Federal judge in Calif upholds U.S. gay marriage ban

[Kadie]

Federal judge in Calif upholds U.S. gay marriage ban
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, June 16, 2005

(06-16) 17:39 PDT San Francisco (AP) --


Deciding one of the few federal lawsuits arguing the case for gay marriage, a U.S. District Court judge ruled on Thursday that a law passed by Congress in 1996 validating only unions between a man and a woman does not violate the Constitution.


But Judge Gary Taylor of the Central District of California also declined to rule on whether state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the civil rights of a gay Orange County couple while a separate legal challenge to California's laws works its way through the state courts.


"The question of the constitutionality of California's statutory prohibition on same-sex marriage is novel and of sufficient importance that the California courts ought to address it first," wrote Taylor, who presides in Central District of California.


snip...
In upholding the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by President Bill Clinton, Taylor said that even though the law "has a disproportionate effect on homosexual individuals," the government's desire to promote procreation is a valid reason for infringing on the rights of gay couples.


"The Court finds it is a legitimate interest to encourage the stability and legitimacy of what may reasonably be viewed as the optimal union for procreating and rearing children by both biological parents," Taylor wrote, echoing the arguments often advanced by groups opposed to same-sex marriage.


more...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2005/06/16/state/n150054D58.DTL

[Endangered Specie]

1. Goddamn conservative activist judges.

[Politicub]

2. This conservative activist judge disgusts me

:puke:

[mondo joe]

3. The judge clearly didn't care if the act DOES promote procreation.

Since it DOESN'T promote procreation it's nothing BUT discrimination.

[BR_Parkway]

4. So, if we now have a Fed Court recognition that gay couples rights have

been infringed on, do we have a case to request compensation under the rules about the government taking without fair compensation?

If they take my property for a new highway that benefits many, they have to pay me. Now they've ruled that they are taking my right to marry in service to some broader goal of public interest, I want my check.

Also, does this ruling, under the umbrella of promoting procreation, out law/invalidate str8 couple marraiges who don't have children?

[classof56]

5. What is the message here to non-procreating marrieds?

Or for that matter, married people who don't engage in sexual intercourse. I'm probably not the only one who's known such couples. And further, what about those who once did but no longer can have sex? Should their unions be declared invalid? And those who are divorced and widowed or remarried whose children are not being "reared" by both biological parents? This decision could have such far-reaching effects I shudder to think...! And doesn't this also negate the need for the constitutional amendment Bushie promised to promote to ban gay marriage? So many questions!

Tired Old Cynic

[BR_Parkway]

6. I think the Fed gov't just outlawed divorce for people with children, at

least while they are being 'reared'. Perhaps they can still get divorced after the last one has left the nest.