Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, August 4, 2010
Politics Federal Judge Declares Prop 8 an Unconstitutional Violation of Equal Protection and Due Process Rights
Posted by Eli Sanders on Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:48 PM
The decision is out. Read it with me, but here are the key parts of Federal Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling (click to enlarge).
And:
In other words: best case scenario for gay rights.
1
Fantastic. While I myself am not gay, I applaud the efforts undertaken to help end this bigoted law.
9
@6: I haven't seen any info on the stay the Prop 8 side has asked for. If Judge Vaughn Walker doesn't grant the stay, then yes, same-sex couples should be able to get married pretty much immediately.
16
I am so HAPPY!! I wish I were somewhere I could celebrate with others in person, but I send my barbaric YAWP from the back of beyond.
17
Well shit. Now that opposite marriages have been dissolved by law and everybody is required to turn gay, how much time have they designated for me to dump my girlfriend and find a dude to marry? I need to make sure I do not get stuck with some fat teabagging loser for a husband.
18
Now get ready for the GOP to use this to scare up votes in November. When we're done popping our champagne corks, can we get to work holding onto the majorities we need in Congress to pass other LGBT laws as well as confirm pro-LGBT judges?
19
Woot!
In related news, newsweek is suggesting that perhaps some of the no on 8 votes meant to be yes and yes votes meant to be no:
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle…
In related news, newsweek is suggesting that perhaps some of the no on 8 votes meant to be yes and yes votes meant to be no:
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle…
24
Hatred and bigotry have no place in the United States justice system.
Hurray for near-legal equality!
Hurray for near-legal equality!
29
This was really no surprise considering where this ruling is coming from but still it's reflective of how an activist judge disregards the will of the people.
This is a state issue that the people of California have decided more than once thru the voting process. The game it's rigged and the people's vote are being rendered meningless by judges like this one. So if the people say no on a political issue then all the lobbies need to do is just run to the courts to invalidate them ? to Hell with the people then. An unlected person who's not accountable to the people will get to overrule them everytime. This is going to the nine circuit now and we know how they rule, so ultimately this is heading to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile the 7 MILLION VOTERS WHO SPOKE thru the legal and peaceful process that our nation demands have to be respected.
This is a state issue that the people of California have decided more than once thru the voting process. The game it's rigged and the people's vote are being rendered meningless by judges like this one. So if the people say no on a political issue then all the lobbies need to do is just run to the courts to invalidate them ? to Hell with the people then. An unlected person who's not accountable to the people will get to overrule them everytime. This is going to the nine circuit now and we know how they rule, so ultimately this is heading to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile the 7 MILLION VOTERS WHO SPOKE thru the legal and peaceful process that our nation demands have to be respected.
31
Oh, and that image will be my new desktop picture just as soon as I add a nice gay rainbow gradient fill.
In tasteful pastels, of course.
In tasteful pastels, of course.
37
When I first started fighting for equality, I never thought civil marriage would be something I would be fighting for. Now, I cannot / will not imagine a life without that option.
38
So how many gay marriages does it take to start the apocalypse. Does it specify a certain number or percentage in the bible?
46
In other words: best case scenario for gay rights.
See, I'm not entirely sure that's true. Not because this decision wasn't absolutely correct, but because, if Boies and Olson had lost, they would be the ones in charge of the appeal. Now the (inevitable) appeal is in the other side's hands, which makes me a bit antsy.
That being said, the fact that the plaintiffs won at the district court level means that there's an enjoinment order in place - meaning that gay people can start getting married now, rather than stew while the appeal goes through.
So, okay, net win. Still antsy about the appeal.
See, I'm not entirely sure that's true. Not because this decision wasn't absolutely correct, but because, if Boies and Olson had lost, they would be the ones in charge of the appeal. Now the (inevitable) appeal is in the other side's hands, which makes me a bit antsy.
That being said, the fact that the plaintiffs won at the district court level means that there's an enjoinment order in place - meaning that gay people can start getting married now, rather than stew while the appeal goes through.
So, okay, net win. Still antsy about the appeal.
47
If you want to see a real reaction of Tea-Party Activists.
Theres Freerepublic.com
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news…
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat…
Theres Freerepublic.com
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news…
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat…
48
A great win for freedom.
Bonus is how all the hater's money was wasted instead of being used to cause other problems.
Bonus is how all the hater's money was wasted instead of being used to cause other problems.
49
Here's the ruling for those wanting to read it on a phone that can't handle a PDF:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-…
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-…
52
Posting this link on facebook with the comment "no, really?"
I'm glad that this decision has finally been made.. but what the fuck took us so long? This is a pretty glaringly obvious statement (prop 8 is a violation of human rights) that should've been realized years ago. BUT, this is a good thing..
I'll drink to the gays tonight.
I'm glad that this decision has finally been made.. but what the fuck took us so long? This is a pretty glaringly obvious statement (prop 8 is a violation of human rights) that should've been realized years ago. BUT, this is a good thing..
I'll drink to the gays tonight.
55
anydangways... can the rest of us meet up at cal anderson and frolic and celebrate shit.. say ummm how does six work for everybody ?
56
Oh yes. From p. 135:
"The arguments surrounding Proposition 8 raise a question
similar to that addressed in Lawrence, when the Court asked whether a majority of citizens could use the power of the state to enforce “profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles” through the criminal code. 539 US at 571. The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licenses. They cannot."
OH YES.
"The arguments surrounding Proposition 8 raise a question
similar to that addressed in Lawrence, when the Court asked whether a majority of citizens could use the power of the state to enforce “profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles” through the criminal code. 539 US at 571. The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licenses. They cannot."
OH YES.
59
@46: That's what she said. Appellate decisions can be the greatest heartbreakers and soulcrushers of all. I have watched lives virtually get destroyed by human rights rulings that were reversed after a unanimous lower court rulings in their favour. It is not a kind thing to see.
Also, appellate rulings, if left to stand, become case law. That's a key way in how they vary from lower (district) court rulings like this one.
Nevertheless, today was a good day.
Also, appellate rulings, if left to stand, become case law. That's a key way in how they vary from lower (district) court rulings like this one.
Nevertheless, today was a good day.
60
Grats!
Any idea if this means those couples who got married in the window in Cali now have full legal rights?
Any idea if this means those couples who got married in the window in Cali now have full legal rights?
61
Loveschild, Judges don't have to bow down to the will of the people. That is the whole point of the Judicial system.
65
Oh and Loveschild? How would you have liked it if the Southern states had been permitted to overturn Brown v Board by popular vote? Because if it had been put to a vote, they would have.
67
Say what you will but Vaughn's decision will not be the final ruling by no means. He has reopened a wound, he's just another judge that has disrespected the people of California once again, that's all hes done. The appeal will go ahead and the people's vote will note be rendered null.
68
So much of the news makes me despair - the right wing reaction to the mosque in New York, the Arizona immigration mess, just all the horrible ignorance and intolerance and hatred and venom that have become the rule rather than the exception - it makes me SO HAPPY to see someone do the right thing.
69
...I told myself I wouldn't cry. Well, folks, we have a long road ahead, but this is a great start!
70
WEST COAST REPRESENT, NOW PUT YOUR HANDS UP, ^^^^^OOOOHHH, OH, OOOOHHHHHHH^^^^^
As a Kal-E-for-nia gurl, we love you Judge Walker.
Suck it all night haters, until your lips are too chapped to lick! But especially you, oh no so loving hateful one. muwah
As a Kal-E-for-nia gurl, we love you Judge Walker.
Suck it all night haters, until your lips are too chapped to lick! But especially you, oh no so loving hateful one. muwah
71
@ 59 - Which is exactly why an appeal is so risky. I can easily see Boies and Olson getting a really great panel on the (enormous) 9th Circuit, or getting a really awful one. It's a toss up.
Of course, I honestly think the case is going to be reheard en banc after the first appeal comes down. So...who knows.
Of course, I honestly think the case is going to be reheard en banc after the first appeal comes down. So...who knows.
72
Loveschild, are you even from California? I have lived here for almost twenty years, and I know of others who have lived here longer. But we all agree on one thing.
Shut.
Up.
Thanks!
Shut.
Up.
Thanks!
73
Loveschild,
It is not the job of the American public to interpret the Constitution. That is the job of the Judicial branch.
The Judicial branch, overturning a vote by the majority of voters, DID THEIR JOB by correctly interpreting the Constitution and declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional.
This is not only a win for marriage equality and gay rights. This is a win for the United States Constitution.
It is not the job of the American public to interpret the Constitution. That is the job of the Judicial branch.
The Judicial branch, overturning a vote by the majority of voters, DID THEIR JOB by correctly interpreting the Constitution and declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional.
This is not only a win for marriage equality and gay rights. This is a win for the United States Constitution.
75
LC, "disrespected the people of California"... does that mean you don't see the LGBT community as people?
In reality, he's granted basic human rights to the PEOPLE of California. Are your uber-hetero God-loving friends in Cali now unable to do anything they could do before? Umm.. no.
