down, and we now have the sorry spectacle of gay marriage and even adoption of vulnerable young children ...

Well you've definitely got more than your fair share of neanderthal genes, that's for sure.

Good to see another state recognize everyone should be treated equally:

Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution and must be overturned, a federal judge ruled on Friday in the latest in a series of court decisions to allow gay couples to marry.

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said he sought an emergency stay and appeal of the ruling.

District Judge Bernard A. Friedman (nominated by U.S. President Ronald Reagan) didn’t think much of the state’s star witness, University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus…

“The Court finds [Mark] Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration.

__________________

Pretty soon another state will follow:

A group of same-sex couples in Arizona filed a federal lawsuit on Thursday to challenge the state’s ban on gay marriage, arguing that it violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, court documents showed.

__________________

And then another:

On Monday, in the United States District Court Southern District of Indiana, Lambda Legal filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of three same-sex couples who seek the freedom to marry in their home state of Indiana.

__________________

And on and on we’ll go:

hang um

Originally Posted by blue

The Neanderthals no doubt were homosexual free, no way could an effete mincer survive in the ice

on the contrary.... they may of needed a little extra warmth on those cold nights... out hunting and gathering while the women were back in the cave....

maybe that's why they went extinct.... they liked burgling those turds too much...

close and there's only one reason why the judge didn't go all the way

Federal Judge: Ohio Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriages From Other States

As promised, federal judge Timothy Black has issued a ruling Monday ordering the state of Ohio to recognize same-sex couples’ marriages performed in other states for all purposes. It builds off Black’s previous decision ordering such recognition for the sole purpose of death certificates.

The order does not specifically address whether Ohio must issues same-sex marriages because that was beyond the scope of the complaints filed, but Black unequivocally concluded that “Ohio’s marriage recognition bans are facially unconstitutional and unenforceable under any circumstances.”

Though Black cites his previous decision throughout, he does emphasize certain points that are newly relevant in this case, particularly how Ohio’s ban on recognizing same-sex couples’ marriages infringes on their family’s legal protections. Here are a few points from the decision that Black himself chose to highlight with text that was both bolded and underlined:

“The fundamental right to marry is available even to those who have not traditionally been eligible to exercise that right.”

“When a state effectively terminates the marriage of a same-sex couple married in another jurisdiction by refusing to recognize the marriage, that state unlawfully intrudes into the realm of private marital, family, and intimate relations specifically protected by the Supreme Court.”

“The inability to obtain an accurate birth certificate saddles the child with the life-long disability of a government identity document that does not reflect the child’s parentage and burdens the ability of the child’s parents to exercise their parental rights and responsibilities.”

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Ohio’s marriage recognition bans are facially unconstitutional and unenforceable under any circumstances.

another domino set to fall....clearing the way for equal rights for all americans.