- published: 28 Oct 2015
- views: 6
Create your page here
-
remove the playlistIn Re Marriage Cases
- remove the playlistIn Re Marriage Cases
back to playlist
See DOZENS more examples of FOX NEWS BIAS at: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D
It wasn't quite a "no spin zone" when Bill O'Reilly brought Megyn Kelly on to the May 15, 2008, edition of Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" as the legal expert to analyze that day's California Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality as I show with the clips and commentary in this video.
You can find the full text of, In re MARRIAGE CASES, the California Supreme Court decision striking down California's ban on gay marriage, at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF
- published: 22 May 2008
- views: 151717
Hollingsworth v. Perry
Nicole Smart
Ms. Fortenberry Period 1
Works Cited
"In Re Marriage Cases." Lambda Legal. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
N.p., n.d. Web.
"Hollingsworth v. Perry (formerly Known as Perry v. Brown and Perry v. Schwarzenegger)." Lambda Legal. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"Hollingsworth v. Perry." Http://www.apa.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"HOLLINGSWORTH v. PERRY." Hollingsworth v. Perry. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"Hollingsworth v. Perry." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 10-16696 and 11-16577 (Prop. 8)." Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 10-16696 and 11-16577 (Prop. 8). N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"Plaza Hotel Hosts First Gay Wedding." YouTube. YouTube, 19 Feb. 2013. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"Prop 8 Rally - CA Supreme Court Standing." YouTube. YouTube, 07 Sept. 2011. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"Raw Video: Prop 8 Ninth Circuit Appeal Press Conference Part 3." YouTube. YouTube, 31 Dec. 2010. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"Repeal California's Proposition 8?" YouTube. YouTube, 07 Dec. 2011. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
- published: 25 Mar 2014
- views: 405
This is the video that stated my YouTube experience.
The first video I made in my life, I often wonder what YouTube would be like for me today had it not been for the passage of the anti-Gay rights bill in 2008.
I attended the first protest march here and took only still photos as I did not consider on making a video of it at the time.
It’s still up as the first video on my first channel I opened in 2009
( Elephant Pancake’s ) and after all these years it still has under 200 views, not from lack of beauty or importance, but lack of recognition of my channel at the time as well as me letting stay buried under 100s of following uploads.
*********
Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 California state elections. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage (Proposition 22, 2000) unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was also ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court (on different grounds) in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.
- published: 21 Nov 2014
- views: 34
This audio is from the oral arguments of Hollingsworth v. Perry at the United States Supreme Court to decide whether the 14th Amendment prohibits the state of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
- published: 26 Mar 2013
- views: 17862
As of March 2013, eleven countries (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden), and several sub-national jurisdictions (parts of Brazil, Mexico, and the United States), allow same-sex couples to marry. Bills allowing legal recognition of same-sex marriage have been proposed, are pending, or have passed at least one legislative house in Andorra, Colombia, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Nepal, New Zealand, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay as well as in the legislatures of several sub-national jurisdictions (in Scotland as well as parts of Australia, Mexico, and the United States). The U.S. is supposed to be the leaders of the free world yet we suppress what 11 other countries have allowed , its time the U.S. stops theistic morality and realizes humanism, marriage is allowed for legal rights to medical and financial support and most importantly love, not for the morals of any religion.~ Tony.
Washington (CNN) -- The question of same-sex marriage went before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday in the first of two oral arguments this week on separate appeals.
The opening public session was devoted to a California ban approved by voters. In a swirl of analysis after the event, the question was whether the justices would issue a sweeping decision this year on whether states can say who can or can't get married. Or would they leave the current patchwork of state laws in place, choosing to let state legislatures and courts sort it all out?
Wikipedia:
Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California's State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election. The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California,[6] nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008.
After the elections, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle).
United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal.The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continued the stay, keeping Walker's ruling on hold pending appeal.
On February 7, 2012, in a 2--1 decision, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed Walker's decision declaring the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. The panel also unanimously affirmed Judge Ware's holding that Walker was not obligated to recuse himself from the case because he is gay.Still, the panel continued a stay on the ruling, barring any marriages from taking place pending further appeals. On June 5, 2012, a majority of the full Ninth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc and stayed the ruling pending appeal. The proposition's proponents filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting that the Court review the case, on July 30, 2012. On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court granted the proponents' petition for certiorari. The Court is expected to issue its ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry by late June 2013.
To Mr. Keith Olbermann, brilliant !
- published: 27 Mar 2013
- views: 367
On Wednesday, Sept 4, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that will determine whether Sergio Garcia, an undocumented immigrant, can become a licensed attorney.
- published: 04 Sep 2013
- views: 11286
Attorneys Theodore "Ted" Olson and David Boies interviewed by Bill Boyers on PBS about Proposition 8.
For more information-
American Foundation for Equal Rights- http://www.afer.org/
From Wikipedia- http://tinyurl.com/66ffda
Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; called California Marriage Protection Act by proponents) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California's State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election. The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California, nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008.
Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society," that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay," and that "gays ... do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Opponents argued that "the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society," that the California constitution "should guarantee the same freedom and rights to everyone" and that the proposition "mandates one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set for everyone else." They also argued that "equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee" (see Equal Protection Clause).
The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.9 million and $43.3 million, respectively, becoming the highest-funded campaign on any state ballot and surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest. After the elections, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle). United States district court Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. Judge Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continued the stay, keeping Judge Walker's ruling on hold pending appeal.
Information current as of 12/21/2011
- published: 21 Dec 2011
- views: 293
Attorneys Theodore "Ted" Olson and David Boies interviewed by Bill Boyers on PBS about Proposition 8.
For more information-
American Foundation for Equal Rights- http://www.afer.org/
From Wikipedia- http://tinyurl.com/66ffda
Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; called California Marriage Protection Act by proponents) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California's State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election. The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California, nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008.
Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society," that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay," and that "gays ... do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Opponents argued that "the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society," that the California constitution "should guarantee the same freedom and rights to everyone" and that the proposition "mandates one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set for everyone else." They also argued that "equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee" (see Equal Protection Clause).
The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.9 million and $43.3 million, respectively, becoming the highest-funded campaign on any state ballot and surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest. After the elections, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle). United States district court Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. Judge Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continued the stay, keeping Judge Walker's ruling on hold pending appeal.
Information current as of 12/21/2011
- published: 21 Dec 2011
- views: 169
CINCINNATI-- A group of federal judges heard six cases Wednesday inside a federal court in Cincinnati, that could decide the future for same-sex couples wishing to marry in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee.
Hundreds of same-sex marriage rights supporters rallied outside the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, and at Fountain Square just one black away.
"It's the love that marriage is, but also the 1,600 benefits marriage provides," said Beavercreek resident RJ McKay, who attended the Cincinnati rallies. He and his partner of 16 years Todd, have been waiting almost a decade to be able to legally marry in Ohio.
"We didn't want to go anywhere else we want to do it in Ohio," said Todd Figgins, inside the home the couple shares together.
"If I would have gotten in a car accident coming home from the rally today," RJ said, "If a hospital administrator or a government administrator were to look at us... the only thing we have in common is our address. So we're glorified roommates, or legal strangers."
The judges heard appeals from two homosexual couples who are fighting to be listed as surviving spouses on death certificates. Four couples are fighting to keep their names on official birth certificates.
"So this is the second step, the third step will be the Supreme Court so I'm sure either way it goes after today's hearings it will end up in the Supreme Court," RJ said.
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling could mean an overturn of the same sex marriage ban Ohio voters upheld in 2004.
RJ made a t-shirt that year while working with the organization Diversity Dayton, that has the U.S. 14th Amendment printed on the back. He wore it to the Cincinnati rally, to remind him of his decade long fight for the right to marry the man of his dreams.
"We're just watching history being made," said Todd.
"Everybody in every area of the country is looking at this and it is about love. And who is going to deny love," RD added.
Very few people turned out in opposition to the Cincinnati crowds Wednesday.
Supporters are speculating the court may have a decision by October.
This station held a same-sex marriage town hall meeting, for community members to voice their opinions on both sides of the issues. To watch it, click here.
*********************************************************
PREVIOUS:
CINCINNATI (AP) -- Hundreds of gay marriage supporters are rallying in downtown Cincinnati near the federal courthouse where judges will consider arguments about the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans in four states.
Advocates are holding up banners and signs urging "Freedom to Marry" or other messages in favor of legal challenges to bans in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee.
The Fountain Square crowd included couples who married in states where same-sex marriages are legal and other longtime couples who say they are waiting for it to become legal in their home states.
There was little sign of public opposition near the courthouse
- published: 07 Aug 2014
- views: 1037
The Sunday before the historic (and infamous) Prop 8 Election, a rally was held in downtown Los Angeles...
Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; called California Marriage Protection Act by proponents) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."[2][3][4]
By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California's State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election.[5] The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California,[6] nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008.[7][8][9]
Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society", that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay", and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Opponents argued that "the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society", that the California constitution "should guarantee the same freedom and rights to everyone", and that the proposition "mandates one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set for everyone else." They also argued that "equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee" (see Equal Protection Clause).[10]
The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.9 million and $43.3 million, respectively, becoming the year's highest-funded campaign on any state ballot and surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest. After the elections, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle).
United States District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution.[11] Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal.[12][13] The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continued the stay, keeping Walker's ruling on hold pending appeal.[14]
On February 7, 2012, in a 2--1 decision, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed Walker's decision declaring the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.[15] The panel also unanimously affirmed Judge Ware's holding that Walker was not obligated to recuse himself from the case because he is gay.[16] Still, the panel continued a stay on the ruling, barring any marriages from taking place pending further appeals.[17] On June 5, 2012, a majority of the full Ninth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc and stayed the ruling pending appeal.[18] The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on July 31, 2012.[19]
- published: 03 Aug 2012
- views: 132
In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384], was a California Supreme Court case with the dual holding that "statutes that treat persons differently because of their sexual orientation should be subjected to strict scrutiny" and the existing "California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying." Currently, the California Family Code states: “Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman.”
On May 15, 2008, the court ruled in a 4–3 decision that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict judicial scrutiny and that marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution, thereby holding unconstitutional the previously existing statutory ban on same-sex marriage embodied in two statutes, one enacted by the Legislature in 1977, and the other through the initiative process in 2000 (Proposition 22). The court's ruling also established that any law discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is constitutionally suspect, making California the first state in the United States to set such a strict standard. On June 4, 2008, the court denied the request for rehearing by the same 4–3 majority while unanimously denying a petition for a stay, affirming that the decision would take effect as scheduled. The Writ of Mandate directing the State Registrar of Vital Statistics and all County Clerks to comply with the ruling was issued by the Superior Court on June 19, 2008.
This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases
This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license.
This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license.
Keith Theodore Olbermann (
/ˈoʊlbərmən/; born January 27, 1959) is an American political commentator and writer. Most recently, he was the chief news officer of the Current TV network and the host of the Current TV weeknight political commentary program, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, until March 30, 2012, a program he hosted with the same title and a similar format on MSNBC from March 2003 to January 2011.
During his time at MSNBC, Olbermann established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining note for his pointed criticism of mainly right-leaning politicians and public figures such as Fox News Channel commentator Bill O'Reilly,President George W. Bush and 2008 Republican presidential nominee, John McCain. Though he has been described as a "liberal", he has resisted being labelled politically, stating "I'm not a liberal. I'm an American".
Olbermann spent the first twenty years of his career in sports journalism. He was a sports correspondent for CNN and for local TV and radio stations in the 1980s, winning the Best Sportscaster award from the California Associated Press three times. He co-hosted ESPN's SportsCenter from 1992 to 1997. From 1998 to 2001, he was a producer and anchor for Fox Sports Net and a host of Major League Baseball on Fox.
This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Olbermann
This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license.
This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license.
- Loading...
-
1:13In re Marriage Cases Top # 9 Facts
In re Marriage Cases Top # 9 Facts -
3:24Fox News Spins Gay Marriage Ruling in O'Reilly No Spin Zone?
Fox News Spins Gay Marriage Ruling in O'Reilly No Spin Zone?Fox News Spins Gay Marriage Ruling in O'Reilly No Spin Zone?
