Tuesday, March 26, 2013

SCOTUS Oral Arguments On Gay Marriage

Day one audio of U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments on the issue of gay marriage.  On of the main arguments of petitioners who are against gay marriage is that it is not "in the best interest of children".

Some of their arguments are hilarious with roaring laughter from the gallery.

I still want to know if anyone is going to address the scientific definition of sex.  Is it phenotypical or genotypical?

HOLLINGSWORTH v. PERRY

The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 26 March 2013. 

Facts of the Case 
In 2000, the citizens of California passed Proposition 22, which affirmed a legal understanding that marriage was a union between one man and one woman. In 2008, the California Supreme Court held that the California Constitution required the term “marriage” to include the union of same-sex couples and invalidated Proposition 22. Later in 2008, California citizens passed Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to provide that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized by California.”

The respondents, a gay couple and a lesbian couple, sued the state officials responsible for the enforcement of California’s marriage laws and claimed that Proposition 8 violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the law. When the state officials originally named in the suit informed the district court that they could not defend Proposition 8, the petitioners, official proponents of the measure, intervened to defend it. The district court held that Proposition 8 violated the Constitution, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.


Question:
Do the petitioners have standing under Article III of the Constitution to argue this case?
Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit the state of California from defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman?

  Hollingsworth v. Perry - Oral Argument

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

2 comments:

BEVERLY TRAN said...

For those who still have yet to figure out the frazzle about the marriage, allow me to assist.

Chattel law, within ecclesiastic law, is the heirarchitype of human asset management, where, in Justinian law, there is an order in human chattel. It is called patriarchy.

Women do not possess the same grant of right in civil society because we produce the fruits of the womb to be acquired as goods.

Children have no rights to society because you have to be 15 to qualify for emancipation.

This means no one can split an allodial title because children are attached to the land.

In general, heirlooms follow the father.

The mother is a possessionif the husband, or other paternal structures.

So, two of same genotypes cannot legally split an allodial title because there is only one king of a kingdom, under the law.

Can you have two queens rule? No.

Can you have two officials split an elected ffice?
No.

You have to change private law.

#ParentalRights
#RFRA

This is strictly about money. Period.

BEVERLY TRAN said...

Indelible seals cannot be broken, cut, halved, split, shred... http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2020/08/meet-perfidious-sister-dede-byrne-her.html