1 So, in short, the voters got screwed and probably won't get any recourse. 

2 Well, aren't you a fucking little ray of sunshine.

3 I have no idea if a "defendant-intervenor" can appeal as if he were a defendant (maybe some lawyer-morons can put me some knowledge). Because I expect they're going to have to. Governor Schwarzenegger, who already declined to defend Prop 8, isn't going to do it.

Generally, once intervention is granted, the intervenor has all the rights of the original party, including all rights of appeal.  Then again, the FRAP are, um, how to put this, really fucking stupid, so that may not be the case.  But my guess would be that appellate rights are preserved. 

4 A great day, comrades.  We parasail into history!

5 The will of the people is flouted again.That's what bothers me.

6

5 The will of the people is flouted again.That's what bothers me.

 

Let then eat quiche!

7 The findings will only be overturned on appeal if the evidence of record indicates they are "clearly erroneous." Because proponents presented relatively little evidence, that's highly unlikely.


This isn't a traffic-accident case.  The "findings-of-fact" here are not based on the considered credibility of witnesses subjected to cross-examination, etc.  It wasn't a matter of resolving conflicting eye-witnesses.

These "findings-of-fact" are all obviously tailored to fit the result the Judge obviously wanted to reach.  These will not trouble a reviewing Court.  Unless, of course, the reviewing Court (like the 9th Circus) wants to affirm - in which case, they will take all due care to respect them, etc.

But the SCOTUS will not be fooled.  The case is going there, and these spurious "findings" are not going to control the Supreme Court result.

8

And why is there still no discussion of the fact this judge should have recused himself from hearing this case?

In other words, he insists upon himself the mandate of the California voters that backed Prop 8.

9 Gabe I'd imagine people are bitchy because this has been two blogs my by you on the subject without you stating your opinion on the matter. We only have the underlying tone of your writing to go by. We see clearly where Ace stands on the matter. Where do you stand? So are you pleased that the gay agenda is going to help tear apart the nation? I think answering that would clear up a lot of misconceptions and bitchiness.

10 12. "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."

I think this one is the key, all the talk from proponents of gay marriage is about insurance benefits and so on.  Oh, and "intentionally withheld"?  Well, all my Olympic Gold Medals were intentionally withheld, too. 

11 And why is there still no discussion of the fact this judge should have recused himself from hearing this case? Oh, I think we all know the answer to that one.

12 O/T but schadenfreudingly delicious.  You know that video of Catty Carwreck off-camera making nasty remarks about Sarah Palin and her kids and female basketball players, etc.?  Check out these comments at NY Mag about America's favorite little libtard teleprompter reader.  Seems like even the 52% is catching on.

13 They may be 'findings,' but a lot of people might disagree that they are 'facts.'

14

Roger has it right.  These aren't fact findings in the true sense of the word.  They are, essentially, his opinions.  Same sex love and intimacy are well documented in human history?  That's a fact finding?  No, it's a fuzzy little homily from a gay judge who wanted to make an allegedly pro-gay decision. 

15

ChicagoJedi at August 04, 2010 08:31 PM (WZFkG)

Umm, why does he have to represent the entire, what did you call it, 'gay agenda'?

16 Oh come on," tear the nation apart"? What is this, Vietnam?

17 Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."

If this is a "finding of fact" I'm the king of djubouti.

Good grief....

18 Well, at least it's not a post on The Law of The Sea. :p

19 In before some font gets the bright idea to pit Gabe in the dock : "Have you or have you not ever been a member of the Gay Agenda?" Can we keep the friendly fire to a minimum?

20 But it's a more difficult situation when we're not talking about obviously factual determinations. Judge Walker made a factual finding that

After wasting 4 paragraphs discussing these imaginary "facts"

Come on...

21 Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history." So is goat-fucking and child slavery. Sheesh, this is what you get when you found your law degree on a shelf talker.

22 I would say that a great many of those "factual findings" were nothing more than statements of raw opinion.

Clearly the judge does not know fact from fancy.

23 "put"

24 Over/under on how many years till I can legally get my second wife?

25 These guys are coming for me next.

26 Posted by: laceyunderalls at August 04, 2010 08:34 PM (T3YvQ) All I asked is that he represent himself. We already know what the gay agenda is. We saw it today. Screw changing hearts and minds when you can get your way by judicial fiat.

27 FWIW, I don't detect anything out of the ordinary about Gabe's level of bitchiness.

28 Clearly the judge all judges does do not know fact from fancy.

FIFY

29 yet another reason for term limits on Federal Judges

30

well, if the SC can find that a field of wheat in Iowa or wherever falls under the Commerce Clause, then they can make up their decision on this one however they want.

Presidents matter.  Because they nominate SC justices.  Kagan anyone?

31 The findings will only be overturned on appeal if the evidence of record indicates they are "clearly erroneous." Because proponents presented relatively little evidence, that's highly unlikely.

So Gabe what you are saying is since the State of CA decided not to fight the case the rest of the country will be held to these BS opinions as fact?

I don't think so.

32
Marriage as an institution has changed overtime
So I wants me some polygamy.

Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history"
As is sex with girls as young as nine. (Give Mohamed a shout out!)

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
Permitting me to have a harem of teenyboppers won't affect anyone else either.

The time is right, the time is now!

33 I'm guessing that alexthechick has more appellate experience that I do (since I have none, it wouldn't be hard), but my experience with the right to intervene in a case in IL is that is allowed where no party is adequately representing the intervening person's interests. Since the CA trial court allowed the intervention, there would have been some finding that Protect Marriage had an interest in the case that wasn't being protected. Unless Perry cross-appeals the intervention, my barely-informed opinion is that Protect Marriage could file the appeal.

