LAT: Prop. 8 backers ask for permanent hold on same-sex marriage ruling

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage-appeal-20100814,0,7326322.story

In an emergency appeal now before a federal court, the backers of Proposition 8 have asked for a permanent hold on last week's "egregiously selective and one-sided" marriage ruling, contending it flouted the law and ignored the evidence.

The request to prevent the resumption of same-sex marriages in California next week is being considered by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Two of the judges were appointed by Democrats, the other by a Republican. The panel has ordered all arguments to be filed by Monday.

If the panel permits gay marriages to resume at 5 p.m. Wednesday, attorneys for Proposition 8 said they would seek a permanent hold from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the jurist assigned to hear such matters from the West. Kennedy, considered a swing vote on gay rights issues, could refer the matter to the entire court.

Proposition 8's sponsors told the 9th Circuit that state law gave them the authority to defend the 2008 ballot measure and derided last week's "extremist" conclusion by U.S. District Chief Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker that Proposition 8 stemmed from "moral disapproval" of gays.

more at link above.

This is from a recent email from Catholics for the Common Good: A New Catholic Action, a name spinoff of a liberal group by a similar name. They are a extreme pro-Prop 8 group and have no other issues.

Judge Walker gutted foundational principles of democracy by seeming to say that citizens have no right to organize civil society using common sense unless it can be supported by scientific or sociological evidence.

So, they are using "common sense" arguments and the judge used "scientific or sociological evidence", and you wonder why it turned out the way it did. It is the Intelligent Design approach for law. :crazy:

Catholics For The Common Good should probably look up the definitions of those two words.

Do they mean that men and women can't get married anymore?

Funny how these idiots expect the court to have given both sides a "win." :eyes:

dg

is ignorance to another

What's the old saying? A fool and his money are soon parted?