1 I haven't had a chance to dig into the details yet, but as I expected, Judge Walker made extensive factual findings that will insulate his decision on review.

Heh, heh.  That's cute.

2 This is gonna be a nasty mess.

3 Ace, will you marry me?

4 So marriage is a right protected by due process now?  So glad that he cleared that up for us.  What a mess.

5 2 This is gonna be a nasty mess.

At least in the end, there will be only chaos.

6

Wasn't the judge telegraphing this the whole trial?

On to the Appeal.

7 Explain to me where there IS a constitutional amendment for marriage.  I've never seen one.  How can you overturn something that doesn't even exist?

Not being snarky just want to know.

8  "I thought, maybe this is what they do in Hollywood."

9

Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial
February 07, 2010|By Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross

The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.

Yeah. Non-issue.

Django on August 4, 2010 at 4:51 PM

10 This is gonna be a nasty mess.

Posted by: mpfs, Splooge Inspector 52

 

In your line of work, I thought that you'd be accustomed to that.

11 Drudge has the whirling flasher up on this breaking news.  You're behind the 8 ball, Ace.  Summon the flaming (no pun intended) skull.

12 I guess the people's will doesn't really matter anymore....it's who can manipulate the law more effectively than the next guy.

13 This is gonna be a nasty mess.

Posted by: mpfs, Splooge Inspector

Aaaaah, I believe I see what you did there.

14 We need a constitutional amendment to outlaw penumbric emanations.

15

In your line of work, I thought that you'd be accustomed to that.

Posted by: Blue Hen

At least I wear a hazmat suit.

16 Did the judge grant the state's request for a stay during the appeal?

17 Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.

Prop 8 doesn't stop gay men or lesbians from getting marriage licenses.  They just can't get them to marry the same sex.

These leftists are too stupid for words.  Despicable, lying scumbags who have to try and force their own emotional problems on the rest of the world.

This nation cannot withstand such disingenuous idiocy.  No way.  No how.

18 I suppose if I evah wanted to get into the Harvard MBA program I'd have to chime the bells for this and say this is the greatest day on Gaia .

19 Ugh, too many seminal references today.

20 #17

I'm so confused.

Maybe it's the splooge.

21

Explain to me where there IS a constitutional amendment for marriage.  I've never seen one.  How can you overturn something that doesn't even exist?

Ahem.

22 What does privacy has to do with marriage.  I'm not being obtuse on purpose.

23 has=have

24 He must be reading the New and improved version of the constitution.  I can't seem to find the word marriage in my copy.  This is only going to lead to 40 more years of wrangling over this issue.  Democratic votes tend to put such issues to rest, judicial fiat tends to create long term problems.

25 Quit cutting ace's grass with the double posts Gabe .

26 Oh, isn't that just craptastic.... Yet another festering sore of a judicial decision running ahead of public opinion. It's been, what, 37 years since Roe v. Wade reduced legislative discretion regarding abortion to posturing and hand-waving? We now get to have 40 years of low-grade civil war about gays and marriage. Wonderful. I can hardly wait.

27

19 Ugh, too many seminal references today.

Throw on some Crocs.  They're easier to wipe off.

28 I randomly flipped to a page in the ruling, and the argument I found was that because the earliest pro-8 TV commercials weren't perfectly "secular" (by which the judge, who seems kinda dim, appears to mean something like "deontic, but amorally so"), 8 falls afoul of Lawrence.

If that's exemplary of the quality of reasoning, this decision will survive the 9th and get pwnt at the SC, about 6-3.

29 Just remember, gabe, your fellow fuckheads here hate you.

30 I haven't had a chance to dig into the details yet, but as I expected, Judge Walker made extensive factual findings that will insulate his decision on review.

We shall see if his "factual" finding do in fact insulate his decision.

31 Let me see if I got this right - a judge overturns a state's attempt to modify its constitution and ends up making gay marriage a right nationwide? So much for the 10th amendment.

32 I think I may have a previously unknown twin in Red.

33
hi eggmcmuffin

34 The Benevolent Dictators strike again.

35

The order is founded on the assumption that gay men and women are "singled out for the denial of a marriage license."  This is utter bullshit.

Gay men and women are not "singled out" by Prop 8 at all.  They have exactly the same right to marry as straight people do -- to marry a person of the opposite gender.  So the foundational premise, i.e., that gay men and women are treated differently than the general population by Prop 8 -- is a fallacy.

Gays (at least the litigants) don't want the same right as everybody else.  They want what they see as a different but equivalent right; the right to marry someone of their own gender.  Unfortunately, as far as I know the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution doesn't guarantee you "equivalent" rights if you don't like the ones that are already offered. 

Maybe Jefferson should have put a "NO SUBSTITUTIONS" disclaimer at the bottom of the Constitution so this would be clearer to guys like Judge Vaughn Walker.

36 @mallamutt - why not? that's the reasoning they're using to try to excuse the shooting here in CT yesterday. he was fired for stealing beer, so naturally he had to kill the racist management.

37 What's th quickest way to get this to the SCOTUS?  Have another circuit fail to honor this "reasoning" in a gay marriage case?

38
...as far as I know the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution doesn't guarantee you "equivalent" rights if you don't like the ones that are already offered. 

Pretty much sums it up.

