New Posts For Thread: 9th Circuit Won't Rehear Its Decision Striking Down Prop 8http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43931/29161453/9th_Circuit_Wont_Rehear_Its_Decision_Striking_Down_Prop_8In a brief order issued this morning, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reconsider its decision earlier this year striking down Proposition 8, finding the 2008 law unconstitutional because it stripped gay and lesbian couples of the rightSince they brought forward NO rational, reasoned, secular argument, there was never any chance that they could have done a 'good' job with their case.Speak to us of the (formerly?) "inalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Don't ALhttp://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43931/29161453/9th_Circuit_Wont_Rehear_Its_Decision_Striking_Down_Prop_8?post_id=522999195#522999195Since they brought forward NO rational, reasoned, secular argument, there was never any chance that they could have done a 'good' job with their case.Speak to us of the (formerly?) "inalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Don't ALTue, 14 Aug 2012 12:36:53 -0500If the pro-8 supporters want to limit the damage they would not want the SCOTUS to hear this. The way the decision was written limits ANY appeals to the evidence at the original trial. The pro-8 side did a terrible job with their case. Californiahttp://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43931/29161453/9th_Circuit_Wont_Rehear_Its_Decision_Striking_Down_Prop_8?post_id=522970493#522970493If the pro-8 supporters want to limit the damage they would not want the SCOTUS to hear this. The way the decision was written limits ANY appeals to the evidence at the original trial. The pro-8 side did a terrible job with their case. CaliforniaMon, 13 Aug 2012 16:46:24 -0500This thread was moved from the Hot Topics Zone.http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43931/29161453/9th_Circuit_Wont_Rehear_Its_Decision_Striking_Down_Prop_8?post_id=521044521#521044521This thread was moved from the Hot Topics Zone.Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:49:46 -0500Nope. It was just a general comment on the 'reasoning' of the anti-equality crowd. Pretty much rehtorical, yes.http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43931/29161453/9th_Circuit_Wont_Rehear_Its_Decision_Striking_Down_Prop_8?post_id=520710247#520710247Nope. It was just a general comment on the 'reasoning' of the anti-equality crowd. Pretty much rehtorical, yes.Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:28:02 -0500By the way:Yes, many more courts in the US have struck down than have upheld marriage laws that discriminate against same-sex couples and their children.http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43931/29161453/9th_Circuit_Wont_Rehear_Its_Decision_Striking_Down_Prop_8?post_id=520704085#520704085By the way:Yes, many more courts in the US have struck down than have upheld marriage laws that discriminate against same-sex couples and their children.Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:11:06 -0500DUO, is your post above to me? If so, I don't think I understand your question, which seems to be rhetorical anyway).http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43931/29161453/9th_Circuit_Wont_Rehear_Its_Decision_Striking_Down_Prop_8?post_id=520704003#520704003DUO, is your post above to me? If so, I don't think I understand your question, which seems to be rhetorical anyway).Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:09:05 -0500If they couldn't even get half the justices to re-hear it, how do they 'think' they're gonna get more than half to agree with the tired, false, empty, losing arguments they bring?http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43931/29161453/9th_Circuit_Wont_Rehear_Its_Decision_Striking_Down_Prop_8?post_id=520703585#520703585If they couldn't even get half the justices to re-hear it, how do they 'think' they're gonna get more than half to agree with the tired, false, empty, losing arguments they bring?Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:56:55 -0500So, no one knows of any argument that laws depriving same-sex couples and their children of the rights and responsibilities that come with civil marriage are constitutional?Mytmouse, it seems that on other threads you have claimed that there are &ldqhttp://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43931/29161453/9th_Circuit_Wont_Rehear_Its_Decision_Striking_Down_Prop_8?post_id=520703445#520703445So, no one knows of any argument that laws depriving same-sex couples and their children of the rights and responsibilities that come with civil marriage are constitutional?Mytmouse, it seems that on other threads you have claimed that there are &ldqMon, 11 Jun 2012 10:53:29 -0500So, no one knows of any argument that laws depriving same-sex couples and their children of the rights and responsibilities that come with civil marriage are constitutional?Mytmouse, it seems that on other threads you have claimed that there are &ldqhttp://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43931/29161453/9th_Circuit_Wont_Rehear_Its_Decision_Striking_Down_Prop_8?post_id=520602247#520602247So, no one knows of any argument that laws depriving same-sex couples and their children of the rights and responsibilities that come with civil marriage are constitutional?Mytmouse, it seems that on other threads you have claimed that there are &ldqFri, 08 Jun 2012 14:00:57 -0500So, no one knows of any argument that laws depriving same-sex couples and their children of the rights and responsibilities that come with civil marriage are constitutional?Mytmouse, it seems that on other threads you have claimed that there are &ldqhttp://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43931/29161453/9th_Circuit_Wont_Rehear_Its_Decision_Striking_Down_Prop_8?post_id=520595163#520595163So, no one knows of any argument that laws depriving same-sex couples and their children of the rights and responsibilities that come with civil marriage are constitutional?Mytmouse, it seems that on other threads you have claimed that there are &ldqFri, 08 Jun 2012 11:17:28 -0500