See DOZENS more examples of FOX NEWS BIAS at: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D It wasn't quite a "no spin zone" when Bill O'Reilly brought Megyn Kelly on to the May 15, 2008, edition of Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" as the legal expert to analyze that day's California Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality as I show with the clips and commentary in this video. You can find the full text of, In re MARRIAGE CASES, the California Supreme Court decision striking down California's ban on gay marriage, at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF -
3:33Hollingsworth v Perry
Hollingsworth v PerryHollingsworth v Perry
Hollingsworth v. Perry Nicole Smart Ms. Fortenberry Period 1 Works Cited "In Re Marriage Cases." Lambda Legal. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. N.p., n.d. Web. "Hollingsworth v. Perry (formerly Known as Perry v. Brown and Perry v. Schwarzenegger)." Lambda Legal. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. "Hollingsworth v. Perry." Http://www.apa.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. "HOLLINGSWORTH v. PERRY." Hollingsworth v. Perry. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. "Hollingsworth v. Perry." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. "Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 10-16696 and 11-16577 (Prop. 8)." Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 10-16696 and 11-16577 (Prop. 8). N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. "Plaza Hotel Hosts First Gay Wedding." YouTube. YouTube, 19 Feb. 2013. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. "Prop 8 Rally - CA Supreme Court Standing." YouTube. YouTube, 07 Sept. 2011. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. "Raw Video: Prop 8 Ninth Circuit Appeal Press Conference Part 3." YouTube. YouTube, 31 Dec. 2010. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. "Repeal California's Proposition 8?" YouTube. YouTube, 07 Dec. 2011. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. -
3:56My first YouTube video-Year was 2008 posted 2009
My first YouTube video-Year was 2008 posted 2009My first YouTube video-Year was 2008 posted 2009
This is the video that stated my YouTube experience. The first video I made in my life, I often wonder what YouTube would be like for me today had it not been for the passage of the anti-Gay rights bill in 2008. I attended the first protest march here and took only still photos as I did not consider on making a video of it at the time. It’s still up as the first video on my first channel I opened in 2009 ( Elephant Pancake’s ) and after all these years it still has under 200 views, not from lack of beauty or importance, but lack of recognition of my channel at the time as well as me letting stay buried under 100s of following uploads. ********* Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 California state elections. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage (Proposition 22, 2000) unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was also ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court (on different grounds) in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals. -
80:05Oral Arguments In Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Case | Video
Oral Arguments In Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Case | VideoOral Arguments In Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Case | Video
This audio is from the oral arguments of Hollingsworth v. Perry at the United States Supreme Court to decide whether the 14th Amendment prohibits the state of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. -
6:27Same sex marriage & prop 8 ~ Keith Olbermann.
Same sex marriage & prop 8 ~ Keith Olbermann.Same sex marriage & prop 8 ~ Keith Olbermann.
As of March 2013, eleven countries (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden), and several sub-national jurisdictions (parts of Brazil, Mexico, and the United States), allow same-sex couples to marry. Bills allowing legal recognition of same-sex marriage have been proposed, are pending, or have passed at least one legislative house in Andorra, Colombia, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Nepal, New Zealand, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay as well as in the legislatures of several sub-national jurisdictions (in Scotland as well as parts of Australia, Mexico, and the United States). The U.S. is supposed to be the leaders of the free world yet we suppress what 11 other countries have allowed , its time the U.S. stops theistic morality and realizes humanism, marriage is allowed for legal rights to medical and financial support and most importantly love, not for the morals of any religion.~ Tony. Washington (CNN) -- The question of same-sex marriage went before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday in the first of two oral arguments this week on separate appeals. The opening public session was devoted to a California ban approved by voters. In a swirl of analysis after the event, the question was whether the justices would issue a sweeping decision this year on whether states can say who can or can't get married. Or would they leave the current patchwork of state laws in place, choosing to let state legislatures and courts sort it all out? Wikipedia: Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California's State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election. The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California,[6] nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008. After the elections, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle). United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal.The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continued the stay, keeping Walker's ruling on hold pending appeal. On February 7, 2012, in a 2--1 decision, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed Walker's decision declaring the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. The panel also unanimously affirmed Judge Ware's holding that Walker was not obligated to recuse himself from the case because he is gay.Still, the panel continued a stay on the ruling, barring any marriages from taking place pending further appeals. On June 5, 2012, a majority of the full Ninth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc and stayed the ruling pending appeal. The proposition's proponents filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting that the Court review the case, on July 30, 2012. On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court granted the proponents' petition for certiorari. The Court is expected to issue its ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry by late June 2013. To Mr. Keith Olbermann, brilliant ! -
5:39Rejoice "Divorce" China Case
Rejoice "Divorce" China CaseRejoice "Divorce" China Case
-
74:46In re Garcia (Sergio C.) on Admission, California Supreme Court Case S202512
In re Garcia (Sergio C.) on Admission, California Supreme Court Case S202512In re Garcia (Sergio C.) on Admission, California Supreme Court Case S202512
On Wednesday, Sept 4, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that will determine whether Sergio Garcia, an undocumented immigrant, can become a licensed attorney. -
11:00Ted Olson & David Boies Interview on PBS on Prop 8 (1 of 5)
Ted Olson & David Boies Interview on PBS on Prop 8 (1 of 5)Ted Olson & David Boies Interview on PBS on Prop 8 (1 of 5)
Attorneys Theodore "Ted" Olson and David Boies interviewed by Bill Boyers on PBS about Proposition 8. For more information- American Foundation for Equal Rights- http://www.afer.org/ From Wikipedia- http://tinyurl.com/66ffda Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; called California Marriage Protection Act by proponents) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California's State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election. The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California, nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008. Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society," that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay," and that "gays ... do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Opponents argued that "the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society," that the California constitution "should guarantee the same freedom and rights to everyone" and that the proposition "mandates one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set for everyone else." They also argued that "equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee" (see Equal Protection Clause). The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.9 million and $43.3 million, respectively, becoming the highest-funded campaign on any state ballot and surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest. After the elections, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle). United States district court Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. Judge Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continued the stay, keeping Judge Walker's ruling on hold pending appeal. Information current as of 12/21/2011 -
9:59Ted Olson & David Boies Interview on PBS on Prop 8 (4 of 5)
Ted Olson & David Boies Interview on PBS on Prop 8 (4 of 5)Ted Olson & David Boies Interview on PBS on Prop 8 (4 of 5)
Attorneys Theodore "Ted" Olson and David Boies interviewed by Bill Boyers on PBS about Proposition 8. For more information- American Foundation for Equal Rights- http://www.afer.org/ From Wikipedia- http://tinyurl.com/66ffda Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; called California Marriage Protection Act by proponents) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California's State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election. The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California, nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008. Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society," that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay," and that "gays ... do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Opponents argued that "the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society," that the California constitution "should guarantee the same freedom and rights to everyone" and that the proposition "mandates one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set for everyone else." They also argued that "equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee" (see Equal Protection Clause). The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.9 million and $43.3 million, respectively, becoming the highest-funded campaign on any state ballot and surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest. After the elections, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle). United States district court Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. Judge Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continued the stay, keeping Judge Walker's ruling on hold pending appeal. Information current as of 12/21/2011 -
2:22UPDATE: Same-Sex Marriage Cases in Ohio Draw Activists
UPDATE: Same-Sex Marriage Cases in Ohio Draw ActivistsUPDATE: Same-Sex Marriage Cases in Ohio Draw Activists
CINCINNATI-- A group of federal judges heard six cases Wednesday inside a federal court in Cincinnati, that could decide the future for same-sex couples wishing to marry in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee. Hundreds of same-sex marriage rights supporters rallied outside the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, and at Fountain Square just one black away. "It's the love that marriage is, but also the 1,600 benefits marriage provides," said Beavercreek resident RJ McKay, who attended the Cincinnati rallies. He and his partner of 16 years Todd, have been waiting almost a decade to be able to legally marry in Ohio. "We didn't want to go anywhere else we want to do it in Ohio," said Todd Figgins, inside the home the couple shares together. "If I would have gotten in a car accident coming home from the rally today," RJ said, "If a hospital administrator or a government administrator were to look at us... the only thing we have in common is our address. So we're glorified roommates, or legal strangers." The judges heard appeals from two homosexual couples who are fighting to be listed as surviving spouses on death certificates. Four couples are fighting to keep their names on official birth certificates. "So this is the second step, the third step will be the Supreme Court so I'm sure either way it goes after today's hearings it will end up in the Supreme Court," RJ said. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling could mean an overturn of the same sex marriage ban Ohio voters upheld in 2004. RJ made a t-shirt that year while working with the organization Diversity Dayton, that has the U.S. 14th Amendment printed on the back. He wore it to the Cincinnati rally, to remind him of his decade long fight for the right to marry the man of his dreams. "We're just watching history being made," said Todd. "Everybody in every area of the country is looking at this and it is about love. And who is going to deny love," RD added. Very few people turned out in opposition to the Cincinnati crowds Wednesday. Supporters are speculating the court may have a decision by October. This station held a same-sex marriage town hall meeting, for community members to voice their opinions on both sides of the issues. To watch it, click here. ********************************************************* PREVIOUS: CINCINNATI (AP) -- Hundreds of gay marriage supporters are rallying in downtown Cincinnati near the federal courthouse where judges will consider arguments about the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans in four states. Advocates are holding up banners and signs urging "Freedom to Marry" or other messages in favor of legal challenges to bans in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. The Fountain Square crowd included couples who married in states where same-sex marriages are legal and other longtime couples who say they are waiting for it to become legal in their home states. There was little sign of public opposition near the courthouse -
1:04Fox 11 Los Angeles Proposition 8 Rally 2008
Fox 11 Los Angeles Proposition 8 Rally 2008Fox 11 Los Angeles Proposition 8 Rally 2008
The Sunday before the historic (and infamous) Prop 8 Election, a rally was held in downtown Los Angeles... Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; called California Marriage Protection Act by proponents) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."[2][3][4] By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California's State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election.[5] The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California,[6] nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008.[7][8][9] Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society", that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay", and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Opponents argued that "the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society", that the California constitution "should guarantee the same freedom and rights to everyone", and that the proposition "mandates one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set for everyone else." They also argued that "equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee" (see Equal Protection Clause).[10] The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.9 million and $43.3 million, respectively, becoming the year's highest-funded campaign on any state ballot and surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest. After the elections, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle). United States District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution.[11] Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal.[12][13] The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continued the stay, keeping Walker's ruling on hold pending appeal.[14] On February 7, 2012, in a 2--1 decision, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed Walker's decision declaring the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.[15] The panel also unanimously affirmed Judge Ware's holding that Walker was not obligated to recuse himself from the case because he is gay.[16] Still, the panel continued a stay on the ruling, barring any marriages from taking place pending further appeals.[17] On June 5, 2012, a majority of the full Ninth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc and stayed the ruling pending appeal.[18] The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on July 31, 2012.[19] -
0:35High Court to Hear Gay Marriage Cases in April
High Court to Hear Gay Marriage Cases in AprilHigh Court to Hear Gay Marriage Cases in April
The U.S. Supreme Court will tackle the issue of gay marriage this term. At issue, can states refuse gay marriage and can states refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states? -
3:27High court to hear gay marriage cases in April
High court to hear gay marriage cases in AprilHigh court to hear gay marriage cases in April
The Supreme Court says it will decide whether same-sex couples nationwide have a right to marry under the Constitution. (Jan. 16, 2015)
- Bay Area Reporter
- Briggs Initiative
- Carlos R. Moreno
- Carol A. Corrigan
- Constitutional Law
- County Clerk
- FAIR Education Act
- Family Law
- First District
- Fundamental right
- Gavin Newsom
- Gender
- In re
- In re Marriage Cases
- Iowa Supreme Court
- Joyce L. Kennard
- Kathryn M. Werdegar
- LGBT rights in Idaho
- LGBT rights in Ohio
- LGBT rights in Texas
- LGBT rights in Utah
- Los Angeles Times
- Mandamus
- Marvin R. Baxter
- Ming W. Chin
- Mootness
- OutWrite
- Perez v. Sharp
- Perry v. Brown
- Portal Law
- Richard Kramer
- Ronald M. George
- San Francisco Pride
- Sexual orientation
- Statute
- Stay of execution
- Strauss v. Horton
- Strict scrutiny
- The Advocate
- The Boston Globe
- Varnum v. Brien
- White Night riots
- Writ of mandate
-
-
Fox News Spins Gay Marriage Ruling in O'Reilly No Spin Zone?