They're called EQUAL rights for a reason. EQUAL FOR ALL PEOPLE, not just the people whose lives YOU dub to be "right".
In reality, he's granted basic human rights to the PEOPLE of California. Are your uber-hetero God-loving friends in Cali now unable to do anything they could do before? Umm.. no.
They're called EQUAL rights for a reason. EQUAL FOR ALL PEOPLE, not just the people whose lives YOU dub to be "right".
76
Enjoy!
Celebrate!!!
really.
Your euphoria will only heighten our glee when the Supremes reverse this ruling.
Celebrate!!!
really.
Your euphoria will only heighten our glee when the Supremes reverse this ruling.
77
Thank God we live in a republic with a bill of individual rights and not a democracy. The majority rules EXCEPT when the majority passes laws that trample on the God given rights of every American. Here's hoping the Roberts court will stick to the legal issue of granting equal protection under the law rather than rule from their "moral" position--but I wouldn't count on it.
78
@47 the hatred displayed in the comments on those links is heartbreaking. And I can imagine the dialogue surrounding this ruling is only going to become more venomous as the religious right, teapartiers, and so forth scream until they're blue in the face. How awful it is that what should be a joyous occasion for the supporters of civil right, love, and families is going to be co-opted by ignorant hate.
79
Cower behind your legal-ese all you like, LC.
But you are very, very wrong when you lay the blame on the judge for "re-opening a wound." The wound has been kept open, bleeding, infected & horribly, horribly painful by the Xtians like yourself who like to persecute others. Prop 8 itself was a lengthy gesture in keeping that wound open. Judge Vaughn's ruling (who was appointed by republicans, btw) is an effort in healing that wound.
Your right to hate others is secure. What will not be tolerated is your goal to maintain the institution of that hate in the court of law. Your attitude may be victorious for a day, a year, a generation, but it will always lose as humanity evolves away from it.
But you are very, very wrong when you lay the blame on the judge for "re-opening a wound." The wound has been kept open, bleeding, infected & horribly, horribly painful by the Xtians like yourself who like to persecute others. Prop 8 itself was a lengthy gesture in keeping that wound open. Judge Vaughn's ruling (who was appointed by republicans, btw) is an effort in healing that wound.
Your right to hate others is secure. What will not be tolerated is your goal to maintain the institution of that hate in the court of law. Your attitude may be victorious for a day, a year, a generation, but it will always lose as humanity evolves away from it.
81
This morning CNN had Tony AND Gary (of "Tony and Gary hare having a baby!" fame, for you loyal sloggers who have been inexplicably shielded from the biggest story in Queerdom of the past six months....) on commenting on the Prop 8 decision.
Has America found new Gay Dad Spokesmodels???
Has America found new Gay Dad Spokesmodels???
82
That is a pretty tight ruling. I do not see much for an appeal, unless some activist judge decides to change the constitution, which, sadly, has been happening a lot lately.
And LC, go fuck yourself!
And LC, go fuck yourself!
85
A little negative note:
The court also approved a stay on the ruling pending that appeal, meaning same-sex couples in California can't get their marriage licenses quite yet.
86
Sorry everyone for engaging Loveschild, but this needs to be asked: Can you think of any other examples in American history whereby enforcing a simple constitutional concept went directly against popular will of a state's constituency? If so, was the outcome positive or negative, in your opinion?
There's probably an internet-arguing law against what I just did, but I'm not able to help myself.
There's probably an internet-arguing law against what I just did, but I'm not able to help myself.
87
@85, yes...a friend of mine in law school just posted this: "So, Judge Walker has granted the motion for a temporary stay to allow 2 days for briefing on a stay pending appeal. That's the right thing to do. The decision is just one step in a process that will inevitably lead to a cert petition. The findings of fact are going to be tough for Prop 8 supporters to overcome on appeal, though."
89
@73 Wrong you're Urgutha, the people have clearly spoken on this issue more than once and it is clear to them that marriage is between one man and one woman. No gays nor lesbians are being denied the right to marry, but just like you don't go undressed to a job that has a dress code but you present yourself to your job in accordance with their dress code, there are societal institutions that are open to us all but have rules that we ALL need to observe. We're a nation of rules, and even gays need to observe them just like the rest of us.
No matter Vaughn's disrespect to the people of California today, the appeal will go ahead God willing and the people's vote will not be rendered null.
No matter Vaughn's disrespect to the people of California today, the appeal will go ahead God willing and the people's vote will not be rendered null.
90
Hey Loveschild, if the SCOTUS renders Prop 8 dead per their authority under EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW GOING BACK TO THE 1770s...
...are you going to put the law of the land above all else?
...are you going to put the law of the land above all else?
92
Regarding the state's interest:
Governor Schwarzenegger Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Ruling
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today issued the following statement after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker issued a ruling invalidating Proposition 8:
“Judge Walker had the great responsibility of deciding whether Proposition 8 violates the Constitution of the United States. He heard in-depth arguments from both sides on fundamental questions of due process, equal protection and freedom from discrimination. There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and I am glad that all viewpoints were respected throughout the proceedings. We should also recognize that there will continue to be different points of view in the wake of this decision.
“For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.
“Today's decision is by no means California's first milestone, nor our last, on America's road to equality and freedom for all people.”
93
Yay! Congrats to everyone in Cali, finally some common sense has won the day. Hopefully we can take after California and have gay marriage legal right here in Washington.
94
A strong decision that is buffeted well along the lines of Loving v. Virginia & Romer v. Evans.
AWW HELLS YEA!!!!
AWW HELLS YEA!!!!
95
@89: "Wrong you're Urgutha,"
He never said he wasn't Urgutha. You seem to have some trouble with English, you inane cuntwhorebitch. Also, you keep acting like Prop 8 was The People's Ordained Will. You realize that it only passed because the right-wing wackos did a better job of getting their people out to vote, right? Polls in October and September generally showed that Prop 8's opponents were more numerous.
However, this is all moot anyway, as civil rights are not subject to the opinions of the majority.
He never said he wasn't Urgutha. You seem to have some trouble with English, you inane cuntwhorebitch. Also, you keep acting like Prop 8 was The People's Ordained Will. You realize that it only passed because the right-wing wackos did a better job of getting their people out to vote, right? Polls in October and September generally showed that Prop 8's opponents were more numerous.
However, this is all moot anyway, as civil rights are not subject to the opinions of the majority.
96
i like how LC completely ignored the comment about brown v board being put to a vote...its really easy to argue your point when you just completely ignore valid arguments against it.
97
YAY!!!
@92 Thanks for posting that BC. It's good to see our leaders being positive about our community every once in a while.
@92 Thanks for posting that BC. It's good to see our leaders being positive about our community every once in a while.
98
ZOMG: LOOK AT THIS LINK OF FOX NEWS!!!! Read the poll and try not to laugh. go ahead, try!
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/0…
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/0…
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
100
I'd like to revise my statement @88...i don't want to jinx it by saying it is a certain thing; my friend elaborated:
"It's an order staying the decision and allowing for time to brief and decide whether or not to stay the decision until the 9th Cir. makes its ruling. They will get an appeal, since it's an appeal of right, but the findings of fact get a great deal of deference on appeal and will be tough to overcome at the 9th Cir."
So, it could be longer than we hoped to take effect, but it is a step in the right direction, and as he said, the findings of fact will be difficult for Prop 8 Supporters to overcome in the 9th circuit.
"It's an order staying the decision and allowing for time to brief and decide whether or not to stay the decision until the 9th Cir. makes its ruling. They will get an appeal, since it's an appeal of right, but the findings of fact get a great deal of deference on appeal and will be tough to overcome at the 9th Cir."
So, it could be longer than we hoped to take effect, but it is a step in the right direction, and as he said, the findings of fact will be difficult for Prop 8 Supporters to overcome in the 9th circuit.
101
"I don't care what the judge things about the constitution"
AHAHAHA!
Fundie Christians are stupid!
AHAHAHA!
Fundie Christians are stupid!
102
This is wonderful! Congratulations to all the soon-to-be married in California. Have fabulous weddings, all of you.
103
@96 An act or conduct ≠ with ethnicity. I don't know who you're dear but apparently you don't know that too well, I do.
Whatever, a stay has been issued to prevent new "marriages" while this legal challenge is pending and on it goes to the appeal.
Whatever, a stay has been issued to prevent new "marriages" while this legal challenge is pending and on it goes to the appeal.
105
@103: "I don't know who you're dear but apparently you don't know that too well, I do."
WUT?
I know your grammar is always suspect, Loveschild, but are you apoplectic with RAEG? Are you ready to become an hero over the fact that Teh Ghey can now get married? By all means, vent your pissy and impotent rage to us, and we'll provide counseling*.
*(read as: mockery)
WUT?
I know your grammar is always suspect, Loveschild, but are you apoplectic with RAEG? Are you ready to become an hero over the fact that Teh Ghey can now get married? By all means, vent your pissy and impotent rage to us, and we'll provide counseling*.