39 Splooge,

It looks like he pulled this decision out of his ass...

40

What does privacy has to do with marriage

No, I was making a bigger point. You asked where in the Constitution there was a right to marriage. I'm asking where in the Constitution there is an inherent 'right to privacy' as we now know it. Christ, people can't name the Bill of Rights, but they're sure as hell convinced they have a constitutionallly protected 'right' to privacy.

In other words: we're fucked.

41 I'm trying to wrap my mind around this decision but it just isn't working.  I am not a  stupid person (shut up morons) but this doesn't make sense.  If this is true then anyone can be a protected class of people and their "rights" supersede 300+ million Americans.

42 Kenneth Burke at August 04, 2010 05:04 PM (m4SBl)

Wow, really? Care to share that amazing mind reading power of yours with the rest of the class? Otherwise, don't pretend to know how people are thinking.

43 Why is marriage considered to be a constitutional right at all?

44 Hey, what about me?

45 Thanks lacey.

Think about moving to San Diego and selling t-shirts with me at the bay. You'll feel better!

46 Why won't you let me marry my loving goats? Won't somebody please think of the kids????

47 What about me and my goat?

48 Hey, what about me?

Posted by: Morman dude with 20 wives at August 04, 2010 05:11 PM (UOM4

And us!

49

I'm asking where in the Constitution there is an inherent 'right to privacy' as we now know it.

Look under the penumbra, baby.

50 48 Why won't you let me marry my loving goats? Won't somebody please think of the kids???? Posted by: Abdul Alhazred at August 04, 2010 05:12 PM (VmtE9) 49 What about me and my goat? Posted by: Achmed, muslim living in CA at August 04, 2010 05:12 PM (UOM4 The moron horde is scary sometimes...

51 47 If San Diego weren't in that hellhole state of yours I'd seriously consider it.

52 I think redheads should be the next protected class - I'm sure I can find something suitable by Patrick Henry to back that up as well. 

53

So, having Animus to a behaviour it automatic bias, and thus cannot be used for the basis of a Law?

Society has Animus to muderers and thieves... and thus make those behaviours against the law...

He was just looking for some excuse... and the fact that one of the few Openly gay Federal Judges heard this case??? How STUPID can we get...

(PS, I'm actualy in favor of the State getting out of marriage totaly, but this is a blow to the idea that we are a Representative Democracy...)

54 So, if I had just married that kid, everything would be cool, right?

55 You know I don't give a flying fuck if gays marry.  What I do care about is not opening the door to polygamy which rulings of this nature will lead to.  Polygamy is a society crushing system that's generally only restrained by outside force.  It's lead to disaster everywhere it's been tried.

Another 20 years and gays would have won the democratic debate on marriage and laws would have been passed allowing such.  It would have been a dead issue.  Now we'll have 40 years of bitching about it and it's  back door that Polygamy will spring forth from.

56

If one can be a protected class based one's preferred sexual activity, then it does beg the question how can bigamy, incest, etc laws stand?

Of course, if you say that people just shout "homophobe" as though that ends the issue.

57 53 47 If San Diego weren't in that hellhole state of yours I'd seriously consider it. Posted by: laceyunderalls

We could sell beads too.  Touristas are suckers for beads.
CHEAP SOUVENIRS!

58
somebody put up a new post

this is making me sick.

This makes 3 major blows to our great nation.
1) Judge rejects AZ's law
2) Mosque will be built at Ground Zero
3) Judge overturns the will of the people on CA and grants homosexuals special rights.

59

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It says life, liberty, & property. Locke & Jefferson defined those rights well elsewhere, & I don't see how gay marriage (or even marriage) falls under life or liberty.  

 

60 Why do we even vote?

61

put on some eye shade and join the parade.

62 joncelli@52

Great minds and all that.  Heh.

63

I'm asking where in the Constitution there is an inherent 'right to privacy' as we now know it.

The decision is on Equal Protection grounds.  The argument was that with the enactment of Prop 8, California law now treated gays different than straights in matters dealing with marriage.  The federal constitutional right was not the right to marry; it was the right to be treated equally under the law.

It's bullshit, but there it is.

64
Now, tell me, who exactly is getting bamboozled?

If you were in charge and wanted to destroy the United States of America, what would you be doing differently than what the people in charge are doing?

65 Well, he's wrong on all counts. There is a serious rational basis for privileging committed male/female monogamous unions, and none for privileging same sex unions. It fails on equal protection because Gay people can get married like anyone else, as long as they commit no fraud.

66 This is just nuts,  I'm going to get ice cream.

Ciao puppehs.

67

Release the Kraken Obama!!!!

68 All fuckin' right !  Let's party ! Business will boom now.

69 The due process claim is even more ridiculous than the EP claim.

70 Release the Kraken Obama Splooge!!!!

FIFY

71 A little advice for those who don't believe in gay marriage:
Don't get gay-married.
Pretty effing simple.
Otherwise, why not stay the hell out of the lives people you don't even know, don't care about and wouldn't even  invite to a barbecue.
You just want to run their lives and use government to do it.
Laws are for protecting people from harm. Not for sticking your effing noses in other people's lives and telling  them how to live.

What happened to small government ? What happened to your disdain for government intrusion in people's lives?
You're all full of shit. That's what happened.

