FoxNews quotes NOM's Chairman of the Board John Eastman:
"As the debate over gay marriage intensifies on the heels of President Obama's endorsement, an under-the-radar case pending before the Supreme Court has the potential, some say, to invalidate traditional marriage laws altogether.
The latest ruling comes from the California-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said that Arizona's recent attempt to strip health benefits for domestic partners of state workers is illegal.
... But one veteran 9th Circuit judge thinks his colleagues have declared a war on marriage.
Those judges "all but expressly held that opposite-sex-only marriage rules are unconstitutional -- indeed, that such rules are irrational per se because they can rest only on a 'bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group,'" Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote in dissent of his court's decision not to grant the case further review. He said his colleagues were ignoring Supreme Court precedent and all but called upon the high court to take the case. Arizona's attorney general recently filed a brief with the justices asking them to accept O'Scannlain's invitation.
Lawyer John Eastman, with the National Organization for Marriage, called the 9th Circuit ruling "groundbreaking," and one that could render traditional marriage laws across the country "unconstitutional" if it takes hold."
11 Comments
Will they just take the case up already. I
The 10th amendment has been eroded enough and I'd rather it not be completely nullified after this.
typo: up already?*
The courts and the 9th Circuit in particular are proving over and over again that they do not honor the Constitution or our Bill of Rights. They are merely places where far left liberals get legislation whereby they bypass we the people. Marriage corruption is a perfect example as even though the citizens have exercised their 10th amendment rights and have rejected the attack on marriage, the courts are becoming political pawns of the far left. Arizona is merely using its 10th amendment rights which these federal courts have chosen to ignore.
SCOTUS is going to have to weigh in eventually.
Get a load of the weird story featured in the article. A man was going to add his partner to his employee-sponsored health insurance plan until the legislature acted to rescind the benefits.
This man's partner stays at home with their three kids, and was on Medicaid since he isn't working.
What? How exactly did they obtain these kids? Most options I think of would require them to be financially stable enough to buy health insurance for the partner.
Unless the kids were taken in by emergency (their parents died suddenly), then why would two men obtain children and have to rely on Medicaid?
I'm beginning to see this ssm thing, in part, as another entitlement program. After all, family diversity advocates do want ssm because they eventually want uninhibited state support for all types of living arrangements.
I remember reading an article complaining about why same-sex couples need marriage. One couple featured was lesbian. The authors talked about this problem and that problem faced by the two women. I love how they put the next statement: "and now [one of the lesbian partners] is 8 months pregnant"....you know, worsening their dire straights.
Um...how did she get pregnant? It sure wasn't by accident!
I guarantee that average Americans will ask the same question: "Why are you complaining about getting yourself pregnant on purpose?"
Sheesh
Marriage, which is designed for the intransigent social problem of reckless procreation resulting from impulsive sex, is now suffering attempts at redefinition for relationships where people bring in children of their own volition and faint helplessly on a couch as if they got the kids from the regular activities of their relationship!
I'm not being too critical. Perhaps the men suffered a terrible financial setback. Maybe they were financially prepared for the kids and then something terrible happened, causing their situation. The article didn't go into much detail. It's a weird story for sure. But my point about ssm and entitlement stands.
Ash: Maybe the couple "inherited" the kids from a dead or unfit parent. Maybe one or both of the men had children from a previous marriage. Maybe they were adopted--as you said--prior to financial hardship. Why does the fact that they're gay have any bearing on whether or not they deserve the same benefits as other parents in the same situation.
The "what about the children" ploy on this blog is always a red herring. It's always beside the point. And it's often insulting to adoptive parents and children, regardless of sexuality. Look, gay people pay taxes. Gay people form relationships, households and families. They deserve the same protections and benefits afforded to other taxpaying citizens who have fromed relationships, households and families. Period.
"'bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group,'"
I see they finally backed away from the “class” descriptive they were applying to justify their findings in the lower courts. As these cases wind their way up from the lower ranks of our judicial system the intent of language becomes more important; the higher the importance placed on the intent of the language used the weaker the case becomes for marriage corruption supporters - not that they had much of a case to begin with; just corrupt jurists willing to play along.
Why would gay people deserve more protection than same-sex siblings?
"Why would gay people deserve more protection than same-sex siblings?"
...especially since same-sex siblings (and parent-grandparent partnerships) are probably raising more children than sexualized same-sex couples.
And let's not forget all the other family configurations who, as James proclaims, should have the same legal protections of marriage. Children in CA will have three legal parents soon, but other jurisdictions have beat them to the punch on that one.
The point is that marriage is not about funneling benefits to any group of people raising children. If it were, marriage would be stretched beyond recognition. It's about channeling sexual drives into a unit where children can be known by, legally tied to, and nurtured by their mother and father.
For same-sex couples, who are irrelevant to this purpose, there are solutions such as second-parent adoption.
SSM will not create legal ties between same-sex parents and children in the same way marriage does for opposite sexed couples for reasons having nothing to do with them being "gay," but with biological reality.
I acknowledged that the couple in the article may have unique circumstances (none of which justifies ssm or domestic partnerships). But it is, and will continue to be, hilarious when people think they are entitled to social welfare because they deliberately conceived a child and didn't consider all the consequences.
My statement applies to both the lesbian couple I referenced, and any heterosexual with that sort of thinking.
Regeregus (2012) peer reviewed Family Structures study (Journal of Social Science Research volume 41) show the horrific harms and outcomes when children are exposed and sexualized from exposure to adult homosexual relationships. Why on earth would extremists want to harm innocent children by undermining the institution of marriage in such a way?
>>Why on earth would extremists want to harm innocent children by undermining the institution of marriage in such a way?
Because they are much more concerned about giving some "normalcy" to their relationship than they are with the welfare of children.
"Why would gay people deserve more protection than same-sex siblings?"
Why would straight people deserve more protection than opposite-sex siblings?"