*(read as: mockery)
106
Face it, Loveschild, you lost. There's a clear divide on this issue, and none of the good and decent people are on your side. JUSTICE WINS THE DAY. So, in the spirit of love and forgiveness, don't cry too hard while you're sucking on your loser's egg.
I love the freeper comments, they, like Loveschild, are such fine specimens: "I’m coming to the end of my rope, watching mentally ill faggots crapping on that which is holy." Hope he doesn't come out shooting.
Congratulations gay people and straight. We all live in a country that's just that much more free today. It's a great day.
I love the freeper comments, they, like Loveschild, are such fine specimens: "I’m coming to the end of my rope, watching mentally ill faggots crapping on that which is holy." Hope he doesn't come out shooting.
Congratulations gay people and straight. We all live in a country that's just that much more free today. It's a great day.
107
Yay! This is a positive step for us all. I'm thankful, very thankful, and so is my straight marriage.
108
RED LETTER DAY!!!
August 4th, 2010 -- A milestone in the long, long battle for Equal Rights for ALL Citizens!
I know we're not all the way there yet, but WE WILL GET THERE. WE WILL.
You cannot stop the tide of Human Freedom. You can slow it down, divert it, temporarily dam it up (even if 'temporarily' stretches for hundreds of years) -- but you cannot stop it.
FREEDOM. WILL. OUT.
August 4th, 2010 -- A milestone in the long, long battle for Equal Rights for ALL Citizens!
I know we're not all the way there yet, but WE WILL GET THERE. WE WILL.
You cannot stop the tide of Human Freedom. You can slow it down, divert it, temporarily dam it up (even if 'temporarily' stretches for hundreds of years) -- but you cannot stop it.
FREEDOM. WILL. OUT.
109
Loveschild @89,
Yes, there are rules we must all follow. That includes the government, they must also follow rules. Their rules are spelled out in the United States Constitution and in states' constitutions. Occasionally, the government breaks the rules. It is the duty of the courts to decide whether those rules have been broken or not. In this case, the court has decided that the legislative branch broke the rules/violated the constitution.
Again, it is not the duty of the American people to decide if the rules have been broken or not, that is the duty of the Judicial branch of gov't. The American people can vote to have legislature make whatever laws they want: make blacks slaves again, deny women the right to vote, make guns illegal, make free speech illegal... whatever. They can pass those laws if they can get enough people to vote for them. But it is the Judges and courts who must determine if those laws violate the constitution or not. If they do violate it, the laws are not valid.
This seems like basic political stuff to me, where are you seeing the problem?
Yes, there are rules we must all follow. That includes the government, they must also follow rules. Their rules are spelled out in the United States Constitution and in states' constitutions. Occasionally, the government breaks the rules. It is the duty of the courts to decide whether those rules have been broken or not. In this case, the court has decided that the legislative branch broke the rules/violated the constitution.
Again, it is not the duty of the American people to decide if the rules have been broken or not, that is the duty of the Judicial branch of gov't. The American people can vote to have legislature make whatever laws they want: make blacks slaves again, deny women the right to vote, make guns illegal, make free speech illegal... whatever. They can pass those laws if they can get enough people to vote for them. But it is the Judges and courts who must determine if those laws violate the constitution or not. If they do violate it, the laws are not valid.
This seems like basic political stuff to me, where are you seeing the problem?
110
I bet that Mormon guy who mortgaged his family's house to help fund Prop 8 must be freaking out.
"IT IS SO ORDERED" should be the new rallying cry for gay marriage.
"IT IS SO ORDERED" should be the new rallying cry for gay marriage.
111
@95 For all you talking about 'hate speech', the only one I actually see hating is @95, venomlash. Did you never hear that he who resorts to name calling immediately loses. No matter your point, I have zero respect for you, who hides behind a computer screen to throw words like that. That was totally uncalled for and shows vapid immaturity. Realize that any lash-out from you only confirms what I just said.
112
Why is anyone bothering with LC? She's one more ignorant shithead who believes that the only things constitutional are the ones she agrees with.
America the beautiful, even with all the LC's there are out there.
America the beautiful, even with all the LC's there are out there.
113
Loveschild, you are a bigot. There's no justification for arguments like "The majority can choose to oppress the minority. Will of the people!" or "Gay people are making an evil bad choice and should be punished." That's just hateful bullshit. You've occasionally presented a halfway justifiable crazy right wing opinion in this past. On this occasion you are representing hate, pure and simple.
114
@111, You must not come to Slog often, LC has constantly made misogynist, misandrist, homophobic, and racist remarks. Venomlash has always countered LC's comments with the intolerance called for. Intolerance of intolerance is the only acceptable form of intolerance.
116
@fnarf, a biased gay judge like Vaughn, ruling in favor of ' gay marriage ', against the will of the people is only a divide in your mind. This is not a legitimate desicion by any means. And as such it will be relegated in the end.
117
@95 For all you talking about 'hate speech', the only one I actually see hating is @95, venomlash. Did you never hear that he who resorts to name calling immediately loses. No matter your point, I have zero respect for you, who hides behind a computer screen to throw words like that. That was totally uncalled for and shows vapid immaturity. Realize that any lash-out from you only confirms what I just said.
118
anytime Ochlocracy(mob rule) and blatant bigotry gets handed a major fuck you --- is a good day for reason, compassion and true human decency.
120
@LC #116 - I'd bet my life that if Vaughn was a Christian judge and sided the way you wanted, you wouldn't consider him being biased. Not in the least.
You effing hypocrite.
You effing hypocrite.
122
To Loveschild,
That is nice. That's very, very nice.
Run along, your hero Mr. Richter was debunked and revealed to be a fraud a few months ago.
Your argument that you are deserving of separate rights under the law due to your proclaimed ethnicity or your heterosexuality is moot. Your humanity is what deems you worth of equality under the law, I repeat, not your claimed ethnicity, heterosexuality or even your religious faith. You deserve to be treated equally under the laws of the United States, because you are human. That is it. NOW, stop trying to strip others of their humanity, no-one cares if you are afraid or your religion demands your hatred; as neither of those are reasons to justify denying other humans equal treatment under the law. The United States just took one more step to living up its self-proclaimed ideal; "That all men are created equal..."
Two choices lie before you: a) accept that all are created equal and deserving of equal treatment under the law, or b) move yourself to a country (such as Iran) which is better aligned with your opinions.
That is nice. That's very, very nice.
Run along, your hero Mr. Richter was debunked and revealed to be a fraud a few months ago.
Your argument that you are deserving of separate rights under the law due to your proclaimed ethnicity or your heterosexuality is moot. Your humanity is what deems you worth of equality under the law, I repeat, not your claimed ethnicity, heterosexuality or even your religious faith. You deserve to be treated equally under the laws of the United States, because you are human. That is it. NOW, stop trying to strip others of their humanity, no-one cares if you are afraid or your religion demands your hatred; as neither of those are reasons to justify denying other humans equal treatment under the law. The United States just took one more step to living up its self-proclaimed ideal; "That all men are created equal..."
Two choices lie before you: a) accept that all are created equal and deserving of equal treatment under the law, or b) move yourself to a country (such as Iran) which is better aligned with your opinions.
123
Also, considering prop 8 passed with only 52 percent of the vote, I certainly do not feel that constitutes "the will of the people." Not by a long shot.
124
@116, Are you saying that a straight christian judge ruling in favor of "traditional marriage" only is any different?
126
@116: Like Frau Blucher (neigh!) at #120 says, you religious-right wackos only have a problem with "activist judges" when they're not ruling the way you like.
Besides that, judges are not there to blindly follow the wishes of the people; they hold that office so that they can make the just and Constitutional decisions that are not always popular with the masses.
@111, 117: I've got very little patience for Loveschild's continual bullshit with regard to people different from her. When someone makes an argument that I consider bigoted or illogical, I do my best to respond rationally and explain to them the fallacy of their statements.
Loveschild has proven that she is immune to logic, reason, or anything except what the voices tell her to do, and so I have decided: no more mister nice guy. And as such I have released the three-headed beast of smugness, sarcasm, and insults.
Besides that, judges are not there to blindly follow the wishes of the people; they hold that office so that they can make the just and Constitutional decisions that are not always popular with the masses.
@111, 117: I've got very little patience for Loveschild's continual bullshit with regard to people different from her. When someone makes an argument that I consider bigoted or illogical, I do my best to respond rationally and explain to them the fallacy of their statements.
Loveschild has proven that she is immune to logic, reason, or anything except what the voices tell her to do, and so I have decided: no more mister nice guy. And as such I have released the three-headed beast of smugness, sarcasm, and insults.
128
VICTORY, THY NAME IS GAY!
Looks like his opinion is saying:
- Gays are deserving of strict scrutiny (required to rule under the 9th (14th? whichever) amendment.
- Marriage is a fundamental right.
- FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS MAY NOT BE PUT TO A VOTE.
- There is no compelling state interest to discriminate against same-sex couples in the field of marriage.
I think this guy has hit just about every single nail on the head with this opinion. Hard.
Looks like his opinion is saying:
- Gays are deserving of strict scrutiny (required to rule under the 9th (14th? whichever) amendment.