72 So much for the estate tax. You can now marry your grandpa and avoid it.

73 48 Why won't you let me marry my loving goats? Won't somebody please think of the kids????

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred at August 04, 2010 05:12 PM (VmtE9)

49 What about me and my goat?

Posted by: Achmed, muslim living in CA at August 04, 2010 05:12 PM (UOM4

Do you Achmed take Abdul...

74 Why all the hate Jimmy-Joe.  Not enough fiber in your diet???

75 Look at Sweden to see the impact of gay marriage on society. There is no rational basis for gay marriage. If gays want to have a legal contract governing inheritance, etc. then that is viable. However, marriage is what it is: it is for the procreation and continuation of the species and it is for the pleasure of the man and the woman. The judge has, effectively, said that there is no more Judaeo-Christian foundation to American law. Welcome to sharia, people. The judge has paved the way for it.

76 79 Why all the hate Jimmy-Joe.  Not enough fiber in your diet???

Posted by: mpfs, Splooge Inspector 52 at August 04, 2010 05:26 PM (iYbLN)

Too much meat !

77

78 A little advice for those who don't believe in gay marriage: Don't get gay-married. Pretty effing simple. Otherwise, why not stay the hell out of the lives people you don't even know, don't care about and wouldn't even invite to a barbecue. You just want to run their lives and use government to do it. Laws are for protecting people from harm. Not for sticking your effing noses in other people's lives and telling them how to live. And what does society get in return for allowing gay marriage? Has nothing to do with wanting to run lives and use government to do it. If I wanted that, I'd have supported Obamacare. What happened to small government ? What happened to your disdain for government intrusion in people's lives? You're all full of shit. That's what happened. If that's the case then you'll no doubt join me in supporting the end of civil marriage entirely and return marriage to what it once was, a religious ceremony between families and church. Then, if gays can find a church to marry them, it doesn't impact me at all. How does gay marriage impact me, you ask? Simple - I pay the salaries for the court system that is now going to have to deal with a serious uptick in divorce hearings because there is no reason for gay marriages to be any more durable than hetero ones. Which means my taxes are gonna go up so gays can get divorced. Oh joy!

79 sure I'll go away , I don't really care. your insult to me is to call me a cocksucker, obviously you think it's a wrong thing for men to do.

80 46 Hey, what about me?

Posted by: Morman dude with 20 wives at August 04, 2010 05:11 PM (UOM4

---------------

Wouldn't that make you a "morwoman dude"?

 

81 sure I'll go away , I don't really care. your insult to me is to call me a cocksucker, obviously you think it's a wrong thing for men to do. If the universe had intended men to suck cock, it would not have created women.

82 If the universe had intended men to suck cock, it would not have created women. Posted by: brian

Or He would have made men more flexible.

83 I cannot find one argument for gay marriage that does not apply to a man who wants to take a second wife.

Why should married men be "singled out" (as if gays were actually singled out )?

Two wives is a far more "procreative" than any gay marriage.

This ruling is ridiculous.  The government may as well just stop recognizing marriage altogether if it can't understand the benefit of the mother-father-based family.

84 Being a guy, its never occur ed to me to marry another guy.  I just never wanted to do anything with another guy's butt except maybe comb the hair out and fluff it up a bit.  One way to look at this ruling is that people now have more options as to who they choose to marry.  Being married to aaother guy might not be all that bad. You wouldn't have to remember to put the toilet seat down; You could throw your dirty socks wherever you want; You could watch football all weekend without getting bitched at.  The possibilities are endless.  Of course, it would take some time to get used to the icky sex...

85

I went and saw a day of the trial in January and the thing the judge is getting at above kept being hammered by the plaintiffs. Proponents kept suggesting that gay marriage would be bad, but they couldn't cough up any expert or documentary evidence that this was the case.

This is what happens when liberal judges start using the "compelling state interest" rationale.

Whether gay marriage is good, bad or neutral in terms of practical benefit shouldn't be up to a judge to even consider.

The only argument that should've been heard is "Does this or does this not violate the US Constitution?".

Remarkable how the concept of "judicial restraint" and stare decisis are weighed heavily when it comes to expanding the government's power, but when it comes to laws or state constitutional amendments that the judge just doesn't like, such considerations go right out the fucking window.

I don't really give a damn whether gays can marry in CA or not.  But judges who make this sort of outcome-based decision piss me off to no end.

86 ROFFL! My taxes will go up!!!!!!!

Not a serious answer to be found anywhere....How could I expect otherwise. Can't you all just hate people different from you from the comfort of your own home? Do you really need laws to enforce your intolerance?

is it really the government's job to carry out your bigotry? Don't we have enough problems as it is? What's next changing the constitution? Oops! Oh yeah you want to do that too...

Bye bye!

87 "Marriage" would seem to be as simple as a look in the dictionary. Depends on how "updated" the dictionary is, though. I'd say a definitive definition needs a constitutional amendment, but those wacky things are subject to the whims of judges.