See DOZENS more examples of FOX NEWS BIAS at: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D It wasn't quite a "no spin zone" when Bill O'Reilly brought Megyn Kelly on to the May 15, 2008, edition of Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" as the legal expert to analyze that day's California Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality as I show with the clips and commentary in this video. You can find the full text of, In re MARRIAGE CASES, the California Supreme Court decision striking down California's ban on gay marriage, at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF -
Hollingsworth v Perry
Hollingsworth v. Perry Nicole Smart Ms. Fortenberry Period 1 Works Cited "In Re Marriage Cases." Lambda Legal. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. N.p., n.d. Web. "Hollingsworth v. Perry (formerly Known as Perry v. Brown and Perry v. Schwarzenegger)." Lambda Legal. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. "Hollingsworth v. Perry." Http://www.apa.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. "HOLLINGSWORTH v. PERRY." Hollingsworth v. Perry. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. "Hollingsworth v. Perry." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. "Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 10-16696 and 11-16577 (Prop. 8)." Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 10-16696 and 11-16577 (Prop. 8). N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. "Plaza Hotel Hosts First Gay Wedding." YouTube. YouTube, 19 Feb. 2013. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. "Prop 8 Rally - ... -
My first YouTube video-Year was 2008 posted 2009
This is the video that stated my YouTube experience. The first video I made in my life, I often wonder what YouTube would be like for me today had it not been for the passage of the anti-Gay rights bill in 2008. I attended the first protest march here and took only still photos as I did not consider on making a video of it at the time. It’s still up as the first video on my first channel I opened in 2009 ( Elephant Pancake’s ) and after all these years it still has under 200 views, not from lack of beauty or importance, but lack of recognition of my channel at the time as well as me letting stay buried under 100s of following uploads. ********* Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 Ca... -
Oral Arguments In Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Case | Video
This audio is from the oral arguments of Hollingsworth v. Perry at the United States Supreme Court to decide whether the 14th Amendment prohibits the state of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. -
Same sex marriage & prop 8 ~ Keith Olbermann.
As of March 2013, eleven countries (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden), and several sub-national jurisdictions (parts of Brazil, Mexico, and the United States), allow same-sex couples to marry. Bills allowing legal recognition of same-sex marriage have been proposed, are pending, or have passed at least one legislative house in Andorra, Colombia, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Nepal, New Zealand, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay as well as in the legislatures of several sub-national jurisdictions (in Scotland as well as parts of Australia, Mexico, and the United States). The U.S. is supposed to be the leaders of the free world yet we suppress what 11 other countries have allowed , its time the U.S. stops t... -
Rejoice "Divorce" China Case
-
In re Garcia (Sergio C.) on Admission, California Supreme Court Case S202512
On Wednesday, Sept 4, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that will determine whether Sergio Garcia, an undocumented immigrant, can become a licensed attorney. -
Ted Olson & David Boies Interview on PBS on Prop 8 (1 of 5)
Attorneys Theodore "Ted" Olson and David Boies interviewed by Bill Boyers on PBS about Proposition 8. For more information- American Foundation for Equal Rights- http://www.afer.org/ From Wikipedia- http://tinyurl.com/66ffda Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; called California Marriage Protection Act by proponents) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturn... -
Ted Olson & David Boies Interview on PBS on Prop 8 (4 of 5)
Attorneys Theodore "Ted" Olson and David Boies interviewed by Bill Boyers on PBS about Proposition 8. For more information- American Foundation for Equal Rights- http://www.afer.org/ From Wikipedia- http://tinyurl.com/66ffda Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; called California Marriage Protection Act by proponents) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturn... -
UPDATE: Same-Sex Marriage Cases in Ohio Draw Activists
CINCINNATI-- A group of federal judges heard six cases Wednesday inside a federal court in Cincinnati, that could decide the future for same-sex couples wishing to marry in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee. Hundreds of same-sex marriage rights supporters rallied outside the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, and at Fountain Square just one black away. "It's the love that marriage is, but also the 1,600 benefits marriage provides," said Beavercreek resident RJ McKay, who attended the Cincinnati rallies. He and his partner of 16 years Todd, have been waiting almost a decade to be able to legally marry in Ohio. "We didn't want to go anywhere else we want to do it in Ohio," said Todd Figgins, inside the home the couple shares together. "If I would have gotten in a car ac... -
Fox 11 Los Angeles Proposition 8 Rally 2008
The Sunday before the historic (and infamous) Prop 8 Election, a rally was held in downtown Los Angeles... Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; called California Marriage Protection Act by proponents) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."[2][3][4] By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional ri... -
High Court to Hear Gay Marriage Cases in April
The U.S. Supreme Court will tackle the issue of gay marriage this term. At issue, can states refuse gay marriage and can states refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states? -
High court to hear gay marriage cases in April
The Supreme Court says it will decide whether same-sex couples nationwide have a right to marry under the Constitution. (Jan. 16, 2015) -
Special Debate on Divorce Cases in Hyderabad | Marriage Life | 7PM Discussion | V6 News
Watch V6 special discussion on Divorced Parents. Special debate with Advocate CVL Narasimha, Inspector Jyosna, Psychologist Dr. Praveen and VHP leader Sunitha Reddy , anchored by Senior Journalist Buchanna. Subscribe us at http://goo.gl/t2pFrq Download V6 Android App ► http://bit.ly/V6NewsAPP Visit our Website ► http://V6news.tv Twitter ► https://twitter.com/V6News Facebook ► http://www.facebook.com/V6News.tv Google+ ► https://plus.google.com/109903438943940210337 Watch first ever a 24/7 Telangana news Channel V6 News, a Journalist - driven channel that covers news updates, politics, sports, entertainment and cinema. The channel telecast special Telangana programs in complete Telangana dialect. The channel airs shows like ' Top News,Taara, 70MM, Ghadeelu,Teenmaar, Dhoom Dhaam, Mangli... -
Landmark same-sex marriage cases argued
CINCINNATI (Angenette Levy) -- Same-sex couples gathered Wednesday as the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in several cases involving gay marriage bans in Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee and Kentucky. In Ohio, several Ohio same-sex couples married in states where gay marriage is legal sued in federal court to have their marriages recognized. Some asked that both parents' names be listed on their child's birth certificates. Federal Judge Timothy Black granted the request and the state of Ohio appealed. "We just want to be treated as a family because we are a family. We both take care of him," said plaintiff Brittani Henry-Rogers of her son Jayseon. Her wife, Brittni Rogers added, "We want him to grow up knowing he has two parents and his name will possibly go in his... -
Halla Bol - Full Episode 8 - Abuse In Marriage - bindass (Official)
This episode of Halla Bol brings the pressing issue of Abuse In Marriages into limelight. Sneha, the protagonist is a young, independent make-up artist hailing from Delhi who against the wishes of her parents absconds and marries her boyfriend- Tarun (a Radio Jockey). Now Based in Mumbai, the couple starts their marital life blissfully until Sneha starts working. Sneha's working hours, her association with male colleagues and her independence agitates Tarun's chauvinistic mind to a point that he starts assaulting his wife physically and sexually. Sneha bears Tarun's appalling behavior for a long time testing her patience, still trying to make her marriage work. The turning point comes after one dreadful night where Tarun loses his temper over a trivial matter and relentlessly rapes and bea... -
Al Jazeera World - Marriage and Divorce in Morocco
Moroccan family law is built around the Moudawana, a family code that governs marriage, divorce, child custody, maintenance and the division of assets. Adapting well-established traditions, it has been in existence since the 1950s; but, historically, marriage - and divorce - had always been in the hands of men. But in recent decades the Moudawana has faced pressure from civil society groups and women's rights campaigners to introduce reforms, prompting King Mohamed VI to appoint a commission to examine its principles and practice in October 2003. Its findings have resulted in more rights for women and updates to many of its rules, particularly in introducing new types of divorce, including for "irreconcilable differences". In Marriage and Divorce in Morocco we look at a host of areas a... -
Halla Bol - Dowry Story - Season 02 - Episode 15
Halla Bol Season 02 - Episode 15 Synopsis: Radhika and Meeta are good friends and work with the Indian army. Both at the captain rank. Radhika is getting promoted to Major and Meeta is getting married. Both are happy for each other. Radhika finds out that Meeta is getting tormented by her in laws for dowry. Her husband doesn't support her as he doesn't have the say in the family. Watch the entire episode #LadkiyanKamNahi #HallaBol Dekhiye Bindass every Sunday at 6pm 'Halla Bol - Season 2' Hai Kuch Bhi Ho Sakta Hai! Don't forget to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT! Popular shows available on bindass:- Bindass 'Zindagi Wins': Bindass brings to you an entertaining full of life and emotional journey of Aaliya & Malvika. How two sides of the same coin have their distinct & unique identities but togethe... -
Same-sex marriage cases go before federal court in Cincinnati
CINCINNATI (WKRC/AP) -- Six landmark court cases dealing with the legality of same-sex marriage in four states are going before a federal appeals court in Cincinnati Wednesday. Attorneys for both sides are presenting arguments for cases from Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee. Michigan's and Kentucky's cases stem from rulings striking down each state's gay marriage bans. Ohio's case deals only with the state's recognition of out-of-state gay marriages, while Tennessee's is narrowly focused on the rights of three same-sex couples. Attorneys on both sides in the Michigan and Ohio cases will go first and get a half-hour each to make their cases. Kentucky and Tennessee will follow, with 15 minutes for each side from both states. Supporters of marriage equality are rallying on Foun... -
Supreme Court Hears Same Sex Marriage Case- Full Hearing-March 26, 2013
The U.S. Supreme Court hears a case that potentially could legalize same sex marriage in all states. The case involves Proposition 8, a voter approved law that bans same-sex marriage in California. This is audio of the arguments before the court. -
The President Speaks on the Supreme Court’s Decision on Marriage Equality
President Obama delivers remarks in the Rose Garden heralding the Supreme Court’s ruling that gay and lesbian couples have the right to marry in America. #LoveWins -
Same-Sex Marriage Cases
http://to.pbs.org/1EVRSIe The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week as it considers a constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples nationwide. Religious groups have been actively lobbying on both sides of the issue. Correspondent Tim O’Brien reports on the arguments of the lawyers, the questions of the justices, and the implications of this important decision. --- Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly http://www.pbs.org/religion
In re Marriage Cases Top # 9 Facts
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 1:13
- Updated: 28 Oct 2015
- views: 6
In re Marriage Cases Top # 9 Facts
In re Marriage Cases Top # 9 Facts
wn.com/In Re Marriage Cases Top 9 Facts
Fox News Spins Gay Marriage Ruling in O'Reilly No Spin Zone?
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 3:24
- Updated: 22 May 2008
- views: 151717
See DOZENS more examples of FOX NEWS BIAS at: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D
It wasn't quite a "no spin zone" when Bill O'Reilly br...
See DOZENS more examples of FOX NEWS BIAS at: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D
It wasn't quite a "no spin zone" when Bill O'Reilly brought Megyn Kelly on to the May 15, 2008, edition of Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" as the legal expert to analyze that day's California Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality as I show with the clips and commentary in this video.
You can find the full text of, In re MARRIAGE CASES, the California Supreme Court decision striking down California's ban on gay marriage, at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF
wn.com/Fox News Spins Gay Marriage Ruling In O'Reilly No Spin Zone
See DOZENS more examples of FOX NEWS BIAS at: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D
It wasn't quite a "no spin zone" when Bill O'Reilly brought Megyn Kelly on to the May 15, 2008, edition of Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" as the legal expert to analyze that day's California Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality as I show with the clips and commentary in this video.