- Marriage is a fundamental right.
- FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS MAY NOT BE PUT TO A VOTE.
- There is no compelling state interest to discriminate against same-sex couples in the field of marriage.
I think this guy has hit just about every single nail on the head with this opinion. Hard.
129
@29--the will of "the people"? It was the will of many people to enslave another race to increase their prosperity, and that enslavement was frequently justified in religious terms--not just "religious"--specifically, Christian terms. It was also the will of many people to keep the races segregated in this country, and again, this segregation was defended with quotes from the Bible. In both cases, our government rightly defended the rights of the few against the will of the many.
The Constitution guarantees the rights of all Americans, and that guarantee can't be voted away by a segment of the population, however large, just because they believe a minority of Americans aren't deserving of those rights. I'm thankful that, as a gay Christian man who got legally married in Iowa last year, more and more judges are coming to their senses and realizing that my rights and the rights of other LGBT Americans must be protected, or the Constitution itself will be meaningless.
The Constitution guarantees the rights of all Americans, and that guarantee can't be voted away by a segment of the population, however large, just because they believe a minority of Americans aren't deserving of those rights. I'm thankful that, as a gay Christian man who got legally married in Iowa last year, more and more judges are coming to their senses and realizing that my rights and the rights of other LGBT Americans must be protected, or the Constitution itself will be meaningless.
130
An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.
131
LC, if the practice of christianity is made illegal in your state by voter referendum, will you comply?
132
ooh! ooh! Could they get a recording of Patrick Stewart saying "IT IS SO ORDERED" to play after every gay wedding in California? Kinda like "MAKE IT SO", only even cooler!
136
ohhh thats just too precious that LC just parrots Maggie Gallagher on all the stupid ass talking points, but forgets that Gallagher also said that the founding fathers would be "shocked" by this ruling;
but you know what else would have shocked the founding fathers? the fact that white people were now no longer allowed to own slaves in the U.S.... well that and probably modern indoor plumbing, space travel, the success of the Twilight franchise and Justin Beiber.
but you know what else would have shocked the founding fathers? the fact that white people were now no longer allowed to own slaves in the U.S.... well that and probably modern indoor plumbing, space travel, the success of the Twilight franchise and Justin Beiber.
138
128 @ "Looks like his opinion is saying:", Precisely. It's just his opinion, that's what he has based his ruling on. In no amendment of the U.S Constituition is sexual conduct referenced, much less 'gay' marriage.
@137 LOL, Ain't that the truth.
139
@ 17 LOL
It's too late, buddy. You were already assigned a fat teabagger by a Gay Marriage Enforcement Agency. His (soon to be former) wife is delighted, but some nice, unsuspecting lesbian girl that will have to marry her yet to learn the devastating news.
Oh, on your honeymoon you can teach your new husband how to spell.
It's too late, buddy. You were already assigned a fat teabagger by a Gay Marriage Enforcement Agency. His (soon to be former) wife is delighted, but some nice, unsuspecting lesbian girl that will have to marry her yet to learn the devastating news.
Oh, on your honeymoon you can teach your new husband how to spell.
141
Loveschild @138,
Sexual conduct has nothing to do with marriage.
What's your point here?
In no amendment of the U.S Constituition is sexual conduct referenced, much less 'gay' marriage.
Sexual conduct has nothing to do with marriage.
What's your point here?
142
@138, That's exactly what the judicial branch does. The word "impartial" is thrown around a lot, but really it comes down to their opinion on the interpretation of Constitutional Law. Why do you think everyone cares if judges are "liberal leaning" or "conservative leaning" in their decisions? The only thing we can hope for is that they don't continue to show bias in the presence of overwhelming evidence.
Regardless, can you really argue that it would be any less biased if a heterosexual christian judge ruled in favor of "traditional" marriage?
Regardless, can you really argue that it would be any less biased if a heterosexual christian judge ruled in favor of "traditional" marriage?
143
@138, Again, sexual identity ≠ conduct. You cannot choose who you are, and no human should be penalized for who they are. You can choose what you do, and no human should be penalized for doing no harm to others. Your position that gays should not marry because it will harm children has been blown out of the water. Marriage equality opponents haven't been able to present a shred of evidence to support the claim that letting gays marry will harm children, and you are simply left without a tenable argument.
144
@141 Really Urgutha, Are you for real making that argument ?
So what you're saying basically then is that marriage in this nation has been and is based on the premise of asexuality ? If that's what you're saying then that's just plain revisionism.
So sex, gender has no role in the future and growth of nations then.
Then why in the first place do nations get in the business of securing the existence of the institution of marriage for their citizens ?
So what you're saying basically then is that marriage in this nation has been and is based on the premise of asexuality ? If that's what you're saying then that's just plain revisionism.
So sex, gender has no role in the future and growth of nations then.
Then why in the first place do nations get in the business of securing the existence of the institution of marriage for their citizens ?
145
@144 - Really LC?
So elderly that marry must prove they are having sex in order for their marriages to be valid?
God, do you even think before posting??
So elderly that marry must prove they are having sex in order for their marriages to be valid?
God, do you even think before posting??
146
Yalls, don't let LC bring you down. She's completely uninformed and irrelevant. We all see the fallacy of her "will of the people" argument. We all know she couldn't back up any possible argument she could make against gay marriage with anything resembling, you know, rationality or intelligence. She is a relic and we all know it, and Judge Walker just pushed her right into the past.
147
Jeezuz fucking christ, IGNORE HER. She is a monster masquerading as a Christian. Christ would not recognize her. There's no point in engaging with her, she cherry-picks what she responds to, and will never, never change her mind. Don't let her taint this even a smidge. It's WONDERFUL news, it's a HUGE step, it's compassionate, and wise, and all the things she's not. Fucking REJOICE for this moment, peoples!
149
@144: He's not saying that marriage is based on a lack of sexuality, he's saying that it's INDEPENDENT of sexuality. That's a big difference, and it's disturbing to me that you seem incapable of understanding it.
Oh, that's right, cognitive dissonance.
Oh, that's right, cognitive dissonance.
150
@144,
Yes, I am for real in making that argument.
Is sexual intercourse a requirement for people after they get married?
No, it is an assumption, but not a requirement. Not a law.
HOWEVER, marriage DOES have several real laws and responsibilities associated with it. None of which have any particular relationship with the manner in which the married couple have or does not have sex.
You, and many other anti-gay opponents like you, ASSUME that marriage and sexual intercourse are one and the same. They are not. This judge's ruling should make that rather clear.
Do you understand yet? Marriage and sexual intercourse have nothing to do with each other. That is merely an assumption that you take for granted. I, on the other hand, do NOT take that for granted.
Yes, I am for real in making that argument.
Is sexual intercourse a requirement for people after they get married?
No, it is an assumption, but not a requirement. Not a law.
HOWEVER, marriage DOES have several real laws and responsibilities associated with it. None of which have any particular relationship with the manner in which the married couple have or does not have sex.
You, and many other anti-gay opponents like you, ASSUME that marriage and sexual intercourse are one and the same. They are not. This judge's ruling should make that rather clear.
Do you understand yet? Marriage and sexual intercourse have nothing to do with each other. That is merely an assumption that you take for granted. I, on the other hand, do NOT take that for granted.
151
@144,
To be more succinct...
Your argument is based on emotion.
Mine (and the CA court) is based on law.
Laws should not be based on emotions. I would think even you can agree whole-heartedly with that?
To be more succinct...
Your argument is based on emotion.
Mine (and the CA court) is based on law.
Laws should not be based on emotions. I would think even you can agree whole-heartedly with that?
152
Any lawyers out there? Fifty-Two-Eighty, Ann in Mass,... would any of you be willing to correct my thinking or understanding. I am not a lawyer.
Here are the relevant facts Walker finds:
1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.
2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.
3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.
4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.
5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."
6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.
7. Prop 8 proponents' "assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."
8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor that it can be changed.
9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.
10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union."
11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."
12. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."
13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th…
I also find it interesting that in Judge Walker's opinion there is found an amount of evidence which was included as paraphrased facts with direct citation to and quotation from the trial record. Not being a lawyer I am guessing that the purpose would be to support his application of the law.? As an explanation of sorts for how he interpreted the law?
And that the facts (stated above) will serve as the foundation for the legal arguments to come in the appeal? Does this mean that the appellate court will need to find the facts as erroneous to change things? If they don't then will the decision stand?
Finally, is it me or does the decision read that the plaintiffs proved all their points and disproved the proponents' witness by showing that he was a pundit and not an expert (specifically Blankenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values)?
Thank you in advance if you can answer any of them. If you can't then, no worries.
fondly,
k
More...
Here are the relevant facts Walker finds:
1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.
2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.
3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.
4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.
5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."
6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.
7. Prop 8 proponents' "assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."
8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor that it can be changed.
9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.
10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union."
11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."
12. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."