34 Here's a scenario to ponder: A church or synagogue refuse to marry a homosexual couple (much like doctors refusing to perform abortions and pharmacies refusing to carry contraceptives). Will the government intercede. Separation of church and state for thee but not for me, eh?!

35 The judge is an idiot.

5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."

Bestiality is "well-documented in human history".

There is no history of any sort of gay marriage in any major culture in the history of the world.  There are but a couple of very isolated and temporary instances, but for 99.9% of understood history, gay marriage was not even a consideration at any level.  Never.  ZERO.

36 but, little ole Commonwealth of Virginia has our own Affirmation of Marriage Act.  I guess our Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli will have to sue somebody to defend us again.  Sic Semper  Feds

37 We already know what the gay agenda is. We saw it today.

Oh, what the hell, I'll fling myself into this.  You know what the gay agenda is?  Really?  Because, see, I was unaware that there was a vote on this or that I, as a Person Of Queerness, gave anyone other than myself the permission to advance an agenda on my behalf.  But, by all means, please feel free to continue to hurl about the term gay agenda with abandon.  As I've said ad nauseam, being queer does not come with a non-optional Leftist belief accessory pack. 

38
Gabe, you're a little prick and you're not fooling anyone.

That double post earlier? Yeah, you knew Ace posted about this already. But you wanted your own post.

And here you again trying to antagonize Ace's readers. Ace needs to dump your ass.

39

What all of this tells me is that the judge based his facts on his own damn opinions.   How exactly do domestic partnerships not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage?   Aren't marriages and domestic partnerships basically the same damn thing?    It seems to me the only difference is the piece of paper you get with a registered marriage.   Many states & employers are now giving gays in domestic partnerships many of the same benefits as married couples enjoy.   Let them go to an attorney, and put in a contract what the hell it is they want out of their relationship.   Then they fight that shit out in a court the same as the rest of us when it blows up in their damn faces.

If it's really supposed to be about insurance, visiting loved ones in the hospital, being able to have children whether adopted or by sperm donor, what exactly are gays missing out on?    But, it's not about that, is it?    It's about a supposed special class of people being allowed to usurp the will of the majority. 

This is about state's rights, period.   If gays want all the same rights as married couples, let them move to a state that will grant them those rights, and stfu.  

40 That separation of Church and State goes only one way now.

41 Well, aren't you a fucking little ray of sunshine.
Posted by: Barbarian

Oh, so being a pessimistic SOB on other matters is just the bona fides of True Conservatives­­™ but laying out a possible and likely scenario for the appeal isn't?

42 "Hey, anti-semitism is well documented in human history." Ahmedinijad

43 i'm pretty sure all those findings apply equally to polygymy and incest equally well. (11 might not, but those attributes were not explicit, so i can't judge.) that's why this line of argumentation is disasterous for pro-gay marriage.

44 Gabriel, you are getting too wrapped up in legal fictions when the courts are stomping on society's face.  People will not take this crap, no matter what bullshit arguments judges try to make up.  This decision would be laughable, were it not playing with such fire.

45 5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."

So is cannibalism.  Justice now!

46

The gay agenda is a radical, militant, international Marxist agenda that has nothing to do with who you have sex with.  Just like radical feminism, radical unionization, radical eco-naziism, and the rest. 

Nobody's confusing A GAY PERSON with THE GAY AGENDA.  The very name of the latter is a misnomer used to obfuscate the true purpose.

47 12. "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."

No. The associated benefits are withheld by the legislature. The cultural meaning of marriage is, in part, the whole man/woman thing. Therefore, the cultural meaning of marriage is not being "intentionally withheld," it simply doesn't fit gay unions, regardless of what they're called.

I'm all for gays having all the same legal rights as married couples, but please, call it something else!

24 Over/under on how many years till I can legally get my second wife?

Posted by: iDoc21 at August 04, 2010 08:39 PM (Bv/Ih)

Dear God in heaven, why would you want TWO???

48

I have no idea what any of this means but what does this mean?

10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union."

What exactly is a "successful marital union?"

The ability to say "I Do?"

49
And Gabe you still haven't answered for your assinine remark to Andrew Breitbart to stop acting like Al Sharpton.

50 As I've said ad nauseam, being queer does not come with a non-optional Leftist belief accessory pack. Heh heh... It must be like being a black conservative. No fun even when you're right. Will there be a Congressional Gay Caucus? Perhaps there already is, and they will be 100% leftard, and also claim to speak for "the gay community." God, identity politics sucks cassowary dick.

51 Personally, I don't care what homosexuals do in private. But this whole issue is being used as yet another assault on the last bastion of conservatism - that is the traditional family unit and by extension G-d. If the statists can replace the above with the all powerful government as G-d/parent, then they will control us. Sadly, like most minority groups, homosexuals are being used as pawns to achieve these ends.

52 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."

Of course it will.  Look at what's happened to marriage rates in countries where ghey marriage has been legalized.

I know I wouldn't bother getting a marriage license from a state in which it doesn't mean anything.

53 Since the CA [Federal] trial court allowed the intervention, there would have been some finding that Protect Marriage had an interest in the case that wasn't being protected. Unless Perry cross-appeals the intervention, my barely-informed opinion is that Protect Marriage could file the appeal.

An intervenor, once in the case, has full rights as a party - and in fact is a party.  Yes, that party can appeal.

Not sure he even has to show his interests will not otherwise be represented.  Really, just has to show he has an interest at stake (i.e., is not just a curious onlooker), and that it makes sense to have his interest adjudicated along with the original action - from the standpoint of judicial economy, etc.  In other words, that similar legal principles will apply to his case and the original case - and that some of the  witnesses, etc. need only testify once.  It's discretionary with the Judge, but once the intervenor is in, he's in as a full party.