You can find the full text of, In re MARRIAGE CASES, the California Supreme Court decision striking down California's ban on gay marriage, at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF
- published: 22 May 2008
- views: 151717
Hollingsworth v Perry
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 3:33
- Updated: 25 Mar 2014
- views: 405
Hollingsworth v. Perry
Nicole Smart
Ms. Fortenberry Period 1
Works Cited
"In Re Marriage Cases." Lambda Legal. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
N.p., n.d. Web.
...
Hollingsworth v. Perry
Nicole Smart
Ms. Fortenberry Period 1
Works Cited
"In Re Marriage Cases." Lambda Legal. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
N.p., n.d. Web.
"Hollingsworth v. Perry (formerly Known as Perry v. Brown and Perry v. Schwarzenegger)." Lambda Legal. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"Hollingsworth v. Perry." Http://www.apa.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"HOLLINGSWORTH v. PERRY." Hollingsworth v. Perry. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"Hollingsworth v. Perry." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 10-16696 and 11-16577 (Prop. 8)." Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 10-16696 and 11-16577 (Prop. 8). N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"Plaza Hotel Hosts First Gay Wedding." YouTube. YouTube, 19 Feb. 2013. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"Prop 8 Rally - CA Supreme Court Standing." YouTube. YouTube, 07 Sept. 2011. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"Raw Video: Prop 8 Ninth Circuit Appeal Press Conference Part 3." YouTube. YouTube, 31 Dec. 2010. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"Repeal California's Proposition 8?" YouTube. YouTube, 07 Dec. 2011. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
wn.com/Hollingsworth V Perry
Hollingsworth v. Perry
Nicole Smart
Ms. Fortenberry Period 1
Works Cited
"In Re Marriage Cases." Lambda Legal. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
N.p., n.d. Web.
"Hollingsworth v. Perry (formerly Known as Perry v. Brown and Perry v. Schwarzenegger)." Lambda Legal. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"Hollingsworth v. Perry." Http://www.apa.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"HOLLINGSWORTH v. PERRY." Hollingsworth v. Perry. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"Hollingsworth v. Perry." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 10-16696 and 11-16577 (Prop. 8)." Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 10-16696 and 11-16577 (Prop. 8). N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"Plaza Hotel Hosts First Gay Wedding." YouTube. YouTube, 19 Feb. 2013. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"Prop 8 Rally - CA Supreme Court Standing." YouTube. YouTube, 07 Sept. 2011. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"Raw Video: Prop 8 Ninth Circuit Appeal Press Conference Part 3." YouTube. YouTube, 31 Dec. 2010. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
"Repeal California's Proposition 8?" YouTube. YouTube, 07 Dec. 2011. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
- published: 25 Mar 2014
- views: 405
My first YouTube video-Year was 2008 posted 2009
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 3:56
- Updated: 21 Nov 2014
- views: 34
This is the video that stated my YouTube experience.
The first video I made in my life, I often wonder what YouTube would be like for me today had it not been f...
This is the video that stated my YouTube experience.
The first video I made in my life, I often wonder what YouTube would be like for me today had it not been for the passage of the anti-Gay rights bill in 2008.
I attended the first protest march here and took only still photos as I did not consider on making a video of it at the time.
It’s still up as the first video on my first channel I opened in 2009
( Elephant Pancake’s ) and after all these years it still has under 200 views, not from lack of beauty or importance, but lack of recognition of my channel at the time as well as me letting stay buried under 100s of following uploads.
*********
Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 California state elections. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage (Proposition 22, 2000) unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was also ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court (on different grounds) in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.
wn.com/My First Youtube Video Year Was 2008 Posted 2009
This is the video that stated my YouTube experience.
The first video I made in my life, I often wonder what YouTube would be like for me today had it not been for the passage of the anti-Gay rights bill in 2008.
I attended the first protest march here and took only still photos as I did not consider on making a video of it at the time.
It’s still up as the first video on my first channel I opened in 2009
( Elephant Pancake’s ) and after all these years it still has under 200 views, not from lack of beauty or importance, but lack of recognition of my channel at the time as well as me letting stay buried under 100s of following uploads.
*********
Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 California state elections. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage (Proposition 22, 2000) unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was also ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court (on different grounds) in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.
- published: 21 Nov 2014
- views: 34
Oral Arguments In Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Case | Video
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 80:05
- Updated: 26 Mar 2013
- views: 17862
This audio is from the oral arguments of Hollingsworth v. Perry at the United States Supreme Court to decide whether the 14th Amendment prohibits the state of C...
This audio is from the oral arguments of Hollingsworth v. Perry at the United States Supreme Court to decide whether the 14th Amendment prohibits the state of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
wn.com/Oral Arguments In Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Case | Video
This audio is from the oral arguments of Hollingsworth v. Perry at the United States Supreme Court to decide whether the 14th Amendment prohibits the state of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
- published: 26 Mar 2013
- views: 17862
Same sex marriage & prop 8 ~ Keith Olbermann.
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 6:27
- Updated: 27 Mar 2013
- views: 367
As of March 2013, eleven countries (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden), and several sub-n...
As of March 2013, eleven countries (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden), and several sub-national jurisdictions (parts of Brazil, Mexico, and the United States), allow same-sex couples to marry. Bills allowing legal recognition of same-sex marriage have been proposed, are pending, or have passed at least one legislative house in Andorra, Colombia, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Nepal, New Zealand, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay as well as in the legislatures of several sub-national jurisdictions (in Scotland as well as parts of Australia, Mexico, and the United States). The U.S. is supposed to be the leaders of the free world yet we suppress what 11 other countries have allowed , its time the U.S. stops theistic morality and realizes humanism, marriage is allowed for legal rights to medical and financial support and most importantly love, not for the morals of any religion.~ Tony.
Washington (CNN) -- The question of same-sex marriage went before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday in the first of two oral arguments this week on separate appeals.
The opening public session was devoted to a California ban approved by voters. In a swirl of analysis after the event, the question was whether the justices would issue a sweeping decision this year on whether states can say who can or can't get married. Or would they leave the current patchwork of state laws in place, choosing to let state legislatures and courts sort it all out?
Wikipedia:
Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California's State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election. The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California,[6] nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008.
After the elections, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle).
United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal.The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continued the stay, keeping Walker's ruling on hold pending appeal.
On February 7, 2012, in a 2--1 decision, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed Walker's decision declaring the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. The panel also unanimously affirmed Judge Ware's holding that Walker was not obligated to recuse himself from the case because he is gay.Still, the panel continued a stay on the ruling, barring any marriages from taking place pending further appeals. On June 5, 2012, a majority of the full Ninth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc and stayed the ruling pending appeal. The proposition's proponents filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting that the Court review the case, on July 30, 2012. On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court granted the proponents' petition for certiorari. The Court is expected to issue its ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry by late June 2013.
To Mr. Keith Olbermann, brilliant !
wn.com/Same Sex Marriage Prop 8 ~ Keith Olbermann.
As of March 2013, eleven countries (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden), and several sub-national jurisdictions (parts of Brazil, Mexico, and the United States), allow same-sex couples to marry. Bills allowing legal recognition of same-sex marriage have been proposed, are pending, or have passed at least one legislative house in Andorra, Colombia, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Nepal, New Zealand, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay as well as in the legislatures of several sub-national jurisdictions (in Scotland as well as parts of Australia, Mexico, and the United States). The U.S. is supposed to be the leaders of the free world yet we suppress what 11 other countries have allowed , its time the U.S. stops theistic morality and realizes humanism, marriage is allowed for legal rights to medical and financial support and most importantly love, not for the morals of any religion.~ Tony.
Washington (CNN) -- The question of same-sex marriage went before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday in the first of two oral arguments this week on separate appeals.
The opening public session was devoted to a California ban approved by voters. In a swirl of analysis after the event, the question was whether the justices would issue a sweeping decision this year on whether states can say who can or can't get married. Or would they leave the current patchwork of state laws in place, choosing to let state legislatures and courts sort it all out?
Wikipedia:
Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California's State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election. The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California,[6] nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008.
After the elections, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle).
United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal.The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continued the stay, keeping Walker's ruling on hold pending appeal.
On February 7, 2012, in a 2--1 decision, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed Walker's decision declaring the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. The panel also unanimously affirmed Judge Ware's holding that Walker was not obligated to recuse himself from the case because he is gay.Still, the panel continued a stay on the ruling, barring any marriages from taking place pending further appeals. On June 5, 2012, a majority of the full Ninth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc and stayed the ruling pending appeal. The proposition's proponents filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting that the Court review the case, on July 30, 2012. On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court granted the proponents' petition for certiorari. The Court is expected to issue its ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry by late June 2013.
To Mr. Keith Olbermann, brilliant !
- published: 27 Mar 2013
- views: 367
Rejoice "Divorce" China Case
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 5:39
- Updated: 01 Oct 2014
- views: 6153291
- published: 01 Oct 2014
- views: 6153291
In re Garcia (Sergio C.) on Admission, California Supreme Court Case S202512
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 74:46
- Updated: 04 Sep 2013
- views: 11286
On Wednesday, Sept 4, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that will determine whether Sergio Garcia, an undocumented immigrant, can beco...
On Wednesday, Sept 4, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that will determine whether Sergio Garcia, an undocumented immigrant, can become a licensed attorney.
wn.com/In Re Garcia (Sergio C.) On Admission, California Supreme Court Case S202512
On Wednesday, Sept 4, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that will determine whether Sergio Garcia, an undocumented immigrant, can become a licensed attorney.
- published: 04 Sep 2013
- views: 11286
Ted Olson & David Boies Interview on PBS on Prop 8 (1 of 5)
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 11:00
- Updated: 21 Dec 2011
- views: 293
Attorneys Theodore "Ted" Olson and David Boies interviewed by Bill Boyers on PBS about Proposition 8.
For more information-
American Foundation for Equal Righ...
Attorneys Theodore "Ted" Olson and David Boies interviewed by Bill Boyers on PBS about Proposition 8.
For more information-
American Foundation for Equal Rights- http://www.afer.org/
From Wikipedia- http://tinyurl.com/66ffda
Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; called California Marriage Protection Act by proponents) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California's State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election. The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California, nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008.
Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society," that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay," and that "gays ... do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Opponents argued that "the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society," that the California constitution "should guarantee the same freedom and rights to everyone" and that the proposition "mandates one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set for everyone else." They also argued that "equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee" (see Equal Protection Clause).
The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.9 million and $43.3 million, respectively, becoming the highest-funded campaign on any state ballot and surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest. After the elections, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle). United States district court Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. Judge Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continued the stay, keeping Judge Walker's ruling on hold pending appeal.
Information current as of 12/21/2011
wn.com/Ted Olson David Boies Interview On Pbs On Prop 8 (1 Of 5)
Attorneys Theodore "Ted" Olson and David Boies interviewed by Bill Boyers on PBS about Proposition 8.
For more information-
American Foundation for Equal Rights- http://www.afer.org/
From Wikipedia- http://tinyurl.com/66ffda
Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; called California Marriage Protection Act by proponents) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California's State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election. The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California, nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008.
Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society," that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay," and that "gays ... do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Opponents argued that "the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society," that the California constitution "should guarantee the same freedom and rights to everyone" and that the proposition "mandates one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set for everyone else." They also argued that "equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee" (see Equal Protection Clause).
The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.9 million and $43.3 million, respectively, becoming the highest-funded campaign on any state ballot and surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest. After the elections, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle). United States district court Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. Judge Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continued the stay, keeping Judge Walker's ruling on hold pending appeal.
Information current as of 12/21/2011
- published: 21 Dec 2011
- views: 293
Ted Olson & David Boies Interview on PBS on Prop 8 (4 of 5)
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 9:59
- Updated: 21 Dec 2011
- views: 169
Attorneys Theodore "Ted" Olson and David Boies interviewed by Bill Boyers on PBS about Proposition 8.
For more information-
American Foundation for Equal Righ...
Attorneys Theodore "Ted" Olson and David Boies interviewed by Bill Boyers on PBS about Proposition 8.