13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th…
I also find it interesting that in Judge Walker's opinion there is found an amount of evidence which was included as paraphrased facts with direct citation to and quotation from the trial record. Not being a lawyer I am guessing that the purpose would be to support his application of the law.? As an explanation of sorts for how he interpreted the law?
And that the facts (stated above) will serve as the foundation for the legal arguments to come in the appeal? Does this mean that the appellate court will need to find the facts as erroneous to change things? If they don't then will the decision stand?
Finally, is it me or does the decision read that the plaintiffs proved all their points and disproved the proponents' witness by showing that he was a pundit and not an expert (specifically Blankenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values)?
Thank you in advance if you can answer any of them. If you can't then, no worries.
fondly,
k
153
Don't argue with her, LAUGH AT HER. Loveschild, you are a LOSER. You lost. Your hateful, brain-dead symphony of pathetic lies got stuffed. Come over here so I can piss on you.
154
you better show your bloody wedding night sheets or otherwise the marriage is not really real in Gods' woman and gay hating eyes.
nice.
nice.
155
Hooray! A decision reaffirming equal protection under the law, and from a Bush (H.W.) appointee no less.
Oh, and LC - thanks for the laughs. Your rainbow family under the cross is brilliantly ironic.
Oh, and LC - thanks for the laughs. Your rainbow family under the cross is brilliantly ironic.
156
The fundamental gap between LC and most other Sloggers is that she doesn't see gay people as 'people who are gay', but rather as 'people who choose to do gay things'. She still doesn't recognize that gay people are real.
To LC, gays and lesbians are just corrupted straight people, so why the hell would she support them 'marrying' each other? Hence, her conduct ≠ with race bullshit.
She cherry picks everything -- what to respond to, AND what to read, what to learn, what to know. She's a lost cause. Enough with her. She makes us all sad.
To LC, gays and lesbians are just corrupted straight people, so why the hell would she support them 'marrying' each other? Hence, her conduct ≠ with race bullshit.
She cherry picks everything -- what to respond to, AND what to read, what to learn, what to know. She's a lost cause. Enough with her. She makes us all sad.
157
YAY! Now my dear friends in Dana Point can get married! And now I'll wait for the local (Mormon) news report tonight and see how they spin this. Should be fun!
Ah yes - the LDS church news is already on it...
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=11859101
and the comments are priceless. Utah has more than it's fair share of Mormons... and morons.
Ah yes - the LDS church news is already on it...
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=11859101
and the comments are priceless. Utah has more than it's fair share of Mormons... and morons.
158
Meh...
I know arguing with LC is as useful as shouting at the rain and I rarely respond to her or to trollish posts, but I'm sorta bored and have nothing better to do at the moment.
Besides that, it's easy to type out a response when you're absolutely, positively sure that you're in the right and the opposition is in the wrong. Doesn't happen often, so it's nice to revel in it when it does.
I know arguing with LC is as useful as shouting at the rain and I rarely respond to her or to trollish posts, but I'm sorta bored and have nothing better to do at the moment.
Besides that, it's easy to type out a response when you're absolutely, positively sure that you're in the right and the opposition is in the wrong. Doesn't happen often, so it's nice to revel in it when it does.
160
@134- The Shat was the ONLY living member of the ST:OS cast not to come to George Takei's wedding. Prick.
I heard George interviewed and he said "Bill just couldn't find an affordable airline ticket." Totally classy. Unlike The Shat.
I heard George interviewed and he said "Bill just couldn't find an affordable airline ticket." Totally classy. Unlike The Shat.
161
@160: so Priceline failed him? dude shoulda just transported there, right? whatever Kirk prickface phobe.
162
The "Yes, it's unconstitutional" officially has been voted for more than the "No, marriage is between a man and a woman..." on that FOXnews.com poll.
I think that's saying something.
I think that's saying something.
163
@150 Marriage as has been known throughout millenia and certainly since the inception of this republic has been between one man and one woman, the state got into the business of providing that institution for it's citizenship to nurture the family structure and the growth of the nation.
Two people of the same sex cannot provide such growth, therefore the state besides the moral reasons ( laws) has never foreseen that what we call today gays are viable for such an institution. You may not like it but that's the nature of this world and why humanity has allowed the construct of marriage to flourish in all nations, tribes, families since millenia.
Urgutha, I'm sorry to see that you're just as much above it all ( or think yourself as such ) as the rest here. If you believe that a gay judge like Vaughn knows more or that his personal opinion should have more weight than that of the millions of people who have exercised thru the due process that our nation demands of it's concerned citizens, than you are not only sadly misguided but also playing with fire.
As easy as this judge has attempted to impose thru his bogus argument a reversal of the will of the people, the citizenry can grow tired of this circus and disregard all law, even the ones that you like. gay judges like Vaughn who engage in activism from the bench may well be their own (and the rest of those that engage in the same acts) worst enemies in the end.
~In God's Love.
Two people of the same sex cannot provide such growth, therefore the state besides the moral reasons ( laws) has never foreseen that what we call today gays are viable for such an institution. You may not like it but that's the nature of this world and why humanity has allowed the construct of marriage to flourish in all nations, tribes, families since millenia.
Urgutha, I'm sorry to see that you're just as much above it all ( or think yourself as such ) as the rest here. If you believe that a gay judge like Vaughn knows more or that his personal opinion should have more weight than that of the millions of people who have exercised thru the due process that our nation demands of it's concerned citizens, than you are not only sadly misguided but also playing with fire.
As easy as this judge has attempted to impose thru his bogus argument a reversal of the will of the people, the citizenry can grow tired of this circus and disregard all law, even the ones that you like. gay judges like Vaughn who engage in activism from the bench may well be their own (and the rest of those that engage in the same acts) worst enemies in the end.
~In God's Love.
164
Whatever, LC. You're getting left behind. Fading into history. Becoming extinct. And I think at least some part of you knows it...
165
@163, Loveschild would you please read the fucking decision? All 138 pages of it? Judge Walker addresses every single issue you and your religionist cohorts bring up -- and then destroys them.
On top of all that, he points out in the early pages just exactly how badly the Prop 8 supporters failed to make their case -- *two* witnesses? Neither of whom was qualified to testify as an expert in the area they were supposed to be experts in? One of whom actually made statements that supported the same-sex marriage argument?
Your side literally did not have a case.
As for your railing against the judiciary and Judge Vaughn in particular, you have two options: Either read the goddamn Constitution of the United States of America, you fucking baboon, or go blow Clarence Thomas.
On top of all that, he points out in the early pages just exactly how badly the Prop 8 supporters failed to make their case -- *two* witnesses? Neither of whom was qualified to testify as an expert in the area they were supposed to be experts in? One of whom actually made statements that supported the same-sex marriage argument?
Your side literally did not have a case.
As for your railing against the judiciary and Judge Vaughn in particular, you have two options: Either read the goddamn Constitution of the United States of America, you fucking baboon, or go blow Clarence Thomas.
166
There is also the fact the the judge is also a noted Libertarian and a Bush I appointee, but forget all that... because he is such a GAY GAY GAY ACTIVIST, because he ruled for the constitution and against the emotionally/religious based whipped up mob. uh yeah.
fnarf is right, LC you really are a joke.
fnarf is right, LC you really are a joke.
167
LC - your hatred, spite, and stupidity would fit in much better here with the morons in Utah. I'm sure they'd welcome your narrow mind with open arms. It is clear you know nothing about God's love.
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"
Notice it doesn't say anything about gays perishing.
Romans 5:8, "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Unconditional love, no less. Gay or straight. God's love.
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"
Notice it doesn't say anything about gays perishing.
Romans 5:8, "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Unconditional love, no less. Gay or straight. God's love.
170
Loveschild @163,
I don't believe I'm above anything, neither does the judge in this case. He clearly follows the constitution (and I agree with his decision) that prohibiting gays from marrying is a violation of constitutionally guaranteed civil rights.
This isn't about one person's opinions going against the will of millions, this is about the court, doing their constitutionally defined duty... in fact, doing what they are ordered to do by the laws set forth by the founders of this country, finding a particular law in violation of the constitution.
If the people truly want to overturn the court's decision, then they can try to amend the constitution. Other than that, all their complaints, and in fact, all of YOUR complaints, are pointless. The law was tested. The law was found in violation. If you want that invalid law passed anyway, then you must change the constitution to allow for discrimination against gays. Period.
This isn't opinion. This is law.
I don't believe I'm above anything, neither does the judge in this case. He clearly follows the constitution (and I agree with his decision) that prohibiting gays from marrying is a violation of constitutionally guaranteed civil rights.
This isn't about one person's opinions going against the will of millions, this is about the court, doing their constitutionally defined duty... in fact, doing what they are ordered to do by the laws set forth by the founders of this country, finding a particular law in violation of the constitution.
If the people truly want to overturn the court's decision, then they can try to amend the constitution. Other than that, all their complaints, and in fact, all of YOUR complaints, are pointless. The law was tested. The law was found in violation. If you want that invalid law passed anyway, then you must change the constitution to allow for discrimination against gays. Period.
This isn't opinion. This is law.