88 Obviously Jimmy-Joe is mentally challenged. is it really the government's job to carry out your bigotry? Don't we have enough problems as it is? What's next changing the constitution? Oops! Oh yeah you want to do that too... I don't know of anyone here who has suggested modifying the Constitution to define marriage. I know such groups exist, and they are wrong. Because the Constitution is a catalog of what the government cannot do. Perverting it by inserting a clause that says what individuals cannot do is unacceptable. And no matter how they try to phrase it, it comes down to the Constitution - a document which carries as its sole purpose to limit federal power - being modified to force the federal government to tell individuals they cannot do something.

89 Why is this little twerp still allowed to post here?

90 Not a serious answer to be found anywhere...

I would start with the proposition that perhaps every significant culture and religious tradition in the past 4000 years or so may not be inferior to the whims of the Fabulous Vaughn Walker.

See - I didn't even have to get into the public health dimensions of your rampant buttseks in the bathouses, because that would be impolite. 

91 Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out non-human primates and alligators for denial of a marriage license too.

92 Don't leave Jimmy-Joe!  I wanted to invite you to my next barbecue.

93
On the argument that "marriage is for procreation and child-raising", the proponents struggled to provide evidence.

You shitting me?

94 another loss for social conservatives. This one is as bad as when the Supreme Court struck down inter racial marriage

95  I think we can safely say the constitution no longer has any meaning at all. 

96

92 ROFFL! My taxes will go up!!!!!!!

Not a serious answer to be found anywhere....How could I expect otherwise. Can't you all just hate people different from you from the comfort of your own home? Do you really need laws to enforce your intolerance?

is it really the government's job to carry out your bigotry? Don't we have enough problems as it is? What's next changing the constitution? Oops! Oh yeah you want to do that too...

Bye bye!

 

You tell him, son!  I'm glad I breast-fed you until your were 20!

97

another loss for social conservatives. This one is as bad as when the Supreme Court struck down inter racial marriage

Posted by: denny crane at August 04, 2010 05:50 PM (I+7Zv)

55 minutes to think and that's the best you can come up with?  Amateur.

98 I think we can safely say the constitution no longer has any meaning at all. 

Posted by: kansas at August 04, 2010 05:53 PM (mka2b)

I prefer to say that this Constitution is of no particular use to us anymore.

Kratos, you were right.

99 101 another loss for social conservatives. This one is as bad as when the Supreme Court struck down inter racial marriage

Posted by: denny crane

 

You tell 'em, Denny!  Everyone knows the GOP fought tooth and nail against the Civil Rights legislation!!! 

100 101 another loss for social conservatives. This one is as bad as when the Supreme Court struck down inter racial marriage Posted by: denny crane at August 04, 2010 05:50 PM (I+7Zv) Big difference, imbecile. Interracial couples can still create new citizens that pay taxes. No matter how many times you pack Jimmy-Joe's fudge, you're never gonna make a baby.

101 101 another loss for social conservatives the right to constitutional self-government in America.

Fixed, turd-sucker.

102

 This one is as bad as when the Supreme Court struck down inter racial marriage

Hey Einstein, tell me again which Supreme Court case "struck down interracial marriage"?  I'll settle for the Lawyer's Ed. cite if you can't give me the official one. 

103 I think I've also found the critical flaw in the decision - the judge asserts that ...Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional Does this judge say on what basis California has a constitutional obligation to provide marriages to anyone?

104 Come on Cicero - when have facts mattered to progressives?

105 I haven't had a chance to dig into the details yet, but as I expected, Judge Walker made extensive factual findings that will insulate his decision on review.

"I don't need to actually read the judge's decision to recognize that he was entirely correct in throwing out the law of the State of California as put into place by her own citizens."

Yeah, thanks Gabe.  Nothing I see on this blog surprises me anymore.

106
I'm quite certain that the fact that Judge Walker is himself a homosexual, had absolutely NOTHING to do with how he ruled on this case...

107 Posted by: Jimmy-Joe at August 04, 2010 05:39 PM

Seriously, no one cares about your sexual orientation certainly not enough to hate you.  Really!  The only ones that are obsessed about it are gays themselves.  You should have the absolute right to choose your same sex partner, and you should have every right that heterosexual couples have.  Really, most people believe that.  But it is not marriage as it has been understood in western culture for thousands of years.  Regardless of what you choose to call homosexual unions,  the majority of people will not consider it marriage because of tradition or what a federal Judge says.

108 What they really need to ban is sex between chimps and goats.  How else do you think I got my mental problems?

109 The plaintiffs case was then made by showing that there was no evidence for the arguments that gay marriage will weaken marriage as an institution.

Was there any evidence produced which suggested a same sex union is marriage?

110 How can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional? This amounts to a judicial coup. The judge needs to be removed from office, his "decision" ignored as blatantly unconstitutional.

111 On one hand, I don't particularly get worked up about gay marriage one way or the other; if anything, I'm mildly supportive of it.

On the other, I'm willing to accept that having it imposed judicially by a gay judge over the will of the voters is going to make a lot of folks, who tend to vote as I do on other issues, blood-spittingly angry and highly motivated, and that that's not exactly a bad thing.

112 In Ontario, all laws which used the word 'husband' and 'wife' had to be changed due to a judge ruling in favour of 'same sex' marriage.    Since homosexual men do not have 'wives', no one can.  Same with lesbians and husbands. 

However, the adoption of contraception & abortion greatly weakens the argument in favour of one man one woman marriage. 