For more information-
American Foundation for Equal Rights- http://www.afer.org/
From Wikipedia- http://tinyurl.com/66ffda
Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; called California Marriage Protection Act by proponents) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California's State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election. The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California, nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008.
Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society," that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay," and that "gays ... do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Opponents argued that "the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society," that the California constitution "should guarantee the same freedom and rights to everyone" and that the proposition "mandates one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set for everyone else." They also argued that "equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee" (see Equal Protection Clause).
The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.9 million and $43.3 million, respectively, becoming the highest-funded campaign on any state ballot and surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest. After the elections, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle). United States district court Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. Judge Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continued the stay, keeping Judge Walker's ruling on hold pending appeal.
Information current as of 12/21/2011
wn.com/Ted Olson David Boies Interview On Pbs On Prop 8 (4 Of 5)
Attorneys Theodore "Ted" Olson and David Boies interviewed by Bill Boyers on PBS about Proposition 8.
For more information-
American Foundation for Equal Rights- http://www.afer.org/
From Wikipedia- http://tinyurl.com/66ffda
Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; called California Marriage Protection Act by proponents) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California's State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election. The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California, nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008.
Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society," that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay," and that "gays ... do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Opponents argued that "the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society," that the California constitution "should guarantee the same freedom and rights to everyone" and that the proposition "mandates one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set for everyone else." They also argued that "equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee" (see Equal Protection Clause).
The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.9 million and $43.3 million, respectively, becoming the highest-funded campaign on any state ballot and surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest. After the elections, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle). United States district court Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. Judge Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continued the stay, keeping Judge Walker's ruling on hold pending appeal.
Information current as of 12/21/2011
- published: 21 Dec 2011
- views: 169
UPDATE: Same-Sex Marriage Cases in Ohio Draw Activists
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 2:22
- Updated: 07 Aug 2014
- views: 1037
CINCINNATI-- A group of federal judges heard six cases Wednesday inside a federal court in Cincinnati, that could decide the future for same-sex couples wishing...
CINCINNATI-- A group of federal judges heard six cases Wednesday inside a federal court in Cincinnati, that could decide the future for same-sex couples wishing to marry in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee.
Hundreds of same-sex marriage rights supporters rallied outside the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, and at Fountain Square just one black away.
"It's the love that marriage is, but also the 1,600 benefits marriage provides," said Beavercreek resident RJ McKay, who attended the Cincinnati rallies. He and his partner of 16 years Todd, have been waiting almost a decade to be able to legally marry in Ohio.
"We didn't want to go anywhere else we want to do it in Ohio," said Todd Figgins, inside the home the couple shares together.
"If I would have gotten in a car accident coming home from the rally today," RJ said, "If a hospital administrator or a government administrator were to look at us... the only thing we have in common is our address. So we're glorified roommates, or legal strangers."
The judges heard appeals from two homosexual couples who are fighting to be listed as surviving spouses on death certificates. Four couples are fighting to keep their names on official birth certificates.
"So this is the second step, the third step will be the Supreme Court so I'm sure either way it goes after today's hearings it will end up in the Supreme Court," RJ said.
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling could mean an overturn of the same sex marriage ban Ohio voters upheld in 2004.
RJ made a t-shirt that year while working with the organization Diversity Dayton, that has the U.S. 14th Amendment printed on the back. He wore it to the Cincinnati rally, to remind him of his decade long fight for the right to marry the man of his dreams.
"We're just watching history being made," said Todd.
"Everybody in every area of the country is looking at this and it is about love. And who is going to deny love," RD added.
Very few people turned out in opposition to the Cincinnati crowds Wednesday.
Supporters are speculating the court may have a decision by October.
This station held a same-sex marriage town hall meeting, for community members to voice their opinions on both sides of the issues. To watch it, click here.
*********************************************************
PREVIOUS:
CINCINNATI (AP) -- Hundreds of gay marriage supporters are rallying in downtown Cincinnati near the federal courthouse where judges will consider arguments about the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans in four states.
Advocates are holding up banners and signs urging "Freedom to Marry" or other messages in favor of legal challenges to bans in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee.
The Fountain Square crowd included couples who married in states where same-sex marriages are legal and other longtime couples who say they are waiting for it to become legal in their home states.
There was little sign of public opposition near the courthouse
wn.com/Update Same Sex Marriage Cases In Ohio Draw Activists
CINCINNATI-- A group of federal judges heard six cases Wednesday inside a federal court in Cincinnati, that could decide the future for same-sex couples wishing to marry in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee.
Hundreds of same-sex marriage rights supporters rallied outside the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, and at Fountain Square just one black away.
"It's the love that marriage is, but also the 1,600 benefits marriage provides," said Beavercreek resident RJ McKay, who attended the Cincinnati rallies. He and his partner of 16 years Todd, have been waiting almost a decade to be able to legally marry in Ohio.
"We didn't want to go anywhere else we want to do it in Ohio," said Todd Figgins, inside the home the couple shares together.
"If I would have gotten in a car accident coming home from the rally today," RJ said, "If a hospital administrator or a government administrator were to look at us... the only thing we have in common is our address. So we're glorified roommates, or legal strangers."
The judges heard appeals from two homosexual couples who are fighting to be listed as surviving spouses on death certificates. Four couples are fighting to keep their names on official birth certificates.
"So this is the second step, the third step will be the Supreme Court so I'm sure either way it goes after today's hearings it will end up in the Supreme Court," RJ said.
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling could mean an overturn of the same sex marriage ban Ohio voters upheld in 2004.
RJ made a t-shirt that year while working with the organization Diversity Dayton, that has the U.S. 14th Amendment printed on the back. He wore it to the Cincinnati rally, to remind him of his decade long fight for the right to marry the man of his dreams.
"We're just watching history being made," said Todd.
"Everybody in every area of the country is looking at this and it is about love. And who is going to deny love," RD added.
Very few people turned out in opposition to the Cincinnati crowds Wednesday.
Supporters are speculating the court may have a decision by October.
This station held a same-sex marriage town hall meeting, for community members to voice their opinions on both sides of the issues. To watch it, click here.
*********************************************************
PREVIOUS:
CINCINNATI (AP) -- Hundreds of gay marriage supporters are rallying in downtown Cincinnati near the federal courthouse where judges will consider arguments about the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans in four states.
Advocates are holding up banners and signs urging "Freedom to Marry" or other messages in favor of legal challenges to bans in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee.
The Fountain Square crowd included couples who married in states where same-sex marriages are legal and other longtime couples who say they are waiting for it to become legal in their home states.
There was little sign of public opposition near the courthouse
- published: 07 Aug 2014
- views: 1037
Fox 11 Los Angeles Proposition 8 Rally 2008
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 1:04
- Updated: 03 Aug 2012
- views: 132
The Sunday before the historic (and infamous) Prop 8 Election, a rally was held in downtown Los Angeles...
Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Sa...
The Sunday before the historic (and infamous) Prop 8 Election, a rally was held in downtown Los Angeles...
Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; called California Marriage Protection Act by proponents) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."[2][3][4]
By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California's State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election.[5] The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California,[6] nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008.[7][8][9]
Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society", that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay", and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Opponents argued that "the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society", that the California constitution "should guarantee the same freedom and rights to everyone", and that the proposition "mandates one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set for everyone else." They also argued that "equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee" (see Equal Protection Clause).[10]
The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.9 million and $43.3 million, respectively, becoming the year's highest-funded campaign on any state ballot and surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest. After the elections, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle).
United States District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution.[11] Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal.[12][13] The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continued the stay, keeping Walker's ruling on hold pending appeal.[14]
On February 7, 2012, in a 2--1 decision, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed Walker's decision declaring the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.[15] The panel also unanimously affirmed Judge Ware's holding that Walker was not obligated to recuse himself from the case because he is gay.[16] Still, the panel continued a stay on the ruling, barring any marriages from taking place pending further appeals.[17] On June 5, 2012, a majority of the full Ninth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc and stayed the ruling pending appeal.[18] The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on July 31, 2012.[19]
wn.com/Fox 11 Los Angeles Proposition 8 Rally 2008
The Sunday before the historic (and infamous) Prop 8 Election, a rally was held in downtown Los Angeles...
Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; called California Marriage Protection Act by proponents) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."[2][3][4]
By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California's State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election.[5] The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California,[6] nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008.[7][8][9]
Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society", that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay", and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Opponents argued that "the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society", that the California constitution "should guarantee the same freedom and rights to everyone", and that the proposition "mandates one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set for everyone else." They also argued that "equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee" (see Equal Protection Clause).[10]
The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.9 million and $43.3 million, respectively, becoming the year's highest-funded campaign on any state ballot and surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest. After the elections, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle).
United States District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution.[11] Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal.[12][13] The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continued the stay, keeping Walker's ruling on hold pending appeal.[14]
On February 7, 2012, in a 2--1 decision, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed Walker's decision declaring the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.[15] The panel also unanimously affirmed Judge Ware's holding that Walker was not obligated to recuse himself from the case because he is gay.[16] Still, the panel continued a stay on the ruling, barring any marriages from taking place pending further appeals.[17] On June 5, 2012, a majority of the full Ninth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc and stayed the ruling pending appeal.[18] The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on July 31, 2012.[19]
- published: 03 Aug 2012
- views: 132
High Court to Hear Gay Marriage Cases in April
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 0:35
- Updated: 06 Mar 2015
- views: 114
The U.S. Supreme Court will tackle the issue of gay marriage this term. At issue, can states refuse gay marriage and can states refuse to recognize gay marriage...
The U.S. Supreme Court will tackle the issue of gay marriage this term. At issue, can states refuse gay marriage and can states refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states?
wn.com/High Court To Hear Gay Marriage Cases In April
The U.S. Supreme Court will tackle the issue of gay marriage this term. At issue, can states refuse gay marriage and can states refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states?
- published: 06 Mar 2015
- views: 114
High court to hear gay marriage cases in April
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 3:27
- Updated: 17 Jan 2015
- views: 370
The Supreme Court says it will decide whether same-sex couples nationwide have a right to marry under the Constitution. (Jan. 16, 2015)
The Supreme Court says it will decide whether same-sex couples nationwide have a right to marry under the Constitution. (Jan. 16, 2015)
wn.com/High Court To Hear Gay Marriage Cases In April
The Supreme Court says it will decide whether same-sex couples nationwide have a right to marry under the Constitution. (Jan. 16, 2015)
- published: 17 Jan 2015
- views: 370
Special Debate on Divorce Cases in Hyderabad | Marriage Life | 7PM Discussion | V6 News
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 40:39
- Updated: 14 Aug 2015
- views: 3418
Watch V6 special discussion on Divorced Parents. Special debate with Advocate CVL Narasimha, Inspector Jyosna, Psychologist Dr. Praveen and VHP leader Sunitha R...
Watch V6 special discussion on Divorced Parents. Special debate with Advocate CVL Narasimha, Inspector Jyosna, Psychologist Dr. Praveen and VHP leader Sunitha Reddy , anchored by Senior Journalist Buchanna.
Subscribe us at http://goo.gl/t2pFrq
Download V6 Android App ► http://bit.ly/V6NewsAPP
Visit our Website ► http://V6news.tv
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/V6News
Facebook ► http://www.facebook.com/V6News.tv
Google+ ► https://plus.google.com/109903438943940210337
Watch first ever a 24/7 Telangana news Channel V6 News, a Journalist - driven channel that covers news updates, politics, sports, entertainment and cinema. The channel telecast special Telangana programs in complete Telangana dialect.
The channel airs shows like ' Top News,Taara, 70MM, Ghadeelu,Teenmaar, Dhoom Dhaam, Mangli Adda,Janapadam, Telangana shaakam, Prateeka Show etc'. Sports, Movies, Politics Controversies, Current Affairs, Technology.. you name it and you find it at the click of a button.
wn.com/Special Debate On Divorce Cases In Hyderabad | Marriage Life | 7Pm Discussion | V6 News
Watch V6 special discussion on Divorced Parents. Special debate with Advocate CVL Narasimha, Inspector Jyosna, Psychologist Dr. Praveen and VHP leader Sunitha Reddy , anchored by Senior Journalist Buchanna.