171
This is only loosely addressed to Loveschild, but, you know, all the points she raises were brought up in the trial. They just weren't supported at all. The proponents pulled almost all of their witnesses, and the two they did call ended up agreeing with the plaintiffs. Blankenhorn agreed that there was no measurable difference between opposite-sex and same-sex couples with regard to longevity, mental stability, child-rearing abilities, etc. Miller testified that gays were politically powerful, but admitted that he wasn't an expert on them, hadn't made any studies of their success or failure at the polls, and hadn't compared them to other suspect classes like African-Americans or women, in addition to admitting that virtually all of the evidence he submitted in support of his testimony was provided to him by the proponents. It was an incredibly weak defense of Prop 8.
Loveschild, I disagree with your assertions regarding marriage -- and I believe the weight of the studies are on my side -- but even granting that what you say is true, none of that was demonstrated at trial. Judge Walker asked the defendants what harm same-sex marriage would do to opposite-sex marriage and they flat-out responded that they didn't know. If you want to get outraged at somebody -- which would be reasonable -- get mad at the ProtectMarriage people who were defending the law. This was less a case of the pro-gay marriage argument being made conclusively and much more a case of the anti-gay marriage argument not being made at all.
Seriously, go read the transcripts. Hamilton Burger puts up more of a fight than Andy Pugno.
Loveschild, I disagree with your assertions regarding marriage -- and I believe the weight of the studies are on my side -- but even granting that what you say is true, none of that was demonstrated at trial. Judge Walker asked the defendants what harm same-sex marriage would do to opposite-sex marriage and they flat-out responded that they didn't know. If you want to get outraged at somebody -- which would be reasonable -- get mad at the ProtectMarriage people who were defending the law. This was less a case of the pro-gay marriage argument being made conclusively and much more a case of the anti-gay marriage argument not being made at all.
Seriously, go read the transcripts. Hamilton Burger puts up more of a fight than Andy Pugno.
172
Bravo Andrew @171! But you know that LC hasn't the mental capability to read - let alone understand - a judicial opinion.
173
@172: I'd argue that Loveschild can't read at all, and seems to be bent on spreading that terrible condition of illiteracy to us all. Every time I try to push my eyes through one of her long, tedious, grammatically odious paragraphs, I can feel my grasp of the English language slowly being eroded by her abysmal scrawlings.
@169: Just like Rob Schneider!
@169: Just like Rob Schneider!
174
Loveschild,
Your "in God's love" is horribly offensive. You have surpassed the distance between the east and the west in your misunderstanding of God's love. You wouldn't recognize it if it walked into your very person. You don't speak for anyone but yourself.
Your "in God's love" is horribly offensive. You have surpassed the distance between the east and the west in your misunderstanding of God's love. You wouldn't recognize it if it walked into your very person. You don't speak for anyone but yourself.
175
8 minutes of local news time on one station here in Utah was spent reporting about the Prop 8 decision. The broadcast I was watching mentioned the LDS church 9 times. Guess they're not very happy about this for some reason? : )
However, the poll on this local site is heartening:
http://connect2utah.com/
Congrats, California!
(plus I just love watching the LDS church squirm)
However, the poll on this local site is heartening:
http://connect2utah.com/
Congrats, California!
(plus I just love watching the LDS church squirm)
176
@173 Yeah, venomlash, I'd forgotten that LC is apparently home-schooled and didn't pass the finals.
(And no offense meant to those home-schoolers who actually school their children.)
(And no offense meant to those home-schoolers who actually school their children.)
177
@173, About the same number of people today are illiterate as in Roman times, the only difference being that now the illiterate can read.
178
LOVESCHILD: Why are you unwilling to answer these questions?
Why are you afraid to answer? I'm Christian too. Our religious rules, and those of the Jews, Navajo, Muslims, Buddhists, Zorastrorians, Wiccans, and whomever else, ALL come in second behind the law of the land. Will you answer the questions everyone keeps asking?
1. If I push a WA state initiative outlawing Christianity, and the people pass it 5,000,000 to 1,000,000, what then? It's the will of the people.
2. If Supreme Court says Vaughn's decision was right, ending the story per our entire history and system of government, what then?
Why are you afraid to answer? I'm Christian too. Our religious rules, and those of the Jews, Navajo, Muslims, Buddhists, Zorastrorians, Wiccans, and whomever else, ALL come in second behind the law of the land. Will you answer the questions everyone keeps asking?
179
"Loveschild"? Wow, talk about a misnomer.
I don't force my philosophies on you, kindly return the favor and refrain from forcing your medieval attitudes on me. This is what is called "tolerance" and "freedom". Do those words sound familiar?
Oh, but I forget, the "love" and "tolerance" people like you espouse is only for yourselves. Everyone else is a heathen and will burn in hell.
You are an idiot. Please remove yourself to a nice, primitive cave somewhere, to match your attitudes, and STOP TRYING TO TELL THE REST OF US HOW TO LIVE OUR LIVES.
I don't force my philosophies on you, kindly return the favor and refrain from forcing your medieval attitudes on me. This is what is called "tolerance" and "freedom". Do those words sound familiar?
Oh, but I forget, the "love" and "tolerance" people like you espouse is only for yourselves. Everyone else is a heathen and will burn in hell.
You are an idiot. Please remove yourself to a nice, primitive cave somewhere, to match your attitudes, and STOP TRYING TO TELL THE REST OF US HOW TO LIVE OUR LIVES.
180
"Loveschild"? Wow, talk about a misnomer.
I don't force my philosophies on you, kindly return the favor and refrain from forcing your medieval attitudes on me. This is what is called "tolerance" and "freedom". Do those words sound familiar?
Oh, but I forget, the "love" and "tolerance" people like you espouse is only for yourselves. Everyone else is a heathen and will burn in hell.
You are an idiot. Please remove yourself to a nice, primitive cave somewhere, to match your attitudes, and STOP TRYING TO TELL THE REST OF US HOW TO LIVE OUR LIVES.
I don't force my philosophies on you, kindly return the favor and refrain from forcing your medieval attitudes on me. This is what is called "tolerance" and "freedom". Do those words sound familiar?
Oh, but I forget, the "love" and "tolerance" people like you espouse is only for yourselves. Everyone else is a heathen and will burn in hell.
You are an idiot. Please remove yourself to a nice, primitive cave somewhere, to match your attitudes, and STOP TRYING TO TELL THE REST OF US HOW TO LIVE OUR LIVES.
181
@163: Does your husband know you are on the internet and not scrubbing the floor? Call me a traditionalist, but as marriage has been understood in almost all cultures and times, an idle wife is, in effect, stealing from her owner. And God knows we can't redefine sacred institutions just to suit changing times.
182
Here's a teachable moment for you slog homos and homo enablers: we now have a court ruling to cite if you're ever bothered by anti-equality activists.
For example, known sockpuppet Loveschild says: "Two people of the same sex cannot provide such growth, therefore the state besides the moral reasons ( laws) has never foreseen that what we call today gays are viable for such an institution. You may not like it but that's the nature of this world and why humanity has allowed the construct of marriage to flourish in all nations, tribes, families since millenia. "
Response:
and
and
And more: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/wp-…
...with the added mention that this ruling was a collection of expert testimony which is well-cited throughout the ruling "for your own disputation and conclusions". You could also suggest outright "this is the ruling of a man who has been on the bench for over 20 years, a ruling informed by expert testimony -- testimony that is well-documented in the ruling and online, should you choose to dispute his ruling".
Ta-da!
More...
For example, known sockpuppet Loveschild says: "Two people of the same sex cannot provide such growth, therefore the state besides the moral reasons ( laws) has never foreseen that what we call today gays are viable for such an institution. You may not like it but that's the nature of this world and why humanity has allowed the construct of marriage to flourish in all nations, tribes, families since millenia. "
Response:
Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre. FF 23-25. When the Supreme Court invalidated race restrictions in Loving, the definition of the right to marry did not change. 388 US at 12. Instead, the Court recognized that race restrictions, despite their historical prevalence, stood in stark contrast to the concepts of liberty and choice inherent in the right to marry. Id.
and
The marital bargain in California (along with other states) traditionally required that a woman’s legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as a union of equals. FF 26-27, 32. As states moved to recognize the equality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices like coverture that had made gender a proxy for a spouse’s role within a marriage. FF 26-27, 32. Marriage was thus transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals. Id. Yet, individuals retained the right to marry; that right did not become different simply because the institution of marriage became compatible with gender equality.
and
The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent.
Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.
And more: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/wp-…
...with the added mention that this ruling was a collection of expert testimony which is well-cited throughout the ruling "for your own disputation and conclusions". You could also suggest outright "this is the ruling of a man who has been on the bench for over 20 years, a ruling informed by expert testimony -- testimony that is well-documented in the ruling and online, should you choose to dispute his ruling".
Ta-da!
184
@182: You could also mention that the evidence considered in the ruling was that supplied by presumably the most informed and most passionate "defenders of traditional marriage" themselves.
185
@ 150 - Urgutha
"Marriage and sexual intercourse have nothing to do with each other. That is merely an assumption that you take for granted. I, on the other hand, do NOT take that for granted."
