All of this crap is getting tiresome!

The Obama administration had asked the high court not to take the case, and White House officials had said they would not object to homosexuals being kicked out of the armed services.

During the presidential campaign last year, President Obama said he supported throwing out the federal law but has taken no specific action on the controversy.

The Justice Department said in a high court filing the law was “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.”

A federal appeals court in Boston, Massachusetts, had ruled against Pietrangelo, essentially ending his legal efforts. But a San Francisco, California-based federal appeals court ruled partially in favor of Maj. Margaret Witt, allowing her lawsuit against the Pentagon to move ahead. Those judges said the Air Force must prove the dismissal of the flight nurse would ensure troop readiness and cohesion.

.

I do not think at this point SCOTUS will take the case.

I met too many conservatives in the past presidential election campaign who had no problem with same sex marriage and found that I had alot in common with them.

The Afro-Americans are against same sex marriage and that is why it did not pass in California.

But we can`t let that dirty little secret get out because Dr. Utopia is African-American and admitting that would be RAAACIST!

In every country where polygamy is legal, females are horribly oppressed, for a variety of reasons but mainly because their reproductive physiology is different. The whole movement to change marriage definitions will result in loss of rights to females. I see the whole gay marriage fight resulting ultimately in degradation of female rights, because deny as you might, they bear the children, the inevitable follow-up of polygamy will harm the females and children.

This discussion is disingenuous because it never mentions the well-known written gay agenda against “breeder marriage”. Where is any reference to that? It’s always painted as depriving gays of equal rights, and never once is honest about what is a very negative agenda by activists. Nor is their mention to the fact that studies show the majority of gay males who marry do not have any intention of monogamy. If that’s not even a goal, what’s the point of marriage other than the stated agenda of tearing down the concept of the nuclear family? Their argument always points to the failings of traditional marriage, but at least monogamy is the goal.

Then there’s the arguments about intrafamilial same gender marriages, though remote, the point is that there are no constraints because the marriage is not a “breeder” type (a term used by certain gay activists to disparage biomarriage).

If gays want to marry and succeed in changing the law, then male-female monogamous marriage should just change its name to something else, as marriage would become a euphamism for “civil union” anyway.

Hell of a “Pelican Brief” eh?

Could you say the monies spent by the state of California in defending this suit are “The Fruit of the Loon(s)”?

The gay marriage issue in this state is one that will not stand.
Ted Olsen and David Boise are like the Odd Couple. There are a few possibilities that can occur in the next 12 to 18 months. The original case that was recently over turned was not about gay marriage, it was weather or not the California State Constitution could be amended in the way it was. Gay marriage in this case was just the context, not the legal argument.

The current law suit filed in a CA Federal district court by the ‘odd couple’ is on the onstitutional grounds of Due Process and Equal protection under the law. The CA Supremes made an interesting decision, in that the 18,000 marriages were allowed to stand, having no choice in the matter as they cannot over turn them retro-actively. This would have been unconstitutional. So as a matter of “equal protection” this is a glaring ambiguity in the law and I do not see any legal argument being made, except for “states rights” and “The Defense of Marriage Act” being used. … The case will wind its way up to the 9th Circus and they will either decide to overturn or it let stand.

The SCOTUS will either choose not to review the case and let the lower court ruling stand or take the case. Albeit, the SCOTUS has historically taken a dim view of what the 9th circuit has decided. If the case is accept by the SCOTUS, then the case gets real interesting. If it is upheld, to make gay marriage illegal nationally, all hell is gonna brake loose. If it is overturned, then the whole gambit of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and other aspects of gay rights issue will have grounds for legal proceedings in states that have laws barring these rights.

On top of this, as the SCOTUS is still a 5-4 court with the expected confirmation of Sotomayor not changing the balance much, it is a possibility that by the time this case makes it to the SCOTUS, Justice Kennedy and Justice Ginsburg may well be gone and Obama will have appointed 2 more solid “left” leaning Justices. Kennedy being the common swing vote on the court.

Hell of a “Pelican Brief” eh?

Alert the gay community! Alert the media! Oh wait….