54 I'm guessing that alexthechick has more appellate experience that I do (since I have none, it wouldn't be hard)

Actually, I have appellate experience as a defendant intervenor but that was on the state level and was based on explicit state statute and rules that granted the intervenor full rights as the real party in interest.  As a practical matter, I find it difficult to believe that a party would be permitted to present a case on the trial court level but then be stripped of a right to appeal that ruling.  That would be an actual due process violation. 

55

Plz cut the lawyer double speak crap, Gabe.

Your kind of  hollow reasoning almost got the ERA Amendment passed.

56  "Hey, anti-semitism is well documented in human history."


Slavery, genocide, apartheid, segregation, human sacrifice, child labor, indentured servitude, honor killings, rape, pedophilia, oh goodness the list goes on and on.  All well documented in human history too - so what's the judge's point?

57 So in order for the nuclear family argument to be valid, this judge says the state would have to force every couple to prove fertility prior to marriage, when the only conclusive measure of fertility is in fact having kids.

So basically this judge decided the western idea of family that has existed since ancient times does not really exist. Great...

58 This country and the whole world is going down the fucking drain. Can't wait for the end of it all.

59 Will there be a Congressional Gay Caucus? Perhaps there already is,

Posted by: George Orwell at August 04, 2010 08:49 PM (AZGON)

They meet in the 3rd floor Men's room.  Wide stances.

60 Well, it looks like the civil war is not the only topic that degrades into a flame war so I guess I'll retire for the night.

61 God, identity politics sucks cassowary dick.

Why would you wish that on the poor cassowary?  What did it ever do to deserve that?

62

They meet in the 3rd floor Men's room.  Wide stances.

Who told you that????

63 If you are bisexual, can you marry one of each? If you are bisexual would marrying a tranny be bigamy?

64 2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.

This bothers me. Here's why: what this means regarding equal protection claims is that unless the government violates your privacy more than it's already doing, it cannot make reasonable distinctions among people.

For example: farm subsidies. One could argue that the state does not violate the farmer's privacy to the extent it could to better determine whether the farmer was suitable for receiving subsidies than non-farmers. Based on the idea that the government does not violate your privacy enough, the government cannot subsidize anything.

Of course societies have discriminated against homosexuals for as long as societies have existed. Any society that did not protect marriage did not last long as a society.

65

58 This country and the whole world is going down the fucking drain. Can't wait for the end of it all.

 

Yeah, me neither.

66 But the SCOTUS will not be fooled.  The case is going there, and these spurious "findings" are not going to control the Supreme Court result.


Now who's raining on my gay pride parade?

67 God, identity politics sucks cassowary dick.

Why would you wish that on the poor cassowary?  What did it ever do to deserve that?

Also, a cassowary has a cloaca (a pee, poo, and procreate all-in-one orifice), not a dick.

68 Intervention, for those interested in such things (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure):

Rule 24. Intervention (a) Intervention of Right.

On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who:

(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or

(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.

(b) Permissive Intervention.

(1) In General.

On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who:

(A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or

(B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.

69 Plz cut the lawyer double speak crap, Gabe.

Your kind of  hollow reasoning almost got the ERA Amendment passed.
Posted by: Ed Anger

Um, dude, he's trying to explain a legal ruling. And Yes, that involves lawyers. If facts and reasoning are that much a problem for you, damn, you have my pity.

70 1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.

Pure opinion. In the Course of human history, marriage has been solely a religious institution for a vast majority of time. Marriage only became a civil matter when legal benefits were extended to married couples. This is not a "finding of fact".

2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.

California doesn't require you to be alive when you get married either...so necrophiliac unions are just as legitimate, or this is probably the thinnest of facts ever utilized to back up a legal finding.

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.

Prohibition came and went...sorry, it's just as relevant to gay marriage as any of the above. This is not causality. Just because divorce got easier doesn't legitimize anything, from gays marrying to getting a dog license. This is not a finding of any fact, its an emotional argument, and it's a ludicrous one at best.

5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."

Oh, brilliant. Counterpoint: same-sex relationships are well documented to have been frowned upon in human history.

10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union."

But let's not list any of these characteristics lest we find ourselves on logical thin ice, alrighty?

11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

This literally means nothing.

12. "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."

Social Security and retirement are being intentionally withheld from me because I'm too young. Age discrimination? Perhaps I should declare myself an "Impending Old Guy" and start collecting my benefits. Our society is riddled with benefits and privileges that arise from one's status and state-of-being. I mean, Veteran's benefits are being withheld from me because I was never in the military.

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."

It's not a numbers game. It's not about benefits, tax write-offs, deductions, insurance or anything else. It's about the desire of a minority of citizens to gain a condoning of their behavior from a society whose majority simply doesn't.

71 Yeah, neither Arnie or Jerry DID THE JOB they were elected to do.  Big surprise.

72 Gabe, those findings of fact have NOTHING to do with the fact that California voters decided to restrict marriage to what marriage has always been restricted to.  Those idiotic "findings of fact" are parts of an argument one gives to pitch gay marriage.  Gay marriage was pitched to the voters.  They turned it down.  The Constitutional questions have nothing to do with any of those "findings" you pasted here.  Nothing.

73 So who is challenging proposition 8 exactly?  The Shriners?

It's just a pet peeve of mine when there's discussion of the Gay Agenda because it's accepting the terms the other side wishes to use.  I do understand that many people use it as a shorthand method of referring to what Truman North rightly called "a radical, militant, international Marxist agenda that has nothing to do with who you have sex with".  I refuse to accept that what's been called Gay Inc. speaks for me.  Hence the getting pissy about the use of the term. 