I've been married. I'm more inclined to take it for granted that once one enters into a marriage, sexual intercourse ceases. :P
Which brings up another important point:
@ Loveschild
If you want gay people to stop having homosexual sex, the best strategy is to encourage them to get married :D
@ Judge Walker, wherever you may be
You are a hero of the people.
"Marriage and sexual intercourse have nothing to do with each other. That is merely an assumption that you take for granted. I, on the other hand, do NOT take that for granted."
I've been married. I'm more inclined to take it for granted that once one enters into a marriage, sexual intercourse ceases. :P
Which brings up another important point:
@ Loveschild
If you want gay people to stop having homosexual sex, the best strategy is to encourage them to get married :D
@ Judge Walker, wherever you may be
You are a hero of the people.
186
@ 150 - Urgutha
"Marriage and sexual intercourse have nothing to do with each other. That is merely an assumption that you take for granted. I, on the other hand, do NOT take that for granted."
I've been married. I'm more inclined to take it for granted that once one enters into a marriage, sexual intercourse ceases. :P
Which brings up another important point:
@ Loveschild
If you want gay people to stop having homosexual sex, the best strategy is to encourage them to get married :D
@ Judge Walker, wherever you may be
You are a hero of the people.
"Marriage and sexual intercourse have nothing to do with each other. That is merely an assumption that you take for granted. I, on the other hand, do NOT take that for granted."
I've been married. I'm more inclined to take it for granted that once one enters into a marriage, sexual intercourse ceases. :P
Which brings up another important point:
@ Loveschild
If you want gay people to stop having homosexual sex, the best strategy is to encourage them to get married :D
@ Judge Walker, wherever you may be
You are a hero of the people.
187
Listening to NPR early in the AM on the East Coast, they just had a bit on this Prop 8 decision - about how it's going to make the democrats so nervous in the Fall elections. Oops! I feel like barfing. Maybe they should start stading up for something instead of sitting on their hands, trying not to offend anyone.
Oh, and congratulations to all the gays, homos and fags. I won't say marriage is always perfect, but it can certainly be wonderful :-)
Oh, and congratulations to all the gays, homos and fags. I won't say marriage is always perfect, but it can certainly be wonderful :-)
188
Oh Loveschild, You're losing. Bigoted, hate filled people like you are becoming fewer and fewer. Public opinion is shifting our way. Massachusetts has had gay marriage for years, and it hasn't fallen into the sea. It also has the lowest divorce rate in the nation to boot. You have no rational arguments, and never did. You only offer hate and fear for people you don't like. We may not win every battle, but gay people are not going away. We will win.
189
"You're going to hear a lot from the other side. And most of what you're going to hear from the other side is going to be a series of attacks. They're going to attack the judge. They're going to attack the judicial system. They're going to attack everything they can think of to attack except the court's opinion. Because I guarantee you that the people that you hear criticizing this opinion are not going to be prepared to deal with what the opinion has found. I guarantee you that most of the people who criticize the opinion will not even have read it.
"Because what this opinion does is it goes through ...in a thorough, careful, methodical way, what all the claims were, and what all the evidence was, and the court concluded that there simply is no evidence to justify the invidious discrimination against some of our citizens, based on sex and sexual orientation. And that is something that the other side cannot deal with."
- David Boies
"Because what this opinion does is it goes through ...in a thorough, careful, methodical way, what all the claims were, and what all the evidence was, and the court concluded that there simply is no evidence to justify the invidious discrimination against some of our citizens, based on sex and sexual orientation. And that is something that the other side cannot deal with."
- David Boies
190
Let's all not forget that Loveschild is a dumb black welfare-rat who should shut her pie-hole and get back to teaching he children to steal so they can hurry up and be murdered in an incident of black-on-black crime.
192
Imposter! Even if that were true it does nothing to disprove my point nor invalidate my posting name.
194
You know, they just commented on The Daily Show that Reagan tried to nominate Walker to a federal bench seat, but he was denied at the time because Walker was thought to be too conservative. "Activist judge" my ass.
195
@194: Ah, but you must remember that the conservatives of the Reagan era--like Reagan himself--are now considered liberals. If you're not half-educated, totally out of touch with reality, bleeding talking points and obsessed only with playing childish games, you're now "left of center."
And if you're morally reasonable, measured, pragmatic, hopeful for the future and at least vaguely respectful of your fellow Americans, well, you're probably a Communist. And you make Glenn Beck cry.
And if you're morally reasonable, measured, pragmatic, hopeful for the future and at least vaguely respectful of your fellow Americans, well, you're probably a Communist. And you make Glenn Beck cry.
196
@188: Haha, I said something to that effect way back at 164 or so. My point was that, really, debating Loveschild is like pounding your head against a brick wall.
She makes no effort toward either finding a fundamental point of disagreement so that we may work to resolve it, or seeking for a consensus between two viewpoints that otherwise are opposed. And where we have no interest in at least acknowledging our common humanity, there's probably no point in even talking at all.
Thus, both Loveschild's arguments and those against her are generally a waste of time. Her argument amounts to a list of talking points, and once you've read it and considered it, you might as well move on. She won't be convinced by anything that responds to or asks more of her talking points. I think she'd be much easier to address in person, where the anonymity and detachment of the internet wouldn't permit as easy a dehumanization of those with whom she disagrees.
She makes no effort toward either finding a fundamental point of disagreement so that we may work to resolve it, or seeking for a consensus between two viewpoints that otherwise are opposed. And where we have no interest in at least acknowledging our common humanity, there's probably no point in even talking at all.
Thus, both Loveschild's arguments and those against her are generally a waste of time. Her argument amounts to a list of talking points, and once you've read it and considered it, you might as well move on. She won't be convinced by anything that responds to or asks more of her talking points. I think she'd be much easier to address in person, where the anonymity and detachment of the internet wouldn't permit as easy a dehumanization of those with whom she disagrees.
197
@193 Of course I'd be the one sucking. You ever try to get a black man to do anything resembling work?
198
196, I've got Lovechild so frustrated and flustered, she won't even attempt to answer my posts. Every time she did, she wound up retreating with her tail between her legs.
200
Rachel Maddow hit it out of the park again w/ her comment. (via crooks&liars)
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node…
The two expert witnesses in the trial that believed in Prop. 8 both based their arguments on George "lift my luggage, rent boy!" Rekers. (And one of the expert witness was such an idiotic schlub, he was called by the plaintiffs.)
So, basically, it all boils down to this: Prop 8 supporters will only listen to gays if they hate themselves. If they at least accept themselves, they're horrible. But if they're so filled w/ self-loathing that they'll work for years to create an institute who's sole expression is that hatred, then those gays are "good."
I've said it before & I'll say it again, the god that the fundamentalists worship is not a god of love. He is a god of hatred, a god of conflict, a god that gives his worshipers a high when they attack, condemn, and hate.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node…
The two expert witnesses in the trial that believed in Prop. 8 both based their arguments on George "lift my luggage, rent boy!" Rekers. (And one of the expert witness was such an idiotic schlub, he was called by the plaintiffs.)
So, basically, it all boils down to this: Prop 8 supporters will only listen to gays if they hate themselves. If they at least accept themselves, they're horrible. But if they're so filled w/ self-loathing that they'll work for years to create an institute who's sole expression is that hatred, then those gays are "good."
I've said it before & I'll say it again, the god that the fundamentalists worship is not a god of love. He is a god of hatred, a god of conflict, a god that gives his worshipers a high when they attack, condemn, and hate.
201
@ 200
The god that the fundies worship is not worthy of devotion, worship or even giving it the time of day. If such a god did exist suicide would be his most honorable option.
The god that the fundies worship is not worthy of devotion, worship or even giving it the time of day. If such a god did exist suicide would be his most honorable option.
202
This should never have taken so long, but God bless this judge. Loves Child, you don't sit at the right hand of God and you have no right to judge. Everybody deserves happiness. You don't have to agree with it. My guess is that you don't have many friends, which is why you live in this blog offending good people who do have love in their lives.As far as you're concerned no one who disagrees with you deserves love, rights or happiness. If I were you I'd be trying to find out what makes you so negative, judgemental and discriminatory. Maybe if you were happy you would be kinder.You are not responsible for our choices. We all will answer for our own. Concentrate on your own shortcomings instead of pointing out what you perceive as shortcomings in everyone else.