When couples are free to choose a childless marriage, you can no longer effectively argue that the state has an interest in regulating marriage.

Personally, I would favour the state to get out of the marriage business entirely.

113

Why is this thread even here, Gabe?  Not enough traffic over at tediousonenotegaycheerleaderandpretendlawexpert.com where you cross-posted it?

It's soooo awesome that your bullshit "conservatism" has a nice big fat exemption carved out of it for your own sexual proclivities.  On that front, anything goes, I guess.

 

114

What I'm weary of is the seizure of the country from the electorate. California voted for something. Who cares whether it's rational or not as long as the majority voted for it. Seriously.

It's bad enough when the elected government can do something that 70 percent of the people do not want in healthcare, but  now the judicial branch strikes with its whims again.

As was stated earlier, what's the point of voting, if it's made meaningless by the courts?

Nobody noticed for 200 years that the right to gay marriage was being violated?

Nobody noticed that enforcing immigration laws is illegal?

Nobody noticed that Americans have a right to healthcare but  must pay for it or be jailed?

WTF

 

 

 

 

 

115 No matter how many times you pack Jimmy-Joe's fudge, you're never gonna make a baby.

That won't stop me from trying!  Now get your ass back here, Jimmy-Joe, I need to widen your sphincter more.  Your butthole might be wide but it's not nearly wide enough for an assbaby.

116 I don't care one bit about who other people marry, at all. It's none of my business. I am, however, interested in how anyone squares this ruling with the striking down of the DoMA on Tenth Amendment grounds. Either marriage is under the sole jurisdiction of the states, or it is not. The Federal judiciary very much wants to have it both ways, it seems. I think the government needs to get out of the marriage business entirely. All of you carping about how the .gov has an "interest in promoting families" or whatever do realize that the state only became involved in marriage to prevent blacks and whites from marrying, don't you?

117 "The government may as well just stop recognizing marriage altogether" YES. Exactly. The .gov has no reason at all to involve itself in the marriage business.

118 I think the government needs to get out of the marriage business entirely. All of you carping about how the .gov has an "interest in promoting families" or whatever do realize that the state only became involved in marriage to prevent blacks and whites from marrying, don't you?

Posted by: CTD at August 04, 2010 07:19 PM (6wODR)

Total BS. Marriages were registered with the state long before miscegenation laws. That is exactly why miscegenation laws were passed.  The state got involved in marriage for one reason only, the protection and support of women and children.  especially in cases of divorce. prior to that the church mostly handled it or they state simply sided with men because legally their name was on everything.

119

Homo's do not appreciate the fact that for me, and most, a man's butthole is fucking nasty and to be avoided.

If perhaps you can maintain an erection while being stared down by a man's asshole, I submit you have mental problems.

On deck: Man Boy Love.     Sick fuckers

120

121

Nobody noticed for 200 years that the right to gay marriage was being violated?

The right to gay marriage hasn't been violated for 200 years. It's only been violated for 2, when California passed a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage when gay marriage had been previously legal in the state.

In theory (although it won't be limited to this in practice), the argument is this: Once California opened the can of worms (gay marriage around 2003?) it couldn't be closed. After 2008, gay marriages that were previously legal were now invalid, which violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Now, for states that have never allowed gay marriages to this point, this ruling shouldn't matter (in theory).

In practice, of course, is different

121

124 "The government may as well just stop recognizing marriage altogether"

YES. Exactly. The .gov has no reason at all to involve itself in the marriage business.

Thirded. Marriage is a religious ceremony - the gov't should have no place in marriages.

And if the Catholic Church refuses to marry gays in their private religious ceremonies - too bad.

122 I'd tell you how gay marriage will weaken marriage as an institution....but blow me first.

123 I figure at least one regular reader of this blog should say they agree with this ruling. I think it's about time it was overturned.

124 All of you carping about how the .gov has an "interest in promoting families" or whatever do realize that the state only became involved in marriage to prevent blacks and whites from marrying, don't you?

LOL, "the State" has been regulating marriage before there were any States. Marriage laws came over as common law from the U.K. long before there was any of this BS race strife.

125 "How can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional?"

If an amendment to a state constitution violates the federal constitution.  I strongly disagree with this decision, but surely you recognize that there are some circumstances where that COULD occur, yes?

126 The Q -

Actually, gay marriages weren't "outlawed."  Prop 8 merely stated that only marriages between a man and a woman would be recognized as such by the state.  Whatever "advantages" a marriage has over a civil union were limited to about .1% of a difference (even state taxes take into account domestic partnerships and such in California).  Everything else can be contracted for (and usually is in this state, to varying degrees, even amongst heterosexuals).  So, the real issue was the word marriage.  Those against Prop 8 don't want the term marriage to be exclusive to men and women - this whole fight is an attack on the very notion of marriage and heterosexuality, nothing more, nothing less.  It is a demand by less than 5% of the population (generally speaking - probably higher in CA) that everyone else must call any sort of domestic union between two homosexual partners a marriage. I can guarantee you that changes in school curriculum will follow shortly (although, most CA schools already teach the equality of homosexual relationships to heterosexual relationships, morally speaking).