74 So-called conservatives now prove the point I've been making since I parted from the Bush administration and the paleolithic right-wing. Mass hysteria over legitimate desires to consummate gay love with the trappings and grandeur of our nation's law. We should celebrate, but instead the Pavlov dog wing of the Republican Party is drooling over the bell which cannot be unrung. When I pick my nose, sometimes the boogers are long and wet, sometimes short and crusty. Both taste fine. I like that about my journey of self-discovery.

75 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

So defining marriage solely as a matter of state benefit and institution of convenience between two people, and not an institution of both religious and societal moral obligation between two people, recognized with certain state benefits, has no effect on marriage stability? This decision is worse than no fault divorce.

76 I agree with all those except 12. I can understand why the gays care about 12, I'm just not sure why the court does.

77

Awesome!

So when can we start suing churches that refuse to perform homosexual marriages? I mean we need to close those bigoted Godbags down NOW.

78 Posted by: alexthechick at August 04, 2010 08:44 PM (YBXMV) Really? The majority of gays are leftist. The majority of gays supported todays fascism. Which is hilarious, because thanks to their efforts one day another leftist judge is going to order them all to the gas chamber. Why? Because the gay agenda is the leftist agenda. They sold their souls to get their goals advanced. But the left's final plan doesn't include gays any more than the other people they consider dirty breeds. Are there exceptions to this? Of course. Which is all the more reason for Gabe to speak out against this judge subverting the clear will of the people.

79

The ruling was preordained.  The case got shopped to a gay judge.  It wouldn't matter what level of lawyering either side got-the gay side was always going to win.  "Facts" that are equally applicable to polygamy aren't going to win the day .

80 71 - g - great recap.

81 also, some of you are real fuckheads for hatin on gabe. he's providing useful analysis for us morons and si n't gloating or anything like you ar makeineg him to to be. remember, t his is about hte will of the people versus the will of one judg,n and sorry for the typos, my phone is going nuts.

82 "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."

Could someone point me to the section of the Constitution that discusses cultural meanings or even culture in general?

Hahahahahahaha never mind. It's right next to that part about privacy and abortion.

83 O/T:  Are we all ready to live in our federal gov't controlled ant farm?

84 Posted by: g at August 04, 2010 08:55 PM (QcdUG

That's what I wanted to say.  Well put, g.

85 Alex, if you were a gay man, I'd totally do you

86 Also, a cassowary has a cloaca (a pee, poo, and procreate all-in-one orifice), not a dick. You're making me want to switch from beagles to flightless birds.

87

The will of the people is flouted again.That's what bothers me.

It was once "the will of the people" in some parts of the country that black people couldn't drink from the same drinking fountains or swim in the same swimming pools as white people. 

88

So when can we start suing churches that refuse to perform homosexual marriages? I mean we need to close those bigoted Godbags down NOW.

 

Don't think that can't happen.  First the Boy Scouts, then the eeeeevil churches!  _{(Except mosques, of course.)}

89

Wait, let me rephrase, if you were a gay man, and you were actually a woman, I'd totally do you

90

It was once "the will of the people" in some parts of the country that black people couldn't drink from the same drinking fountains or swim in the same swimming pools as white people. 

 

We're not really equating gay marriage with slavery, are we?

91 Gabe,
  I would think most of these findings of facts would be more relevant to an appeal if the actually impacted the decision and were not just a bunch of stuff thrown out there.

Just to use those you cited:

1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.

Religious morality is the sole reason people voted for Prop 8? What bearing does motivation for voting have on the legality of any prop?

2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.

So? The state doesn't require a corporation turns a profit over even conduct business but I still won't get a incorporated without the prescribed number of officers, etc.

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.

Irrelevant and it's  never changed in it's basic definition. Miscegenation laws attempted to do that which is where there ran afoul.

5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."

Is there a marriage license which lists love and intimacy as a requirement? While lack of these will certainly get your divorce granted the state will do noting about it if a couple never liked each other or bothered to be intimate.

10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union."

Really? Again what bearing does this have? Does the state have an ability test for marriage now?

11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

Is the state required to afford options now whenever it passes a law?

12. "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."

Withheld by whom? is it the states job to now provide "cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefit" to all couples now?

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."

Really? Again how can he know this? And why should this matter to what society determines they will recognize?



These aren't findings of fact. They are attempts to codify arguments that have no bearing or have not been proven. An appellate court can dismiss any and all of them if they so chose.

92 Are there exceptions to this? Of course.

Which is why I get pissy about the use of the term "gay agenda".  See further comment on that issue supra. 

93 Wait, let me rephrase, if you were a gay man, and you were actually a woman

Nice try but I am not posting pics of my tits to prove that I am actually a chick. 

94

We're not really equating gay marriage with slavery, are we?

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at August 04, 2010 09:00 PM (zgZzy)

Oh yeah, they are. They are just the same, and if you believe otherwise, you are a bigot.

95 Perhaps the most important political finding that Walker made was his conclusion that the fact that Prop 8 passed as a voter initiative was irrelevant as "fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote

96

black/white racial issues aren't the same as gay marriage issues.

Marriage applies to all races.  and it applies to family units, once the strongest unit.  once the backbone of any society.

if this ruling is upheld at the SC level, i can't tell you what will happen to family law in every state in the land

97

Oh yeah, they are. They are just the same, and if you believe otherwise, you are a bigot.

 

Well, being a detective, I am already a racist, so why not go full-bore?

98

Of course it will.  Look at what's happened to marriage rates in countries where ghey marriage has been legalized.

What countries are those?  And if there are such countries, what evidence is there that allowance of gay marriage had any causal relationship whatsoever to any changes in the overall marriage rate?

99 FWIW, I don't detect anything out of the ordinary about Gabe's level of bitchiness.

It's below average.