Subscribe us at http://goo.gl/t2pFrq
Download V6 Android App ► http://bit.ly/V6NewsAPP
Visit our Website ► http://V6news.tv
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/V6News
Facebook ► http://www.facebook.com/V6News.tv
Google+ ► https://plus.google.com/109903438943940210337
Watch first ever a 24/7 Telangana news Channel V6 News, a Journalist - driven channel that covers news updates, politics, sports, entertainment and cinema. The channel telecast special Telangana programs in complete Telangana dialect.
The channel airs shows like ' Top News,Taara, 70MM, Ghadeelu,Teenmaar, Dhoom Dhaam, Mangli Adda,Janapadam, Telangana shaakam, Prateeka Show etc'. Sports, Movies, Politics Controversies, Current Affairs, Technology.. you name it and you find it at the click of a button.
- published: 14 Aug 2015
- views: 3418
Landmark same-sex marriage cases argued
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 2:55
- Updated: 26 Aug 2014
- views: 261
CINCINNATI (Angenette Levy) -- Same-sex couples gathered Wednesday as the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in several cases involving gay ...
CINCINNATI (Angenette Levy) -- Same-sex couples gathered Wednesday as the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in several cases involving gay marriage bans in Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee and Kentucky.
In Ohio, several Ohio same-sex couples married in states where gay marriage is legal sued in federal court to have their marriages recognized. Some asked that both parents' names be listed on their child's birth certificates. Federal Judge Timothy Black granted the request and the state of Ohio appealed.
"We just want to be treated as a family because we are a family. We both take care of him," said plaintiff Brittani Henry-Rogers of her son Jayseon. Her wife, Brittni Rogers added, "We want him to grow up knowing he has two parents and his name will possibly go in history books."
Attorney Al Gerhardstein argued the cases that sought to have the marriages performed in other states recognized.
"These kids are discriminated against and hurt a great deal by this policy and that's wrong. It's wrong as a fundamental law matter, it's wrong as a matter of equal protection and we think the Supreme Court will ultimately say that," Gerhardstein said.
Jim Obergefell and John Arthur were married in Maryland last year. Arthur died and wanted Obergefell listed as his surviving spouse on his death certificate. Judge Black also granted that request.
"I can't imagine how that would help the state to say no, Jim sorry. Your marriage no longer exists," Obergefell said.
Before oral arguments started Wednesday afternoon, same-sex marriage supporters held a rally on Fountain Square. While supporters of the ban said they were hopeful the judges ruled in their favor.
"We are encouraging people throughout the four-state area, throughout the 6th Circuit to pray. Encouraging actually at this point over 10,000 churches to pray and pray for wisdom for the judges," said Charles Tassell of Citizens for Community Values.
Ruby Noe-McCracken's mothers are hopeful their names will remain on their daughters' birth certificate and that other couples will one day benefit from their fight.
"We're going to look back at this and think what in the world were people thinking. You know, just like the civil rights movements and women's rights to vote," Kelly Noe-McCracken said.
Attorneys for the Ohio Attorney General's Office declined to comment on camera but argued in favor of the ban in court. A ruling is expected in a month or two.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act last year, there have been 19 court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia.
Follow Angenette Levy on Twitter @angenette5 and LIKE her on Facebook.
wn.com/Landmark Same Sex Marriage Cases Argued
CINCINNATI (Angenette Levy) -- Same-sex couples gathered Wednesday as the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in several cases involving gay marriage bans in Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee and Kentucky.
In Ohio, several Ohio same-sex couples married in states where gay marriage is legal sued in federal court to have their marriages recognized. Some asked that both parents' names be listed on their child's birth certificates. Federal Judge Timothy Black granted the request and the state of Ohio appealed.
"We just want to be treated as a family because we are a family. We both take care of him," said plaintiff Brittani Henry-Rogers of her son Jayseon. Her wife, Brittni Rogers added, "We want him to grow up knowing he has two parents and his name will possibly go in history books."
Attorney Al Gerhardstein argued the cases that sought to have the marriages performed in other states recognized.
"These kids are discriminated against and hurt a great deal by this policy and that's wrong. It's wrong as a fundamental law matter, it's wrong as a matter of equal protection and we think the Supreme Court will ultimately say that," Gerhardstein said.
Jim Obergefell and John Arthur were married in Maryland last year. Arthur died and wanted Obergefell listed as his surviving spouse on his death certificate. Judge Black also granted that request.
"I can't imagine how that would help the state to say no, Jim sorry. Your marriage no longer exists," Obergefell said.
Before oral arguments started Wednesday afternoon, same-sex marriage supporters held a rally on Fountain Square. While supporters of the ban said they were hopeful the judges ruled in their favor.
"We are encouraging people throughout the four-state area, throughout the 6th Circuit to pray. Encouraging actually at this point over 10,000 churches to pray and pray for wisdom for the judges," said Charles Tassell of Citizens for Community Values.
Ruby Noe-McCracken's mothers are hopeful their names will remain on their daughters' birth certificate and that other couples will one day benefit from their fight.
"We're going to look back at this and think what in the world were people thinking. You know, just like the civil rights movements and women's rights to vote," Kelly Noe-McCracken said.
Attorneys for the Ohio Attorney General's Office declined to comment on camera but argued in favor of the ban in court. A ruling is expected in a month or two.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act last year, there have been 19 court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia.
Follow Angenette Levy on Twitter @angenette5 and LIKE her on Facebook.
- published: 26 Aug 2014
- views: 261
Halla Bol - Full Episode 8 - Abuse In Marriage - bindass (Official)
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 43:24
- Updated: 18 Apr 2014
- views: 547130
This episode of Halla Bol brings the pressing issue of Abuse In Marriages into limelight. Sneha, the protagonist is a young, independent make-up artist hailing ...
This episode of Halla Bol brings the pressing issue of Abuse In Marriages into limelight. Sneha, the protagonist is a young, independent make-up artist hailing from Delhi who against the wishes of her parents absconds and marries her boyfriend- Tarun (a Radio Jockey). Now Based in Mumbai, the couple starts their marital life blissfully until Sneha starts working. Sneha's working hours, her association with male colleagues and her independence agitates Tarun's chauvinistic mind to a point that he starts assaulting his wife physically and sexually. Sneha bears Tarun's appalling behavior for a long time testing her patience, still trying to make her marriage work. The turning point comes after one dreadful night where Tarun loses his temper over a trivial matter and relentlessly rapes and beats her up. After which, she decides to fight back and have him get a taste of his own medicine.
Subscribe to http://www.youtube.com/bindass now for the latest updates on Bindass
Keep up with bindass on:
FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/bindass
TWITTER: https://twitter.com/bindasstv
GOOGLE+: https://plus.google.com/+bindass
INSTAGRAM: http://instagram.com/bindasstv
Latest shows available on bindass:-
bindass 'Change Aayega, Hum Laayenge':
'Change Aayega, Hum Laayenge' a show as part of "b for change" campaign will be encouraging young Indians to become agents of change. The show will decode a multitude of issues that impact the youth through a youth friendly lens of satire, spoofy humour and a social experiment woven into the format of the show. Issues such as Bullying, Ragging, Dowry, Corruption etc. will be brought to light in an innovative manner. Ultimately the show seeks to not only entertain but encourage youngsters to become agents of change.
bindass 'Halla Bol' - Inspiring Young Indians to Fight Back!
Halla Bol is a show that represents the inner power of every girl, encouraging her to be fearless and fight back! Every episode of "Halla Bol shows how women can fight real life crimes which are a part of any young woman's everyday life. Hosted by popular television actor Karan Tacker, who will take the viewers through the hard hitting stories and also provide a man's perspective.So what are waiting for - Don't just sit back, 'Halla Bol' with bindass
bindass Yeh Hai Aashiqui' - 'Love against all odds'
Featuring unique love stories, Yeh Hai Aashiqui is a show centered on the theme of 'love against all odds'.The show will feature youngsters who have dared to pursue love that does not fit into societal norms, and considered relationships that society at large still considers unusual.
Bindass Emotional Atyachar -- Nothing Will Shock You More
The fourth season of India's favorite youth reality show Emotional Atyachar will take a step forward and bring you stories based on real life experiences that go beyond ordinary cheating. EA 4 features dramatized adaptation of real life experiences as narrated by the person who have themselves stood up against their doubt on their partner and have gathered the courage to find out the truth on their partner's loyalty by doing self-investigation.
Other shows available on bindass
MENtals : For all women who can't handle their boyfriends anymore, we have some solutions that can prove to be extremely special, our bindass MENtals show is here to show you how to deal with different types of unbearable boyfriends, only so you can LEARN MORE and SUFFER LESS! It is a simple guide that exposes all boyfriend problems and easy solutions to deal with them.
AXE Chickipedia: A dummies' guide to understanding women and knowing how to deal with them when they put you in a spot. These hilarious webisodes will explore the stereotypes, revel in clichés and exploit the common notions about the fairer sex, all in good humor.
Beg Borrow Steal - a show where the contestant's adventures of making through various destinations with little or no money.
Big Switch: is a television show based on slum kids hosted by Genelia D'Souza on UTV Bindass channel. In the show, ten rich brats from around the country, are paired with a youngster from the slums, referred to as a "slum buddy". The rich brats live in the slums and try to fulfil their slum buddie's dreams
The Khan Sisters: Revolves around the lives of the Khan sisters, Gauahar Khan and Nigaar Khan, and goes on to showcase various aspects of their fascinating lives, their equations with each other, their families, friends.
Superstud: Superstud is a new reality show on UTV Bindass to search for India's ultimate Casanova. The show features Ashmit Patel as a mentor and Natasha Suri would be his support link playing the host of the show.
wn.com/Halla Bol Full Episode 8 Abuse In Marriage Bindass (Official)
This episode of Halla Bol brings the pressing issue of Abuse In Marriages into limelight. Sneha, the protagonist is a young, independent make-up artist hailing from Delhi who against the wishes of her parents absconds and marries her boyfriend- Tarun (a Radio Jockey). Now Based in Mumbai, the couple starts their marital life blissfully until Sneha starts working. Sneha's working hours, her association with male colleagues and her independence agitates Tarun's chauvinistic mind to a point that he starts assaulting his wife physically and sexually. Sneha bears Tarun's appalling behavior for a long time testing her patience, still trying to make her marriage work. The turning point comes after one dreadful night where Tarun loses his temper over a trivial matter and relentlessly rapes and beats her up. After which, she decides to fight back and have him get a taste of his own medicine.
Subscribe to http://www.youtube.com/bindass now for the latest updates on Bindass
Keep up with bindass on:
FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/bindass
TWITTER: https://twitter.com/bindasstv
GOOGLE+: https://plus.google.com/+bindass
INSTAGRAM: http://instagram.com/bindasstv
Latest shows available on bindass:-
bindass 'Change Aayega, Hum Laayenge':
'Change Aayega, Hum Laayenge' a show as part of "b for change" campaign will be encouraging young Indians to become agents of change. The show will decode a multitude of issues that impact the youth through a youth friendly lens of satire, spoofy humour and a social experiment woven into the format of the show. Issues such as Bullying, Ragging, Dowry, Corruption etc. will be brought to light in an innovative manner. Ultimately the show seeks to not only entertain but encourage youngsters to become agents of change.
bindass 'Halla Bol' - Inspiring Young Indians to Fight Back!
Halla Bol is a show that represents the inner power of every girl, encouraging her to be fearless and fight back! Every episode of "Halla Bol shows how women can fight real life crimes which are a part of any young woman's everyday life. Hosted by popular television actor Karan Tacker, who will take the viewers through the hard hitting stories and also provide a man's perspective.So what are waiting for - Don't just sit back, 'Halla Bol' with bindass
bindass Yeh Hai Aashiqui' - 'Love against all odds'
Featuring unique love stories, Yeh Hai Aashiqui is a show centered on the theme of 'love against all odds'.The show will feature youngsters who have dared to pursue love that does not fit into societal norms, and considered relationships that society at large still considers unusual.