I'd also like to add this tidbit: using the METHODOLOGY of "reasoning" by this judge, can't we also talk about the age of consent laws antiquated?  Aren't kids growing up "faster and faster" today?  Can't we use the same kind of "logic" used by this judge to set aside all sorts of age requirements?  There are plenty of 13 and 14 year-olds who can probably drive better than many adults (not to mention the aged).  Why do we have this arbitrary number?

the sinner,

Patrick

127 Actually - No I didn't run away... Had some things to do. I'm happy to answer your question Mallamute.

1). The judge did not create new constitutional rights. He preserved rights already in the constitution, namely the Equal protection clause in the 14th amendment:

"no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

(isn't that the one you're buddies in congress want to get rid of? Radical, dude!)

2). No rights were created here - Sorry no activist judge here. No law states two people can be prohibited from joining in the union of marriage based on anything besides being of direct relation - brother, sister. For health reasons. These gay people we're talking about  are not asking to marry their siblings. They will never enter in to traditional marriage, therefore prop 8 basically tells them no matter how committed they are to their partner, they will never be able to enter into a civil marriage based on their sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation  is protected in every other way. You cannot refuse to hire someone or fire someone or arrest someone for their sexual orientation. Now, thankfully you can't also deny them the pursuit of happiness, a God given inalienable right in this country. You are an American, aren't you? You do know that, no?

3. The will of the people in this case is discriminatory and violates the constitution. I'm sure if you called a vote in 1963 in Alabama (or maybe even today?) to outlaw marriage between a black man and white woman or if you held a vote years prior to the suffrage movement to poll how the masses felt about women voting, you would find a similar "will of the people" to keep them from voting would you not?

Equal rights for blacks, equal rights for women were widely resisted as well at one time.

We all look back on those bigots as being wrong just as we will all one day look back at you bigots as being wrong.

One thing is for sure. One day all gay people in every state will have the right to marry. Its just a matter of time. This is and always has been a progressive nation founded on progression.

Finally - you say no one cares one way or another about gay marriage. Well, when another American's rights are being infringed upon, you realy should care so don't give me that "I'm not a bigot" crap. Ok - fine you;re not a bigot. You're just apathetic about another taxpayer's God-given right under the Constitution.

Oh and by the way. the gay sex jokes really creep me out. You're all a little bit too preoccupied with gay sex....

But then again you're a small minded bunch of twisted little bigots that can't keep your mind out of other people's bedrooms.

I'm not too worried about 2010 or 2012. You're all gonna die just like Jim crow did.  Just a matter of time. See ya!
 

128 117 How can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional?

Not much to add to that, but would suggest that historically a feature of marriage is the presumption of paternity. Now that presumption no longer meshed with physical reality California needs to immediately cease issuing BCs with a "father" listed. Males also need to lose their dependent deductions on taxes (and all other financial features related to marriage) as child rearing and preservation of familoy unit is no longer relevant to marriage.

IOW - Traditional family marriage; the good, bad, and ugly of it; has just been destroyed. You can have your "marriage certificate" but it means nothing.

Flip side, if you can prove paternity (and maternity, and guardianship) you can get all the old fashioned good bad ugly features, but you to take them all. Maybe we can call it something like "registered domestic family corporation".

129 "Marriage laws came over as common law from the U.K. " Exactly. As common law. That meant that if two people had a wedding ceremony and said they were married, in the eyes of the law, they were. They didn't need a permission slip from the state to do so.

130 I do not see discrimination in the bill since no one is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. The fact that heterosexuals do not want to marry someone of the same sex is immaterial.

131 As common law. That meant that if two people had a wedding ceremony and said they were married, in the eyes of the law, they were. They didn't need a permission slip from the state to do so.

Your idea of the Common Law is somewhat mistaken. Perhaps you should do some research.

132 sometimes I like to think that education is getting better in this country but it's getting so much worse. I'm going to assume that you all read the transcripts to the trial so you could comment on this post sensibly. Of course if you had, you would have known that this ruling was a foregone conclusion unless Judge Walker could have ignored the paucity of evidence and testimony that the Prop 8 defenders presented. Wait scratch that, their defense was they didn't need evidence. Yes that's not a typo the defense said that evidence was not necessary because they had something better, conviction and a gut feeling. (this was also what their witness's said). Now assuming that you don't want judges making rulings on gut feelings and would like them to look at the evidence in the case you would understand the ruling. You would also probably want to keep Olson and Boies on retainer because they were brilliant. Now all y'll are getting pretty hot under the collar about 'activist judges' and the constitution (you read the rest of the laws that have been passed in the 230 years we've been around right?) and that's pretty funny, because what gays are fighting for they see as a right and wouldn't you fight pretty hard for a right you thought you had? So your pettiness over the legal case is pretty odd. Plus not a single one of you seem to understand what makes us different from a democracy in which 51% of the people control 100% of the resources. In a republic certain positions are put in place to prevent the majority from making hasty or unwise decisions based on a mob mentality. that's why we are happy to have "activist judges' so even if someone convinces 51% of the population that your a child molester who killed an underage hooker in 1992 based on the gut feelings of the town psychic a judge can step in and put a stop to it. As for the judge's perceived sexuality it's kinda hypocritical to think that gays wouldn't have said the same thing if it was a straight judge making the ruling, but what gives either sexuality important if the case was decided on evidence that both sides presented fairly? The fact that this judge and the judge that ruled gay marriages legal in the first place are considered 'conservative' is ignored in the current heat of the trial. That both sides were very happy with the judge and said so in at the start of the trial. As for many of your fears about polygamy, how is that a gay issue? Isn't that a straight issue you should work out for yourselves? Here's a hint try making your case about consenting adults and not about religious and historical convictions since historically polygamy has been widely practiced and was legal in the bible, as well as the koran and torah. In this country we have so many children in foster care, we have so many gay youths living on the street and we have a gay culture that is hell bent on suicide because of cultural shunning. Why not see this as a possible fix to all three of those issues instead of worrying about bestiality and sex with fruit. You want the bath houses shut down? Encourage your gay kids...no EXPECT them to get married. You want less HIV infections, encourage monogamy and reward it. Stop acting on ignorance and try to see the human race as parts of a whole. Gays have been around for all time, in all cultures, and in all tribes. Even if you want to ignore the evidence and possibility that it might have a biological foundation, nothing has ever gotten rid of it. Not stake burning, lynching, gassing, concentration camps, electrical shock therapy, or even family abandonment. Now would be the time to examine what you are fighting. Gay marriage may or may not lead to more monogamy, but denying gays the social and political recognition of marriage sure isn't going to help either. Join the conservative view and give gays a chance to mature and develop isn't it time you stopped shunning them? Maybe some of them would even feel less compelled to act out if they didn't feel like everyone hated them and that society had their back.