100 The cultural meaning of marriage is, in part, the whole man/woman thing. Therefore, the cultural meaning of marriage is not being "intentionally withheld," it simply doesn't fit gay unions, regardless of what they're called.

Allow me this analogy:

Mothers are historically women.

But mothers get way better presents on Mother's Day than Dad gets on Father's Day.

Therefore, because I feel I'm getting the short end of the stick, I want the term 'mother' to be redefined to include men.  If it is not, I am being treated as a second-class citizen and denied what female-only mothers get, aka dinner out, flowers, and a good present (or else) instead of socks or a lame tie.

Anything else is an arbitrary differentiation based upon sex.  Redefine it as I demand.

101 OT at the 75% snark free place. CA will be so broke so quick ... that all this gay marriage stuff really wont matter.

102 Nice try but I am not posting pics of my tits to prove that I am actually a chick. 

Posted by: alexthechick at August 04, 2010 09:02 PM (YBXMV)

Well shit, there's goes my whole damned evening.

103 Way way OT... This unrelated poster reminds me of Dear Leader. And of course, prima facie I'm racist. http://www.blendernation.com/join-the-blender-army/

104

We're not really equating gay marriage with slavery, are we?

No, "we" are drawing an analogy with Jim Crow--not slavery--to show that just because "the will of the [majority of the] people" says something, that doesn't make what they say right, or defensible.

And drawing an analogy is not the same as "equating."

"We're" not big on reading comprehension, are "we"?

105 Posted by: g at August 04, 2010 08:55 PM (QcdUG)

Well done!

106 Well shit, there's goes my whole damned evening.

Also I don't know where in the disaster that is my apartment my camera is hiding.  And I don't know how to get pics off my phone.  Also, sober at the moment.  Hold on, let me fix that problem.

107 The idea that California needs to prove that gay marriage is dangerous or destructive is absolutely insane.  This case is not about having to prove ANYTHING about gay marriage.  It has never existed so why someone has to prove it's detrimental in order to continue to not let it exist, as the voters have said time and again, is just crazy.

This is why people hate lawyers.

108

"We're" not big on reading comprehension, are "we"?

Posted by: Alex at August 04, 2010 09:08 PM (/yzYn)

We are pretty good at spotting bullsh|t however.

109 After this month, it is evident that the majority of this country no longer needs to vote, it is of no consequence.
The elections of 2006 and 2008 will be historically significant as the years the USA ceased to exist as a democratic republic and became......an abomination.
The Constitution, in the words of our overlord, a flawed and irrelevant document.

110 Was there ever any interest in state recognized gay marriage prior to the AIDS outbreak??

111 I can't believe you guys keep repeating the "will of the people" , "the will of the people". When we didn't like Obamacare, what did we do? The states took it to court. You guys want to hate the courts when it gives you decisions it doesn't like and run to them when you need to make decisions you want. It's not a judge versus the will of the people. It's a proposition versus the constitution. If its unconstitutional then the will of the people is irrelevant unless the will of the people decide to change the constitution! That's how our republic works! My god, this is depressing.

112 Ok... The people of California overwhelmingly do not want gay marriage legalized. There is nothing in the constitution that mentions marriage. Since there is nothing in the constitution that mentions marriage it's up to the state to regulate marriage. Why is it suddenly a right for gays to marry, but siblings still can't? Or polygamists? You can't make up some bullshit about equality but only apply it in select cases. So either the state does or doesn't have the right to pick and choose who can get married.

113
Posted by: alexthechick at August 04, 2010 08:50 PM (YBXMV)

Actually, I have appellate experience as a defendant intervenor but that was on the state level and was based on explicit state statute and rules that granted the intervenor full rights as the real party in interest.

Big.Fucking.Deal.

Your intervenor didn't pass my test.

114

I agree with Roger on this.

And yes, it would be much more interesting in having Gabe's opinion versus a legally pedestrian view of legal procedure.

As to appeal, the proponents gained legal privity by virtue of their legal ability to act in lieu of the named defendants.  Opining whether this could be appealled is like arguing coke - diet coke, they both work but are different.    

Our favorite Cornell Law Prof. wrote earlier that the extensive insulatory strategy Judge Walker used in establishing his factual predicates were far too obvious and that the Sup. Ct. will not be railed by such a maneuver given the fact the ruling establishes a new constitutional right and is kinda important.

This is a blog.  Be kinda nice to get some detailed opinions versus a pedestrian legal review from a lens focused on "just the facts" gum shoe Drag Net schtick.  Rome west is burning - throw us some red meat baby, we sick of the tofu with legal marinara sauce Gabe.  

Otherwise, keep up the  good work.  

115 Lost in your Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Gabe, and that's what it was, is that the idea of same sex "marriage" is an entirely novel rewriting of the human experience.

Defend, please.

116 g at August 04, 2010 08:55 PM (QcdUG) Succinct.

117

In my own weak mind, it (marriage) is not the same for both groups.  I do think that gays should have their own institution, but it shouldn't be "marriage".  You won't be introducing them as Mr. and Mrs.  The proctor or whatever the conductor is called won't be saying "you may kiss the bride".  It isn't the same.

But I do have a solution.  Let the gays keep marriage and the straights will make something else up.  We can call it buttfuck cornhole.  Imagine the daughter mother conversations, "Oh mom, I'm getting buttfucked cornholed."  "Oh, Nancy, I'm so happy for you.  I remember when your father and I buttfucked cornholed."

Or father, son, "Dad I'm going to buttfuck cornhole Nancy."  "That's my boy!"

118

God i am sick of this subject. I was sick of it during the 2004 election, and i will be sick of it in the future.  why does this have to keep coming back up.

Gays want to get married, the vast majority of americans, in vote after vote do not.

my personal views aside, it just isn't going to change anytime soon. You've got the larger group no wanting it, and the smaller group won't stop suing over it.

why not make a comprimise and just have civil unions giving gays equal rights to their gay partners and everyone STFU about it for the rest of my life.