203
This is unlikely to survive the appelate process and if does the Supreme Court will overturn it as an unconstitutional expansion of Federal power. Unlike issues of race which are addressed by 14th and 15th ammendments to the U.S. Constitution, there is no such delegation of power to the Federal government with respect to sex, sexual orientation, or marriage. Powers not explicitly granted to the Federal government remain the perview of the States. The founding fathers never in their wildest nightmares even considered the need to address the issue of marriage since that was defined by common law and for them what they considered to be natural law. Tradition has held that each State recognizes any marriage entered into in and recognized by another State. This presupposes a commonly accepted definition of marriage, which no longer exists and is why gay marriages entered in and legal in Iowa are not recognized in Texas. It will take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution in order to change this, something I do not expect to see anytime soon or even my grandchildrens' lifetime. A more likely outcome would be to see amendment in the other direction. At this point in time I believe two thirds of the State legislatures (by simple majorities) would support a constitutional convention on the issue (God help us if they), which circumvents the need for two thirds support in both houses of Congress. I enacted, I don't think such an amendment would ever be repealed. Marriage is also a separation of Church and State issue. The State should retain control over the right to enter into legal contracts (civil unions) and grant rights based on that contract. Marriage should be symbolic and the pereview of the Church, not the State. Throw the traditionalists/fundamentalists/conservatives a bone while obtaining and ensuring even rights and treatment under law through written contracts for everone. Generational change will take care of the rest including social acceptance. I don't care what the fools think as long their behavior is controlled, if necessary through force, by law.
More...
204
A federal judge has now ruled that a California State Constitution Amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman is unconstitutional. He has also held that the states do not have an interest in such legislation. This is a power grab of enormous consequence.
First, let's clear out the deadwood. This has nothing to do with whether gay marriage is a good or a bad idea. It has to do with fundamental constitutional law. It is as fundamental as the evidence exclusion rules which began as a Federal judicial ruling promulgated by the Supreme Court as part of its supervisory power over lower federal courts, was later adopted by about half the states either through state legislation or state judicial rulings, and then, in 1961, the SCOTUS ruled that exclusion of illegally obtained evidence is a fundamental right guaranteed by the US constitution. What had been a federal rule became universal in both state and federal courts as SCOTUS discovered many fresh new rights. Note that at the time, about half the states had not adopted the exclusion rule: illegally obtained evidence was presented at trial along with the story of how the evidence was obtained. There might or might not be a separate charge against the officers who had obtained the evidence; the jury was allowed to determine its value in its findings. This is still the practice in some other countries. The value and effect of the exclusion rule was debated in state courts and legislatures.
In the case of gay marriage, some states adopted gay marriage either by legislation or through state judicial action. The legitimacy of those actions was not in question in this case. In California, the state courts had found a state constitutional right to gay marriage, but through the Initiative process the people of the state amended the state constitution to forbid that.
The trial should have been over the right of the state to do that; instead it became a trial over the wisdom of the act. The judge wanted to hear evidence that forbidding gay marriage had some legitimate state purpose, and part of his ruling is that the state has no such reasonable and legitimate end. These are clearly legislative matters, and even with the present Supreme Court one doubts that such findings can be sustained. The Constitution doesn't provide for the Federal Government to substitute its judgment for that of the state legislatures or state populations except where Congress is explicitly granted such powers. The various amendments relied on in this decision don't mention equality of the sexes and genders. The Equal Rights Amendment, which did, for better or worse failed of adoption by the states. The arguments for and against ERA are complex**, but the ERA did not become part of the Constitution. Had it done so there wouldn't have been much question about the power of Congress, and not a lot more about the power of SCOTUS, to impose gay marriage on the states. That didn't happen. Neither Congress nor SCOTUS was given power over the matter.
And that is the problem here. Whether or not gay marriage is a good idea, whether or not the legal effects of marriage are achieved by a Civil Union, whether or not states have a legitimate purpose in allowing or forbidding gay marriage should not be a part of a federal trial before a federal judge. Those are legislative matters. They are also beyond the power of Congress to impose on the states (although Congress could certainly allow gay marriage in the District of Columbia).
As this case wends its way through the courts -- next step is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal -- the arguments will or ought to be more focused on this issue and this issue alone. It is not for the courts to debate the wisdom of allowing or forbidding gay marriage. Those are legislative matters. And once you begin to hand over purely legislative matters to judges appointed for life, you have abandoned the principle that governments derive their just rights from the consent of the governed. Of course we can say that this was done long ago, and this is just another step down a familiar road. To which I can only repeat what Buckley said when he founded National Review: "It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it." Some of us still stand there.
We continue to sow the wind. We continue to reap the whirlwind.
** Note on ERA Complexity: Through much of the early Twentieth Century ERA amendments were introduced in Congress by Republicans and rejected by Democrats. General Eisenhower was in favor of the ERA, as of course were many women's rights organizations. Other women's organizations wanted special provisions to allow work rules that would shield female office workers from heavy lifting, require nursing rooms. Eleanor Roosevelt opposed the ERA on the grounds that women needed certain protections. The arguments tend to be sociological, not legal.
More...
First, let's clear out the deadwood. This has nothing to do with whether gay marriage is a good or a bad idea. It has to do with fundamental constitutional law. It is as fundamental as the evidence exclusion rules which began as a Federal judicial ruling promulgated by the Supreme Court as part of its supervisory power over lower federal courts, was later adopted by about half the states either through state legislation or state judicial rulings, and then, in 1961, the SCOTUS ruled that exclusion of illegally obtained evidence is a fundamental right guaranteed by the US constitution. What had been a federal rule became universal in both state and federal courts as SCOTUS discovered many fresh new rights. Note that at the time, about half the states had not adopted the exclusion rule: illegally obtained evidence was presented at trial along with the story of how the evidence was obtained. There might or might not be a separate charge against the officers who had obtained the evidence; the jury was allowed to determine its value in its findings. This is still the practice in some other countries. The value and effect of the exclusion rule was debated in state courts and legislatures.
In the case of gay marriage, some states adopted gay marriage either by legislation or through state judicial action. The legitimacy of those actions was not in question in this case. In California, the state courts had found a state constitutional right to gay marriage, but through the Initiative process the people of the state amended the state constitution to forbid that.
The trial should have been over the right of the state to do that; instead it became a trial over the wisdom of the act. The judge wanted to hear evidence that forbidding gay marriage had some legitimate state purpose, and part of his ruling is that the state has no such reasonable and legitimate end. These are clearly legislative matters, and even with the present Supreme Court one doubts that such findings can be sustained. The Constitution doesn't provide for the Federal Government to substitute its judgment for that of the state legislatures or state populations except where Congress is explicitly granted such powers. The various amendments relied on in this decision don't mention equality of the sexes and genders. The Equal Rights Amendment, which did, for better or worse failed of adoption by the states. The arguments for and against ERA are complex**, but the ERA did not become part of the Constitution. Had it done so there wouldn't have been much question about the power of Congress, and not a lot more about the power of SCOTUS, to impose gay marriage on the states. That didn't happen. Neither Congress nor SCOTUS was given power over the matter.
And that is the problem here. Whether or not gay marriage is a good idea, whether or not the legal effects of marriage are achieved by a Civil Union, whether or not states have a legitimate purpose in allowing or forbidding gay marriage should not be a part of a federal trial before a federal judge. Those are legislative matters. They are also beyond the power of Congress to impose on the states (although Congress could certainly allow gay marriage in the District of Columbia).
As this case wends its way through the courts -- next step is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal -- the arguments will or ought to be more focused on this issue and this issue alone. It is not for the courts to debate the wisdom of allowing or forbidding gay marriage. Those are legislative matters. And once you begin to hand over purely legislative matters to judges appointed for life, you have abandoned the principle that governments derive their just rights from the consent of the governed. Of course we can say that this was done long ago, and this is just another step down a familiar road. To which I can only repeat what Buckley said when he founded National Review: "It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it." Some of us still stand there.
We continue to sow the wind. We continue to reap the whirlwind.
** Note on ERA Complexity: Through much of the early Twentieth Century ERA amendments were introduced in Congress by Republicans and rejected by Democrats. General Eisenhower was in favor of the ERA, as of course were many women's rights organizations. Other women's organizations wanted special provisions to allow work rules that would shield female office workers from heavy lifting, require nursing rooms. Eleanor Roosevelt opposed the ERA on the grounds that women needed certain protections. The arguments tend to be sociological, not legal.
205
Hear ye, hear ye. Comment #204 is blatantly plagiarized from Jerry Pournelle. Sadly, this is just more evidence that newfags can't triforce.
206
I think one has to argue why the state and society benefit from heterosexual marriages in ways that they do not from gay or other forms of unions—in procreation and child rearing, in propogation of future generations, in social stability, in reducing crime or other social pathologies, in “civilizing” men (neither 2 gay men nor 2 gay women civilize men).
The California initiative that banned gay marriage in California, called Proposition 8, was overturned by Judge Vaught Walker triggering a hold on new marriages occurring to get a hold. He then made the determination today to extend the hold on same sex unions. Those against Prop 8 will likely appeal the ruling.
I think one has to argue why the state and society benefit from heterosexual marriages in ways that they do not from gay or other forms of unions—in procreation and child rearing, in propogation of future generations, in social stability, in reducing crime or other social pathologies, in “civilizing” men (neither 2 gay men nor 2 gay women civilize men).
The California initiative that banned gay marriage in California, called Proposition 8, was overturned by Judge Vaught Walker triggering a hold on new marriages occurring to get a hold. He then made the determination today to extend the hold on same sex unions. Those against Prop 8 will likely appeal the ruling.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (207) RSS