Comments about ‘Experts: Marriage ban's path to high court unclear’

'SAN FRANCISCO Conservative critics like to point out that the federal appeals court that just declared California's same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional has its decisions overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court more often than other judicial circuits...' - article

I'm sorry.

So the 'victory' in those who support Prop 8 and are against gay marriage...

is that this case is most likely NOT going to the supreme court?

That means....that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, even on the state level.

And as such, CA would be the x7th (or 8th. So hard to keep track!) stat to allow gay marriage.

Again. :)

So, on the one hand, you have a scenerio where the supreme court might look over Prop 8 and (possibly) strike it down, opening the way for gay marriage on a national level.

and on other hand, you have state by state allowances of gay marriage.

As, the majority of Ameircans, support gay marriage!

**'Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans support gay marriage' - By Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews - 05/20/2011

Either way you have...

gay marriage!

It's effects?

MA was the first state to allow it, in 2004.

And it STILL has the lowest divorce rate.

The notion that this is a narrow ruling is fairly disingenous. The whole ruling is basically built around the assumption that anti-homosexual animus is at the heart of those who oppose same-gender marriage. The fact that arguments around same-gender marriage actually center on the importance of maintaining marriage as a union in the form to create children to encorage child-rearing to occur within marriage is ignored by the two judge majority in this case.

That is not a narrow ruling, it is a ruling that seeks to frame the whole basis of the debate. It undermines the right of the people to chose on what grounds they will make laws. By inposing their own views on what marriage is into the discussion, the judges have distorted the issue.

The debate here is not fundamentally over whether marriage is between a man and a woman or not. The fundamental debate is over whether marriage is the union of two adults for reasons that the adult choses, or whether marriage is the union of a man and a woman sanctioned by the state to encorage the positve goods that result from man/woman marriage, raising children in marriage and the lessening of children raised by one parent. It is especially for the purpose of restricting and focusing male sexual actions.

The question is what marriage is. The people of California affirmed it is a union focused on raising children, and needs to be limited to the form that can produce children. The judges of the 9th circuit have rejected that view, and imposed their own meaning on marriage, after which they determined that within their worldview the limitation of marriage was discriminatory. However since the suppoorters of Prop 8 were operating with a different worldview they were not being discriminatory.

One more word. Libertarians who argue for same-gender "marriage" are taking a position that cannot work with Libertarianism. Either a Libertarian accepts that marriage is related to legitimate government interest in encoraging in family raising of children and supports man/woman marriage, or if a Libertarian sees marriage as just a union of two consenting adults, than he should see there is no logical reason for state involvement and should advocate an end to all marriage laws. To advocate an expansion of the human relationships governed by state regulation is the anti-thesis to Libertarianism.

On the other hand the preservation of the family is the key to undermining the power of the state. This should lead Libertarians to see keeping man/woman marriage intact as a positve goal.

'The fact that arguments around same-gender marriage actually center on the importance of maintaining marriage as a union in the form to create children...' - John Pack Lambert of Michigan | 10:57 a.m. Feb. 8, 2012

In that case John...

**'Bristol Palin has book deal' - By Hillel Italie - AP - Published by DSnews - 03/01/11

'Bristol Palin, 20, has become a celebrity in her own right, through her broken relationship with her child's father, Levi Johnston...' - article.

...you lost.

I can also cite Kim Kardashian's x72 day marriage.

No children.

John and Kate, plus 8. 6 children through artificial incimination.

Divorced.

Octo-mom. 14 children.

No husband.

And last:

**'Single mothers less accepted than gay or lesbian parents' - By Marjorie Cortez - DSNews - 03/16/11

"In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not markedly different from those of heterosexual parents."

- AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP)
- 'Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents' - POLICY STATEMENT - PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 339-340 - Pulished: 02/01/10

What does it say...

when LGBT, are the one's advocating, monogamy?

I really enjoyed reading this article. It was well written, delved deeper than most news articles now days and offered some comparative argumentation that allowed me to feel like I was being talked down to. The article gave me something to think about.