 

119 I just want someone to tell me that this process wasn't rigged from the start.  Without laughing.  Is the system too corrupt to save?  After 53 years of observation I'm thinking the answer is yes.

120 Ah well, it was a good run while it lasted. 50 independent nations, bitches!!

121 119 Certain parties will never agree to that.They want it called marriage.

122 Here are just two of the findings of fact that are going to fail any standard of review:

“he evidence shows beyond any doubt that parentsÂ’ genders are irrelevant to childrenÂ’s developmental outcomes... 

“... The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couple s are different from opposite-sex couples.” 

The second one is a real doozy.  In effect the judge has ruled as a matter of fact and law that there is no difference between men and women --- none, nada, zip.

That "finding" of "fact" defies the experience of every human who has ever drawn a non-politicized breath.  I can almost hear Scalia grinding his axe as I write...

123 Not a lawyer, so I will just go with common sense and ask, In the legal world is a finding of fact actually have to be a fact or just a judges opinion?  Because a few of those as noted sure seem like opinion.  As a commoner, I usually assume a fact is you know, a bloody footprint.

I assume an appellate court could say, hey, you saw a bloody footprint where there is none.

124 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

This part is total BS and where he fails. Since when does government legislate, define or enforce the cultural meaning of anything nowadays? Only when liberals want to enforce their cultural beliefs? I say keep government out of "marriage" completely, it is a religious/cultural matter and its cultural meaning is no business of government. Let different beliefs define the cultural meaning how they want without it being forced on them. Adults of any sex or number can enter into civil contracts filed with the government, which is all "marriage" is in the secular world anyway.

125 If its unconstitutional then the will of the people is irrelevant unless the will of the people decide to change the constitution!

That's how our republic works!

My god, this is depressing.

Posted by: Tommy V at August 04, 2010 09:11 PM (qU57d)

It's unconstitutional simply because some judge said it was unconstitutional on what looks like an extremely flimsy premise. At one point in time, the US and California supreme courts said that about capital punishment, but it did not make it so.

It just stopped it for a few years, but nothing changed.

126

Ben, newsletter, please.

And if you could fancy it up in rainbow laminate -or- somehow bedazzle it, that would make it super fabulous (not to mention topical).

_{(I keed)}

127 So what you are saying in a nutshell is:

Your vote doesn't matter, so don't bother you ignorant, intolerant boobs.

Have I got that about right?

128 Is popular sovereignty not implied by the Constitution? Is not Prop 8 an expresion of popular sovereignty? Prior to the thirteenth amendment, slavery was legal, or at least not illegal. My view is that if the gay community wants marriage as applied to heterosexuals, apply to them, let them convince the rest of us to pass a constitutional amendment that would so deem it.

129

12. "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."

This motherfucker REALLY thinks this tripe is going to get past Nino Scalia? 

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

130 In the legal world is a finding of fact actually have to be a fact or just a judges opinion?

In theory, it's a fact.  In practice, it's generally a combination of fact and opinion. 

131 When we didn't like Obamacare, what did we do? The states took it to court.

Posted by: Tommy V at August 04, 2010 09:11 PM (qU57d)

Obamacare was never the will of the people, as is proven by the great majorities that oppose it.  More importantly, the fact that deathcare will force people to purchase a product is the issue.  A genuine, constitutional issue.  It has nothing to do with a made up, bullshit "right" that never existed before and has no constitutional justification.

132

Sorry Ray, I see you noticed the same bullshit in this opinion. 

133

You know, there are laws in some states on who can marry and who can't.   You can't marry your sister or brother.   Fathers can't marry daughters.   Mothers can't marry sons.   First cousins can't marry first cousins (in some stated, at least). 

Are those kinds of marriages unconstitutional?   Can we marry whomever or whatever we want?    Hell, when I got married I had to have a damn blood test.   Was that unconstitutional?

I'm getting sick and tired of members of our judicial system pissing on the constitution for their own purposes, and that's all this decision was.

 

134

why not make a comprimise and just have civil unions giving gays equal rights to their gay partners and everyone STFU about it for the rest of my life.

 

Posted by: Ben at August 04, 2010 09:13 PM (DKV43)

They tried that in California and the gay lobby thought that wasn't good enough.

This issue isn't about marriage per say, but is about the forced acceptance of an alien lifestyle most people want nothing to do with. That is what it really is about. This is not about granting others freedoms that you enjoy, but is about restricting your freedom to associate, or to even disapprove.

135

"We're" not big on reading comprehension, are "we"?

"I" started losing interest when "you" made the piss-poor analogy.

136

"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."

In the eyes of the law, what status do I have - being married to my better half by a reverend after filing all the gov't paperwork - that I wouldn't if my better half and I had a civil union\domestic partnership performed by a Justice Of the Peace after filing all the gov't paperwork in CA?

... And even if the courts do hold this up, culturally nothing will change. That is because the cultural and traditional definition of marriage in every society on the whole frikkin planet (until very recently in human history) has been that marriage is between a man and a woman.

137 Hey. Gabe is okay in my book - and lucidly makes valid arguments on issues that weaker people would have easily thrown in the towel and gone to the left side long ago....and for that Gabe deserves our respect. You may disagree with Gabe, as often I do to some extent, but please morons... a little decorum.

138 I do hope there are better lawyers on appeal with better arguments and evidence.  But really, it should be pretty easy for even the Ninth Circus to demolish most of this garbage.

139 Posted by: Reactionary at August 04, 2010 09:19 PM (4nbyM) Hey, it's not fair to use logic against a troll. It hurts their notochord.