Bindass Emotional Atyachar -- Nothing Will Shock You More
The fourth season of India's favorite youth reality show Emotional Atyachar will take a step forward and bring you stories based on real life experiences that go beyond ordinary cheating. EA 4 features dramatized adaptation of real life experiences as narrated by the person who have themselves stood up against their doubt on their partner and have gathered the courage to find out the truth on their partner's loyalty by doing self-investigation.
Other shows available on bindass
MENtals : For all women who can't handle their boyfriends anymore, we have some solutions that can prove to be extremely special, our bindass MENtals show is here to show you how to deal with different types of unbearable boyfriends, only so you can LEARN MORE and SUFFER LESS! It is a simple guide that exposes all boyfriend problems and easy solutions to deal with them.
AXE Chickipedia: A dummies' guide to understanding women and knowing how to deal with them when they put you in a spot. These hilarious webisodes will explore the stereotypes, revel in clichés and exploit the common notions about the fairer sex, all in good humor.
Beg Borrow Steal - a show where the contestant's adventures of making through various destinations with little or no money.
Big Switch: is a television show based on slum kids hosted by Genelia D'Souza on UTV Bindass channel. In the show, ten rich brats from around the country, are paired with a youngster from the slums, referred to as a "slum buddy". The rich brats live in the slums and try to fulfil their slum buddie's dreams
The Khan Sisters: Revolves around the lives of the Khan sisters, Gauahar Khan and Nigaar Khan, and goes on to showcase various aspects of their fascinating lives, their equations with each other, their families, friends.
Superstud: Superstud is a new reality show on UTV Bindass to search for India's ultimate Casanova. The show features Ashmit Patel as a mentor and Natasha Suri would be his support link playing the host of the show.
- published: 18 Apr 2014
- views: 547130
Al Jazeera World - Marriage and Divorce in Morocco
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 47:24
- Updated: 09 Dec 2015
- views: 10345
Moroccan family law is built around the Moudawana, a family code that governs marriage, divorce, child custody, maintenance and the division of assets.
Adaptin...
Moroccan family law is built around the Moudawana, a family code that governs marriage, divorce, child custody, maintenance and the division of assets.
Adapting well-established traditions, it has been in existence since the 1950s; but, historically, marriage - and divorce - had always been in the hands of men.
But in recent decades the Moudawana has faced pressure from civil society groups and women's rights campaigners to introduce reforms, prompting King Mohamed VI to appoint a commission to examine its principles and practice in October 2003.
Its findings have resulted in more rights for women and updates to many of its rules, particularly in introducing new types of divorce, including for "irreconcilable differences".
In Marriage and Divorce in Morocco we look at a host of areas affected by the family code including registration of marriage, division of assets, maintenance, domestic violence, rape, and the effects on men who find themselves in abusive relationships.
We hear from lawyers, judges, social commentators and also ex-wives and ex-husbands - like Fadma Amzil, who had a Fatiha marriage, but which was not registered with the civil authorities.
"I only had a Fatiha marriage," she says. "He got married to another woman and their marriage was registered. My situation would have been different if my marriage had been registered."
We also speak to critics of the code who argue that some discrimination has survived the 2004 reforms.
We hear from the family of Amina Filali, a 16-year-old whose case grabbed headlines when she took her own life after being forced to marry her alleged rapist.
A loophole in the law, penal code article 475, meant a rapist could evade prosecution if he married his victim.
This film looks at the human stories behind the Moudawana, how it has modernised family law, and at the progress it still probably needs to make.
- Subscribe to our channel: http://bit.ly/AJSubscribe
- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlJazeera_World
- Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AlJazeeraWorld
-Find us on YouTube: https://aje.io/ajw_yt
- Check out our website: http://www.aljazeera.com/
wn.com/Al Jazeera World Marriage And Divorce In Morocco
Moroccan family law is built around the Moudawana, a family code that governs marriage, divorce, child custody, maintenance and the division of assets.
Adapting well-established traditions, it has been in existence since the 1950s; but, historically, marriage - and divorce - had always been in the hands of men.
But in recent decades the Moudawana has faced pressure from civil society groups and women's rights campaigners to introduce reforms, prompting King Mohamed VI to appoint a commission to examine its principles and practice in October 2003.
Its findings have resulted in more rights for women and updates to many of its rules, particularly in introducing new types of divorce, including for "irreconcilable differences".
In Marriage and Divorce in Morocco we look at a host of areas affected by the family code including registration of marriage, division of assets, maintenance, domestic violence, rape, and the effects on men who find themselves in abusive relationships.
We hear from lawyers, judges, social commentators and also ex-wives and ex-husbands - like Fadma Amzil, who had a Fatiha marriage, but which was not registered with the civil authorities.
"I only had a Fatiha marriage," she says. "He got married to another woman and their marriage was registered. My situation would have been different if my marriage had been registered."
We also speak to critics of the code who argue that some discrimination has survived the 2004 reforms.
We hear from the family of Amina Filali, a 16-year-old whose case grabbed headlines when she took her own life after being forced to marry her alleged rapist.
A loophole in the law, penal code article 475, meant a rapist could evade prosecution if he married his victim.
This film looks at the human stories behind the Moudawana, how it has modernised family law, and at the progress it still probably needs to make.
- Subscribe to our channel: http://bit.ly/AJSubscribe
- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlJazeera_World
- Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AlJazeeraWorld
-Find us on YouTube: https://aje.io/ajw_yt
- Check out our website: http://www.aljazeera.com/
- published: 09 Dec 2015
- views: 10345
Halla Bol - Dowry Story - Season 02 - Episode 15
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 41:22
- Updated: 08 Mar 2015
- views: 133973
Halla Bol Season 02 - Episode 15 Synopsis:
Radhika and Meeta are good friends and work with the Indian army. Both at the captain rank. Radhika is getting promot...
Halla Bol Season 02 - Episode 15 Synopsis:
Radhika and Meeta are good friends and work with the Indian army. Both at the captain rank. Radhika is getting promoted to Major and Meeta is getting married. Both are happy for each other. Radhika finds out that Meeta is getting tormented by her in laws for dowry. Her husband doesn't support her as he doesn't have the say in the family.
Watch the entire episode #LadkiyanKamNahi #HallaBol
Dekhiye Bindass every Sunday at 6pm
'Halla Bol - Season 2' Hai Kuch Bhi Ho Sakta Hai!
Don't forget to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT!
Popular shows available on bindass:-
Bindass 'Zindagi Wins':
Bindass brings to you an entertaining full of life and emotional journey of Aaliya & Malvika. How two sides of the same coin have their distinct & unique identities but together they serve the same purpose. Similarly whether it's Aaliya's Dil ka Magic ya Malvika's Medicine ka logic, Zindagi Wins, always.
To know more: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFyc1udK3oVwmHe_JZvTE68rQFFLuQTLs
Bindass 'Halla Bol Season 2' - Inspiring Young Indians to Fight Back!
Halla Bol is a show that represents the inner power of every girl, encouraging her to be fearless and fight back! Every episode of "Halla Bol shows how women can fight real life crimes which are a part of any young woman's everyday life. Hosted by popular television actor Karan Tacker, who will take the viewers through the hard hitting stories and also provide a man's perspective.So what are waiting for - Don't just sit back, 'Halla Bol' with bindass
To know more: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFyc1udK3oVxh_s0CdGT6Ybp8Fl7BtBbc
bindass ‘Yeh Hai Aashiqui' - Love against all odds
Featuring unique love stories, Yeh Hai Aashiqui is a show centered on the theme of 'love against all odds'. The show will feature youngsters who have dared to pursue love that does not fit into societal norms, and considered relationships that society at large still considers unusual.
To know more: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFyc1udK3oVy4McdnV5CNEUCNBLpGAvFS
bindass ‘Love By Chance’:
Here comes bindass Love By Chance - A quirky romantic comedy which will showcase true stories of people who have found love through serendipity! Every week the show will take you through hatke love stories with actor and stand-up comedian, Kavi Shastri. Dekhiye Bindass every Saturday at 7pm, Kyuki Yeh 'Love By Chance' Hai Kuch Bhi Ho Sakta Hai!
To know more: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFyc1udK3oVy909sjkHi4S1nkYa2--wc5
bindass ‘Pyaar Ka The End’:
bindass in yet another show Pyaar Ka The End highlights how situations where emotions and anxieties of the youth lead them astray and they end up committing acts that they later repent. The show drives home the message that a choice taken at an extremely weak moment can have severe repercussions; impacting the entire nature of the relationship. Every week the show will direct you to deal complicated situations better without crossing the line. So don’t forget to watch Pyaar Ka The End.
To know more: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFyc1udK3oVwN4ADM1MdtB8MWPGnV94ZO
For more bindass Play ► http://www.bindass.com
Subscribe to http://www.youtube.com/bindass now for the latest updates on Bindass
Keep up with bindass on:
FACEBOOK► https://www.facebook.com/bindass
TWITTER► https://twitter.com/bindasstv
GOOGLE+► https://plus.google.com/+bindass
INSTAGRAM► http://instagram.com/bindasstv
wn.com/Halla Bol Dowry Story Season 02 Episode 15
Halla Bol Season 02 - Episode 15 Synopsis:
Radhika and Meeta are good friends and work with the Indian army. Both at the captain rank. Radhika is getting promoted to Major and Meeta is getting married. Both are happy for each other. Radhika finds out that Meeta is getting tormented by her in laws for dowry. Her husband doesn't support her as he doesn't have the say in the family.
Watch the entire episode #LadkiyanKamNahi #HallaBol
Dekhiye Bindass every Sunday at 6pm
'Halla Bol - Season 2' Hai Kuch Bhi Ho Sakta Hai!
Don't forget to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT!
Popular shows available on bindass:-
Bindass 'Zindagi Wins':
Bindass brings to you an entertaining full of life and emotional journey of Aaliya & Malvika. How two sides of the same coin have their distinct & unique identities but together they serve the same purpose. Similarly whether it's Aaliya's Dil ka Magic ya Malvika's Medicine ka logic, Zindagi Wins, always.
To know more: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFyc1udK3oVwmHe_JZvTE68rQFFLuQTLs
Bindass 'Halla Bol Season 2' - Inspiring Young Indians to Fight Back!
Halla Bol is a show that represents the inner power of every girl, encouraging her to be fearless and fight back! Every episode of "Halla Bol shows how women can fight real life crimes which are a part of any young woman's everyday life. Hosted by popular television actor Karan Tacker, who will take the viewers through the hard hitting stories and also provide a man's perspective.So what are waiting for - Don't just sit back, 'Halla Bol' with bindass
To know more: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFyc1udK3oVxh_s0CdGT6Ybp8Fl7BtBbc
bindass ‘Yeh Hai Aashiqui' - Love against all odds
Featuring unique love stories, Yeh Hai Aashiqui is a show centered on the theme of 'love against all odds'. The show will feature youngsters who have dared to pursue love that does not fit into societal norms, and considered relationships that society at large still considers unusual.
To know more: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFyc1udK3oVy4McdnV5CNEUCNBLpGAvFS
bindass ‘Love By Chance’:
Here comes bindass Love By Chance - A quirky romantic comedy which will showcase true stories of people who have found love through serendipity! Every week the show will take you through hatke love stories with actor and stand-up comedian, Kavi Shastri. Dekhiye Bindass every Saturday at 7pm, Kyuki Yeh 'Love By Chance' Hai Kuch Bhi Ho Sakta Hai!
To know more: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFyc1udK3oVy909sjkHi4S1nkYa2--wc5
bindass ‘Pyaar Ka The End’:
bindass in yet another show Pyaar Ka The End highlights how situations where emotions and anxieties of the youth lead them astray and they end up committing acts that they later repent. The show drives home the message that a choice taken at an extremely weak moment can have severe repercussions; impacting the entire nature of the relationship. Every week the show will direct you to deal complicated situations better without crossing the line. So don’t forget to watch Pyaar Ka The End.
