Is Banning Gay Marriage Constitutional?

[Speedlace]

VID Inside

Federal Trial Challenging Prop. 8 Begins Monday

SAN FRANCISCO -- The nation's first federal trial on whether a ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional is set to begin Monday in San Francisco.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker will preside over a two-week trial on a lawsuit in which two couples claim that California's ban on same-sex marriage violates their federal constitutional rights to due process and equal treatment.

The measure was enacted by state voters in 2008 as Proposition 8.

The couples' lawyers argued in a recent court filing that the initiative "is an irrational, indefensible and unconstitutional measure."

Proposition 8 sponsors contend, however, that it is a reasonable way of preserving the traditional definition of marriage and supporting what they say is marriage's central purpose of having children raised by a father and mother.

Their attorneys have written, "The institution of marriage is, and has always been, uniquely concerned with promoting and regulating naturally procreative relationships between men and women to provide for the nurture and upbringing of the next generation."

Walker will decide the case without a jury and is expected to issue a written ruling sometime after the end of the trial.

The case is considered certain to be appealed eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court, after an intermediate stop in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

A previous five-year battle over same-sex marriage in California centered on the state Constitution and ended in May 2009 when the California Supreme Court said voters had the power to amend the state document to require marriage to be between a man and a woman.

The lawsuit filed in May by couples Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier of Berkeley and Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo of Burbank took a new tack by claiming violations of the federal Constitution.

The first witnesses to take the stand Monday will be the four plaintiffs. They are due to testify about the harms they allegedly have suffered from not being allowed to marry.

Their lawsuit says the harms include humiliation, emotional distress, stigma and denial of "the personal and public affirmation that accompanies marriage."

Other witnesses to be called to the stand by both sides will be university professors and other experts who will testify about the definition of marriage, its economic value, whether children of opposite-sex marriages fare better and the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer for the two couples, said the case is the nation's first challenge to same-sex marriage restrictions to go to trial in a federal court.
...

http://www.ktvu.com/news/22200604/detail.html

 

[jemayeux]

I could give a rats a$$ on a person's choice on who they want to spend their time with, but the anit-gay marriage activist are fighting a battle that has long been lost.

The day of your marriage you get married in the eyes of

1. The church and
2. The Law

Gay people can/have started their own churches where they can get married in the eyes of the church. I don't see how preventing them from getting married in the eyes of the Law and having the Legal benefits of being married [which I have no idea what they are] is such a concern.

My opinion, gay people are throwing the best part of being gay out of the window. The fact that they do not have to deal with the legal aspect of marriage, (ie. dividing everything you own when you break up).

 

[CEHollier]

I do not support gay marriage. But two hot females going at it catchs most mens attention.

 

[Witness]

I do not support gay marriage.

Why? I mean this in the absolute most respectful way possible; What exactly is it you have a against gays having the same legal benefits as married heterosexual couples?

It's not like being against gay marriage is preventing them from acting and living like married people. The only thing you're preventing is the legal benefits. But why? What do people prove by restricting marriage?

Is it a religious thing? Or simply a moral thing?

I've never understood why the gays cant get married, it seems rather childish. The fact that religious views of government officials is a factor is simply ridiculous. Government is Government, it is NOT a church.

 

[Witness]

My opinion, gay people are throwing the best part of being gay out of the window. The fact that they do not have to deal with the legal aspect of marriage, (ie. dividing everything you own when you break up).

This is so true. "baby I love you so much I want to get the government involved!"

 

[BUSTER48]

Their attorneys have written, "The institution of marriage is, and has always been, uniquely concerned with promoting and regulating naturally procreative relationships between men and women to provide for the nurture and upbringing of the next generation."

So then, based on that statement, my wife and I should not be allowed to marry either as we knew before we got married that we did not want children.

 

[Speedlace]

So then, based on that statement, my wife and I should not be allowed to marry either as we knew before we got married that we did not want children.

There is adoption.

 

[BUSTER48]

I didn't say we can't have children, we don't want children.

 

[highstandard40]

Gay people are not prevented by law from marrying other gay people.
A gay guy can marry any gay woman who will have him. It's legal.

 

[CEHollier]

Why? I mean this in the absolute most respectful way possible; What exactly is it you have a against gays having the same legal benefits as married heterosexual couples?

It's not like being against gay marriage is preventing them from acting and living like married people. The only thing you're preventing is the legal benefits. But why? What do people prove by restricting marriage?

Is it a religious thing? Or simply a moral thing?

I've never understood why the gays cant get married, it seems rather childish. The fact that religious views of government officials is a factor is simply ridiculous. Government is Government, it is NOT a church.

Not opposed to gays having legal benefits. Just marriage. Read the first chapter of Romans.

 

[Witness]

Not opposed to gays having legal benefits. Just marriage. Read the first chapter of Romans.

What does the first chapter of Romans have to do with the United Sates Government.

 

[Mjolnir]

I don't support gay anything. It's against Nature therefore against God's Laws and the Laws of Creation; they cannot reproduce and the behavior they engage in causes disease. YOU AND I will pay for the illnesses which will inevitably occur in a large number of them. They also must recruit more members and I'm sick of any individual who defines him/herself by their sexual appetites. You are NOT what you choose to do. Ummm, that's about it.

 

[Witness]

... the behavior they engage in causes disease.

This is why religion does not belong in government.

 

[SpeedRacer]

Wait a sec...when did the government start caring about the Constitution again?

 

[BUSTER48]

What does the first chapter of Romans have to do with the United Sates Government.

Absolutely nothing. People tend to quote the Bible as a part of organized religions control mechanism. If it’s not good for me, well then, it certainly can’t be good for everyone else. This is not a knock against faith and belief in God, but against organized religion.

 

[flamatrix99]

This is why religion does not belong in government.

+1000

 

[Speedlace]

...and the behavior they engage in causes disease.

WTF?

Do you mean "The Ghey"?

I didn't say we can't have children, we don't want children.

I thought you meant that since gays can't produce with one another that they shouldn't be married.

I'm sure the attorney has more reasons why gays should be titled to marrige under law and why it does against the Constitution, and is well prepared for court.

 

[Mjolnir]

This is why religion does not belong in government.

Science, my dear boy, Science...

 

[sraiford]

It's against Nature therefore against God's Laws and another Read the first chapter of Romans.

Sorry about the quotes Mjolnir, I know the last one isn't yours but I don't know how to add multi quotes.

Now lets look at this...http://bayoushooter.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29680 How can we say that they are wrong and yet we are right.

How can we say who is right and wrong. I am married and have 3 wonderful children, therefore I'm not gay, not condoning being gay, or condeming being gay. I'd rather see a gay couple adopt and raise a child in a good home than see some thug father 8 kids with 8 different baby mommas and not have a thing to do with them.

 

[flamatrix99]

I got a vasectomy with my first wife, now my currrent wife and I can't have kids. So we shouldn't be married?