140 So answer me this, Gheybe the bitchy little legal analyst:  when do I get to marry my goat?  After all, any law that says I can't is based on an arbitrary definition of what is "marriage"...

141 112 I can't believe you guys keep repeating the "will of the people" , "the will of the people".

Yeah.  I can see where that's a real impediment for people like you.

Go fuck yourself, Tommy V.  You're not even worth a counter-argument.

142 I get sick of this subject too.

There is no such thing as gay "marriage".  It stresses linguistics  just to believe there is.

There is a legitimate beef, here, though, amongst the homo set.  How to find their way in the legal world when their real purpose is to take care of their loved ones is a struggle.

My answer?  WAAAHHHHHH.

It's no different than the problems I face as a Father.  Fuck off and deal with your shit like a man.  Sorry, but it's true.

143

130 Right on.  This is one of the key enumerated items in the ruling I would have expected Gabe to have ripped into on account it attempts to render impericism through fancy speak conjecture. 

 

144 I like Gabe. If for no other reason than he admits he has no idea what those online torrents of sci-fi fiction are. Neither do I.

145 Gabe is okay in my book

Gabe makes damned good arguments, is a damned good advocate, and is a fine man.

Gabe is not the issue here.

146

In the legal world is a finding of fact actually have to be a fact or just a judges opinion?

In theory, it's a fact.  In practice, it's generally a combination of fact and opinion

It's a fact that my penis is 18 inches long and 12 inches around.

147

There is a legitimate beef, here, though, amongst the homo set.  How to find their way in the legal world when their real purpose is to take care of their loved ones is a struggle.

I thought a civil union would cover that.

148 The "findings-of-fact" here are not based on the considered credibility of witnesses subjected to cross-examination, etc.  It wasn't a matter of resolving conflicting eye-witnesses.

Actually, there was a two-week trial with more than a dozen witnesses and forests-worth of documentary evidence.

And Gabe you still haven't answered for your assinine remark to Andrew Breitbart to stop acting like Al Sharpton.

You need to look up the concept of a "retweet." Because I didn't make any remark to Breitbart about acting like Al Sharpton. I retweeted somebody else's in the midst of a conversation about the Sherrod hysteria.

149

This issue isn't about marriage per say, but is about the forced acceptance of an alien lifestyle most people want nothing to do with. That is what it really is about. This is not about granting others freedoms that you enjoy, but is about restricting your freedom to associate, or to even disapprove.

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at August 04, 2010 09:21 PM (oIp16)

No, it's about a bunch of queers who want to wear wedding gowns and write "Just Married" on their cars and get their wedding announced on the Gay Sports Page, i.e. the New York Times wedding section.  Seriously.  I know a gay couple who want to get married and this is the shit they gripe about. 

I also know other gay couples who don't give a rip about any of that crap, they believe in their hearts that they are married, they have all the legal papers they need to act as one another's spouses, and they really don't need the approval of straight people or a judge to call it "marriage."  These are the adults.

150 Perhaps we can agree there is no "gay agenda..." There is a leftard agenda pushed by lefty gay activists. Just as the same agenda is pushed by lefty black activists as the "African-American agenda." Lefty feminist activists push the same thing as the "womens' agenda." It's all about collectivism, a post-modern nightmare vision of equality and the road to serfdom.

151

I don't care if gays marry, in fact more power to them and I hope their marital bliss dosen't cost them as much as mine cost me.

What pisses me off about this ruling is that the judge overturned the will of the people with a percieved right that has never before appeared in the constitution until today.

I live in Washington and gays can't marry here but they have all the rights of marriage if they register as a civil union. The only rights they don't have are the benefits granted to hetros by the federal government. Congress could and should fix that.

152

I thought a civil union would cover that.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at August 04, 2010 09:25 PM (zgZzy)

I would've thought that too.  According to Vaughn Walker, we're both wrong.  Marriage or nothing.

153

Gabe is not the issue here.

Agreed.  Cut him some frakkin' slack, kids.

154 It's a fact that my penis is 18 inches long and 12 inches around. I would pay to see that fact entered into court records.

155 It's a fact that my penis is 18 inches long and 12 inches around.

Yup, exactly like that. 

156

Just so we're  perfectly clear (sound familiar) I completely respect Gabe, he is brilliant, everyone knows that.

The point is that I'm out of beer.  No, really I am.  Actually, I think the point is that some would like to see more of a point being made instead of the safe legal play by play regurgitation.

That's all.   

157 You may disagree with Gabe, as often I do to some extent,

I quit lending much credence to Gabe on these matters when he tried to tell us that the Queer activists in Kalipornia would never do something so crass as going after churches who refuse to marry them.  Umm, bullshit, as anyone who watched the PropHate hysterics would agree...

158 Was there ever any interest in state recognized gay marriage prior to the AIDS outbreak?? ------------------------------------------------------ As was noted on an earlier thread by, I think, laceyunderalls, gays used to claim marriage was such a dumb thing only breeders would do it, and they did so during the 80s when AIDS was a hot topic. I suspect the real impetus was the fall of the USSR. That seemingly kicked a lot of Marxist projects into overdrive, probably because Our Betters realized they were running out of chances to prove they were the ones who could make Communism work.

159 It's a fact that my penis is 18 inches long and 12 inches around. By the way, do you use a pup tent as a condom?

160 There is a leftard agenda pushed by lefty gay activists

Exactly.  You see why I get pissy about being lumped in with that group. 

161

I thought a civil union would cover that.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at August 04, 2010 09:25 PM (zgZzy)

It does in California, but that was not good enough for the Gay lobby.