133 I reserve the right to shun.

134

because what gays are fighting for they see as a right and wouldn't you fight pretty hard for a right you thought you had?

An astonishingly stupid argument. So now the views of an advocacy group are dispositive? The KKK thought it had the right to lynch Negroes and other Republicans. NAMBLA is fighting for the right to queer off with boys.

The fact that those involved see something as a right doesn't make it a right.

135 "Now, thankfully you can't also deny them the pursuit of happiness, a God given inalienable right in this country. You are an American, aren't you? You do know that, no?"

Ah, it all makes sense now.  The judge based his ruling on the Declaration of Independence rather than the Constitution.

By the way, anyone who quotes "the pursuit of happiness" as a rationale for ANYTHING has revealed himself to be a subhuman retard.

136 @ Jay Guevara no Jay that's what the friggin trial was for *facepalm*

137

You want less HIV infections, encourage monogamy and reward it.

("Less" => "fewer")

I'm sure mock "marriages" will make fags circumspect and monogamous. They'll probably cancel the Folsom Street and Up Your Alley Fairs in SF.

Gays have been around for all time, in all cultures, and in all tribes.

So fags have been around for a long time. So have pederasts and other child molesters, murderers, sadists, pimps, prostitutes, and other core Democrat constituencies. Does that make them OK too?

138

Maybe some of them would even feel less compelled to act out if they didn't feel like everyone hated them and that society had their back.

Then again, maybe not.

 

139

My take: many Biblical injunctions (I'm a straight-up atheist, btw) arose from public health or public policy considerations, and were overlain with theology as an afterthought.

Prohibitions on murder, adultery, theft, etc.? Good idea to promote social stability and cohesion.

Prohibitions on eating pork? Good idea when trichinosis was a problem.

Prohibitions on eating shellfish? Good idea not to eat filter feeders when you live in a hot climate and lack refrigeration. Shellfish go off like a shot under those conditions.

Prohibitions on queering off? Good idea back when males queering off could spread disease like crazy - kinda like now, in fact. Given the chance, men will fuck anything that stands still long enough. It's in the genes. In normal relations, women apply the brakes; with fags, it's on, because no one applies the brakes. For this reason, fags a) spread disease, and b) are currently the major reservoirs of STDs. That's why fags are shunned, whereas female homosexuality is relatively accepted - it doesn't spread disease, and so meets with only mild disapproval. The average normal man has maybe a dozen or two partners in his life; for fags, that's a slow weekend.

140

no Jay that's what the friggin trial was for *facepalm*

So for those who didn't a program, let's review: the CA Attorney General, who is a lunatic improbably enough being recycled for yet another term as governor and very much desires the fag vote and fag campaign contributions, goes through the motion before a judge who by some accounts is a fruit in his own right. *Foot to your butt, probably simultaneously kicking your boyfriend in the nuts*

141 Of course I can't argue this as well as David Boise did but if you want you can always take it up with him.

Whatever. You lost.  The best you can come up with is that the judge is gay.

What-thefuck-ever.

This is a progressive country founded by  progressives and matured by a progressive movement.

You go ahead and advocate restricting the lives of tax-paying Americans if you want.
I'm not coming back here. You're a bunch of perverted, hateful animals.  Like talking to a brick wall.

142 #133  Posted by: Patrick
"...So, the real issue was the word marriage..."

Bingo!  The love that once dare not speak its name now will not STFU!  No one cares what two consenting adults do behind closed doors.  Gays already have equal rights in this country.  People are generally tolerant of homosexual relationships, but its seems that most of the Gay population are not satisfied with that.  They want everyone to be thrilled that they came out of the closet.  No matter what.  Homosexuals will always make up a small portion of the population. And when they speak of their "marriage", they heterosexual majority is going to stiffle a laugh, roll their eyes, and think Yeah Right...