To know more: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFyc1udK3oVwN4ADM1MdtB8MWPGnV94ZO
For more bindass Play ► http://www.bindass.com
Subscribe to http://www.youtube.com/bindass now for the latest updates on Bindass
Keep up with bindass on:
FACEBOOK► https://www.facebook.com/bindass
TWITTER► https://twitter.com/bindasstv
GOOGLE+► https://plus.google.com/+bindass
INSTAGRAM► http://instagram.com/bindasstv
- published: 08 Mar 2015
- views: 133973
Same-sex marriage cases go before federal court in Cincinnati
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 2:08
- Updated: 25 Aug 2014
- views: 67
CINCINNATI (WKRC/AP) -- Six landmark court cases dealing with the legality of same-sex marriage in four states are going before a federal appeals court in Cinci...
CINCINNATI (WKRC/AP) -- Six landmark court cases dealing with the legality of same-sex marriage in four states are going before a federal appeals court in Cincinnati Wednesday.
Attorneys for both sides are presenting arguments for cases from Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee. Michigan's and Kentucky's cases stem from rulings striking down each state's gay marriage bans. Ohio's case deals only with the state's recognition of out-of-state gay marriages, while Tennessee's is narrowly focused on the rights of three same-sex couples.
Attorneys on both sides in the Michigan and Ohio cases will go first and get a half-hour each to make their cases. Kentucky and Tennessee will follow, with 15 minutes for each side from both states.
Supporters of marriage equality are rallying on Fountain Square. It's the third rally in just the past few days. Hundreds turned out Tuesday night at Lytle Park. A commitment ceremony follows Wednesday's rally. A dozen same-sex couples will symbolically wed. They're then marching to the federal courthouse.
Same-sex marriage supporters say they're buoyed by the 10th Circuit Court opinion overturning Utah's ban on same-sex marriage. Opponents point to opinion polls which they say show many people remain opposed to same-sex marriage.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act last year, gay marriage advocates have won more than 20 victories in federal courts. No decision has gone the other way in that time. Both sides will be watching the Sixth Circuit Court very closely.
Follow us on Twitter @Local12 and LIKE us on Facebook for updates!
wn.com/Same Sex Marriage Cases Go Before Federal Court In Cincinnati
CINCINNATI (WKRC/AP) -- Six landmark court cases dealing with the legality of same-sex marriage in four states are going before a federal appeals court in Cincinnati Wednesday.
Attorneys for both sides are presenting arguments for cases from Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee. Michigan's and Kentucky's cases stem from rulings striking down each state's gay marriage bans. Ohio's case deals only with the state's recognition of out-of-state gay marriages, while Tennessee's is narrowly focused on the rights of three same-sex couples.
Attorneys on both sides in the Michigan and Ohio cases will go first and get a half-hour each to make their cases. Kentucky and Tennessee will follow, with 15 minutes for each side from both states.
Supporters of marriage equality are rallying on Fountain Square. It's the third rally in just the past few days. Hundreds turned out Tuesday night at Lytle Park. A commitment ceremony follows Wednesday's rally. A dozen same-sex couples will symbolically wed. They're then marching to the federal courthouse.
Same-sex marriage supporters say they're buoyed by the 10th Circuit Court opinion overturning Utah's ban on same-sex marriage. Opponents point to opinion polls which they say show many people remain opposed to same-sex marriage.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act last year, gay marriage advocates have won more than 20 victories in federal courts. No decision has gone the other way in that time. Both sides will be watching the Sixth Circuit Court very closely.
Follow us on Twitter @Local12 and LIKE us on Facebook for updates!
- published: 25 Aug 2014
- views: 67
Supreme Court Hears Same Sex Marriage Case- Full Hearing-March 26, 2013
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 80:00
- Updated: 26 Mar 2013
- views: 4824
The U.S. Supreme Court hears a case that potentially could legalize same sex marriage in all states. The case involves Proposition 8, a voter approved law that ...
The U.S. Supreme Court hears a case that potentially could legalize same sex marriage in all states. The case involves Proposition 8, a voter approved law that bans same-sex marriage in California. This is audio of the arguments before the court.
wn.com/Supreme Court Hears Same Sex Marriage Case Full Hearing March 26, 2013
The U.S. Supreme Court hears a case that potentially could legalize same sex marriage in all states. The case involves Proposition 8, a voter approved law that bans same-sex marriage in California. This is audio of the arguments before the court.
- published: 26 Mar 2013
- views: 4824
The President Speaks on the Supreme Court’s Decision on Marriage Equality
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 9:05
- Updated: 26 Jun 2015
- views: 513966
President Obama delivers remarks in the Rose Garden heralding the Supreme Court’s ruling that gay and lesbian couples have the right to marry in America. #LoveW...
President Obama delivers remarks in the Rose Garden heralding the Supreme Court’s ruling that gay and lesbian couples have the right to marry in America. #LoveWins
wn.com/The President Speaks On The Supreme Court’S Decision On Marriage Equality
President Obama delivers remarks in the Rose Garden heralding the Supreme Court’s ruling that gay and lesbian couples have the right to marry in America. #LoveWins
- published: 26 Jun 2015
- views: 513966
Same-Sex Marriage Cases
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 6:18
- Updated: 04 May 2015
- views: 89
http://to.pbs.org/1EVRSIe The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week as it considers a constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples nationwide. R...
http://to.pbs.org/1EVRSIe The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week as it considers a constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples nationwide. Religious groups have been actively lobbying on both sides of the issue. Correspondent Tim O’Brien reports on the arguments of the lawyers, the questions of the justices, and the implications of this important decision.
---
Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly
http://www.pbs.org/religion
wn.com/Same Sex Marriage Cases
http://to.pbs.org/1EVRSIe The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week as it considers a constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples nationwide. Religious groups have been actively lobbying on both sides of the issue. Correspondent Tim O’Brien reports on the arguments of the lawyers, the questions of the justices, and the implications of this important decision.
---
Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly
http://www.pbs.org/religion
- published: 04 May 2015
- views: 89
close fullscreen
- Playlist
- Chat
close fullscreen
- Playlist
- Chat
1:13
In re Marriage Cases Top # 9 Facts
In re Marriage Cases Top # 9 Facts
published: 28 Oct 2015
In re Marriage Cases Top # 9 Facts
In re Marriage Cases Top # 9 Facts
- Report rights infringement
- published: 28 Oct 2015
- views: 6
3:24
Fox News Spins Gay Marriage Ruling in O'Reilly No Spin Zone?
See DOZENS more examples of FOX NEWS BIAS at: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD...
published: 22 May 2008
Fox News Spins Gay Marriage Ruling in O'Reilly No Spin Zone?
Fox News Spins Gay Marriage Ruling in O'Reilly No Spin Zone?
- Report rights infringement
- published: 22 May 2008
- views: 151717
3:33
Hollingsworth v Perry
Hollingsworth v. Perry
Nicole Smart
Ms. Fortenberry Period 1
Works Cited
"In Re Marriag...
published: 25 Mar 2014
Hollingsworth v Perry
Hollingsworth v Perry
- Report rights infringement
- published: 25 Mar 2014
- views: 405
3:56
My first YouTube video-Year was 2008 posted 2009
This is the video that stated my YouTube experience.
The first video I made in my life, I ...
published: 21 Nov 2014
My first YouTube video-Year was 2008 posted 2009
My first YouTube video-Year was 2008 posted 2009
- Report rights infringement
- published: 21 Nov 2014
- views: 34
80:05
Oral Arguments In Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Case | Video
This audio is from the oral arguments of Hollingsworth v. Perry at the United States Supre...
published: 26 Mar 2013
Oral Arguments In Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Case | Video
Oral Arguments In Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Case | Video
- Report rights infringement
- published: 26 Mar 2013
- views: 17862
6:27
Same sex marriage & prop 8 ~ Keith Olbermann.
As of March 2013, eleven countries (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherla...
published: 27 Mar 2013
Same sex marriage & prop 8 ~ Keith Olbermann.
Same sex marriage & prop 8 ~ Keith Olbermann.
- Report rights infringement
- published: 27 Mar 2013
- views: 367
5:39
Rejoice "Divorce" China Case
published: 01 Oct 2014
Rejoice "Divorce" China Case
Rejoice "Divorce" China Case
- Report rights infringement
- published: 01 Oct 2014
- views: 6153291
74:46
In re Garcia (Sergio C.) on Admission, California Supreme Court Case S202512
On Wednesday, Sept 4, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that wil...
published: 04 Sep 2013
In re Garcia (Sergio C.) on Admission, California Supreme Court Case S202512
In re Garcia (Sergio C.) on Admission, California Supreme Court Case S202512
- Report rights infringement
- published: 04 Sep 2013
- views: 11286
11:00
Ted Olson & David Boies Interview on PBS on Prop 8 (1 of 5)
Attorneys Theodore "Ted" Olson and David Boies interviewed by Bill Boyers on PBS about Pro...
published: 21 Dec 2011
Ted Olson & David Boies Interview on PBS on Prop 8 (1 of 5)
Ted Olson & David Boies Interview on PBS on Prop 8 (1 of 5)
- Report rights infringement
- published: 21 Dec 2011
- views: 293
9:59
Ted Olson & David Boies Interview on PBS on Prop 8 (4 of 5)
Attorneys Theodore "Ted" Olson and David Boies interviewed by Bill Boyers on PBS about Pro...
published: 21 Dec 2011
Ted Olson & David Boies Interview on PBS on Prop 8 (4 of 5)
Ted Olson & David Boies Interview on PBS on Prop 8 (4 of 5)
- Report rights infringement
- published: 21 Dec 2011
- views: 169
2:22
UPDATE: Same-Sex Marriage Cases in Ohio Draw Activists
CINCINNATI-- A group of federal judges heard six cases Wednesday inside a federal court in...
published: 07 Aug 2014
UPDATE: Same-Sex Marriage Cases in Ohio Draw Activists
UPDATE: Same-Sex Marriage Cases in Ohio Draw Activists
- Report rights infringement
- published: 07 Aug 2014
- views: 1037
1:04
Fox 11 Los Angeles Proposition 8 Rally 2008
The Sunday before the historic (and infamous) Prop 8 Election, a rally was held in downtow...
published: 03 Aug 2012
Fox 11 Los Angeles Proposition 8 Rally 2008
Fox 11 Los Angeles Proposition 8 Rally 2008
- Report rights infringement
- published: 03 Aug 2012
- views: 132
0:35
High Court to Hear Gay Marriage Cases in April
The U.S. Supreme Court will tackle the issue of gay marriage this term. At issue, can stat...
published: 06 Mar 2015
High Court to Hear Gay Marriage Cases in April
High Court to Hear Gay Marriage Cases in April
- Report rights infringement
- published: 06 Mar 2015
- views: 114
3:27
High court to hear gay marriage cases in April
The Supreme Court says it will decide whether same-sex couples nationwide have a right to ...
published: 17 Jan 2015
High court to hear gay marriage cases in April
High court to hear gay marriage cases in April
- Report rights infringement
- published: 17 Jan 2015
- views: 370
In re Marriage Cases Top # 9 Facts...
Fox News Spins Gay Marriage Ruling in O'Reilly No ...
Hollingsworth v Perry...
My first YouTube video-Year was 2008 posted 2009...
Oral Arguments In Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage ...
Same sex marriage & prop 8 ~ Keith Olbermann....
Rejoice "Divorce" China Case...
In re Garcia (Sergio C.) on Admission, California ...
Ted Olson & David Boies Interview on PBS on Prop 8...
Ted Olson & David Boies Interview on PBS on Prop 8...
UPDATE: Same-Sex Marriage Cases in Ohio Draw Activ...
Fox 11 Los Angeles Proposition 8 Rally 2008...
High Court to Hear Gay Marriage Cases in April...
High court to hear gay marriage cases in April...
Special Debate on Divorce Cases in Hyderabad | Mar...
Landmark same-sex marriage cases argued...
Halla Bol - Full Episode 8 - Abuse In Marriage - b...
Al Jazeera World - Marriage and Divorce in Morocco...
Halla Bol - Dowry Story - Season 02 - Episode 15...
Same-sex marriage cases go before federal court in...
Supreme Court Hears Same Sex Marriage Case- Full H...
The President Speaks on the Supreme Court’s Decisi...