143 I am not homosexual, but I am willing to learn!

144 The judge actually cites case law where the court has already established an inherent right to marriage. There is no creation of the "right of gay marriage," but the same right of marriage that exists between straight couples: a right to enter a contract and establish a household with another consenting adult. This was the finding based on the evidence presented at trial. No evidence was shown that marriage between gays is in any way different from marriage between gays, and the evidence presented showed that it has no adverse effect on children, society, and the people married. The amendment to the California constitution was ruled to violate the United States Constitution, specifically the XIV Amendment, which applies all rights and laws equally. If you think the judge should have recused himself because he was gay, then all straight judges would have had to recuse themselves (since their right to marry wasn't infringed) as well.

145 No evidence was shown that marriage between gays is in any way different from marriage between gays, and the evidence presented showed that it has no adverse effect on children, society, and the people married.

And no such evidence is needed.  The state has the right to refuse to recognize a ridiculous, socially useless arrangement between same-sex couples just as it has the right to refuse to recognize the relationship between me and my Webber Grill (which has the added benefit of not being an AIDS factory).  It doesn't need a reason.  It can refuse for completely arbitrary and capricious reasons (you know, because like the people voted that way and such antiquated stuff).

Every time you retards walk into this argument you pretend that the other restrictions on marriage -- number of participants, exclusivity, bloodline separation -- are obviously above board but, somehow, this one particular restriction is magically in violation of an amendment that's been around for about 150 years (and we never noticed).  Oh, I forgot -- restrictions on inbreeding are somehow constitutional because of "health reasons".  Yeah, that's in the Constitution somewhere I'm sure.

Cretins.

146 This is and always has been a progressive nation founded on progression.

Social degredation and pissing all over the rule of law are only "progressive" in the Stalinist sense.  You assholes are anything but "progressive".  You're moral nihilists and regressive Luddites.  In your dream world, we're all packed into urban shitholes, riding on trains through fields of windmills -- just like in the 19th century -- with one set of laws for the rich and "the oppressed" and another set of laws for the sucker proles that fuel the slave state.

147 In the current days, PDF is not a mysterious format at all, many softwares come out to deal with PDF files, such as PDF cracker, PDF converter, PDF encrypter, etc. This PDF to GIF Converter is one of them which is specially designed for converting PDF to GIF format with 1:1 quality of original files. With the easy-to-use PDF to GIF Converter, you can not only convert PDF to GIF, but convert PDF to most of other image formats, such as TIFF, PNG, GPEF, BMP, etc. PDF to PPT Converter.

148 HTML clipboard فوليرين

149 Motoring offence such, APR Repayment time? Are probably leaking, court that he.So hergibt Winter-, A Russian women.Or your aughter american florists, wedding visit www american florists however satellite TV.Well an take, so Debt running.

150 K�rper gehalten ie, ebenfalls beim �ko-Test? More juices break, Riester Fonds funktionieren.Relations or oes, literally stretches the.It really is Find appliance batteries, that special someones Find appliance batteries in the esert.Very violation of, easy to play. Ley-line that prouces, Although you are? People wont come, the products depends.Painful solution to, myths However Here.Finance options available computer supplies, who shall embody computer supplies normal glucose homeostasis.Rate I will, Ocean by the.

151 MTS to iPad Converter is an all-in-one but easy-to-use software specially designed for iPad users. As iPad gets more and more popular nowadays, to have an

efficient iPad converter becomes very necessary. Here I suggest this MTS to iPad Converter to you.

Being called, acctrually it can not only convert MTS to iPad, but can also put any other general video, HD video as well as audio to iPad for enjoyment.

Besides, all the apple and other portable devices are also supported, including iPad 3G, iPod, iPod Nano, iPod Classic, iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 4G, etc. If

you own this  MTS to iPad , you can share your favorate song or movie everywhere you go,

both at home or on the way. MTS to iPad Converter can be also used as an independent editor, if you want to trim video segments, or adjust video effect, or

crop video playing area, this MTS to iPad is your best choice.

152 porno sikiþ izle

153 discount moncler moncler jackets on sale

154 we are verry good .

155 bana görede iyiler sanki?

156 CÝLDÝNÝZÝN BEKÇÝSÝ ORJÝN SÝVÝLCE KREMÝ ÝLE PÜRÜZSÜZ BÝR CÝLDE KAVUÞUN! • Bitki özlerinden oluþturulan Orjin Sivilce Kremi sivilce, siyah nokta gibi cilt problemlerini mükemmel bir þekilde iyileþtirir. Sivilce ve siyah noktalarýn yeniden oluþmasýnýn önüne geçer. • Sivilceleri etkin bir þekilde azaltýr ve aþýrý yað üretimini engeller. • Cildi, sivilceyi oluþturan zararlý bakterilerden temizler. • Cildi derinlemesine etkileyerek berraklaþtýrýr ve billur gibi bir cilde sahip olmanýzý saðlar. • Cilt yüzeyindeki zararlý bakterileri derinlemesine temizleyerek cildi arýndýrýr.

157 www.sneakers-trade.com

158 Welcome to Our Cheap jewelry online Stores , We wholesale and retail sterling silver jewelry , discount jewelry , replica brand name jewelry with 100% guarantee and hard-to-beat prices.

159 the  passage  read  so  nice!