California

California has passed three pieces of legislation that provide rights and responsibilities to registered domestic partners (same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples over the age of 62 are eligible to register). Assembly Bill 26 passed in 1999 established the statewide domestic partner registry and conferred a handful of rights which included hospital visitation and the right of state and local employers the ability to offer health care coverage to the domestic partners of their employees. Assembly Bill 25 was passed in 2001 and extended the rights of domestic partners to include the right to make medical decisions, the right to inherit when partner dies without a will, the right to use state step-parent adoption procedures, the right to use sick leave to care for a domestic partner and the right to be appointed as administrator of estate. In 2003 Assembly Bill 205 was passed, basically extending all of the state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage to domestic partners. The rights and responsibilities associated with Assembly Bill 205 went into effect on Jan. 1, 2005.    

 

162 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 04, 2010 09:26 PM (1TvCg)

Gabe, my brother, ya know I love ya.

163 Posted by: FreakyBoy at August 04, 2010 09:21 PM (uKraB) I was going to argue that I hadn't seen anyone attack Gabe. But then, Posted by: Hatchet Five at August 04, 2010 09:21 PM (GBTXy) My only point was that Gabe seems to be very quiet on the subject in terms of his actual opinion. Unless I missed it Gabe hasn't stated whether he's pro or con this ruling. Being that he is openly gay and this is an opinion blog that seems odd. I think a lot of people would like to know. I think the ambiguity is making some people upset with him, or at the very least jump to conclusions.

164 It's a fact that my penis is 18 inches long and 12 inches around.

I'd love to read your briefs.

165 By the way, do you use a pup tent as a condom?

I thought a cougar was the proper item to use?  Or is that only for Our Dark Lord?

166

Heavan has no rage like love to hatred turned. Nor hell like the guy who is the woman in a gay marriage scorned.

167 @161 Totally understand this. It's freaking miserable. In my line of (very infrequent, thank you Obastard Depression) work, it is naturally assumed you are a genetic leftard and you must listen to the most vile and ignorant tripe if the subject turns to politics. Heterodoxy is not permitted in leftard land. I think that was a pun. Maybe.

168 24 Over/under on how many years till I can legally get my second wife?

Posted by: iDoc21 at August 04, 2010 08:39 PM (Bv/Ih)

Dear God in heaven, why would you want TWO???

Posted by: sock puppeh at August 04, 2010 08:48 PM (VcPAo)

'Cause maybe they'll spend enough time nagging each other that you can get a break once in a while?

169 What I would like to see from a judge regarding this matter is where in the damn Constitution, whether Clownifornia's or the US Constitution he gets any of his damn arguments from.   Where, just damn where?

170 Have homosexuals been ruled a protected class of persons at the Federal level?

171

By the way, do you use a pup tent as a condom?

I had to look that up. Oh, I mean, It is a fact that I use 50 gallon Hefty bags.

172 Hold on, let me fix that problem.
Posted by: alexthechick at August 04, 2010 09:10 PM (YBXMV)


...?

173 It does in California, but that was not good enough for the Gay lobby.

Because churches don't perform civil unions.

Really, if gay marriage is ordained, does anyone think that will be the end of lawsuits?  Discrimination suits will fly fast and furious until the targets of the Velvet Mafia are utterly destroyed. 

If there is a different union, you can't compel someone with a policy of performing marriages to perform civil unions as well, but you can claim that if they perform marriage #1, they must open the door to marriage #2 as well, or they are discriminating and face legal penalty.

174 By the way, Cthulhu, if you're hungry after your eons-long nap, there are some tasty mortals waiting for you in Sacramento. Clean your plate, like a good Old One.

175

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at August 04, 2010 09:30 PM (oIp16)

There ya go.  Is there something so terrible and "rights-infringing" about that that they needed to fight for marriage, too?

176 Hold on, let me fix that problem.
Posted by: alexthechick at August 04, 2010 09:10 PM (YBXMV)


...?

The sober problem.  Which is being fixed nicely at the mo.

177 #169  'Cause maybe they'll spend enough time nagging each other that you can get a break once in a while?

King Solomon tried that same stratagem with his many wives.  It only lead to his downfall.

178

Gabe, my brother, ya know I love ya.

Herr, I'm learning things about you.

You know, suddenly I'm a lot more comfortable having you outside my house w/night-vision goggles. Somehow not as creepy now.

Come inside, we'll brain each other's hair!

179

IMO, we can look at these things from a strictly secular perspective and they seem, not withstanding the assault on our senses, relatively innocuous.  Billy marries Bob - what will the children think yada, yada.  But when you consider these decisions from the perspective of how, and from where our societal values formed, and we see an assault on a value system that functioned pretty well for centuries. 

This isn't the first time that this bridge has been crossed.  Ancient societies practically venerated homosex.  Abortion isn't the first time societies have killed their babies. 

The values that modern society were built on kept societies from rotting, imo.  Did societies collapse because they were decadent?  I'm guessing that word originated for a reason. 

Will these incremental steps toward what has been seen as decadent behavior for centuries cause this society to fail.

Probably, imo.

 

180 My only point was that Gabe seems to be very quiet on the subject in terms of his actual opinion. Unless I missed it Gabe hasn't stated whether he's pro or con this ruling.


Yes, you missed it.  Gabe has made it abundantly clear in the past where his feelings lie on these issues.

181 , they must open the door to marriage #2 as well, or they are discriminating and face legal penalty.

Posted by: Excitable Andi at August 04, 2010 09:35 PM (MMC8r)

that's the only decent argument I've heard against gay marriage. I think the counter argument would be that religious groups are free to practice their religion without interference from the state.

182 alexthechick at August 04, 2010 09:10 PM (YBXMV)

This is just another example of why you're so much cooler to read than Gabe. Another reason is your non-aversion to the word QUEER!  I think queers are way easier to get along with than GAYS, because I think that gays are trying too hard to convince everyone that every third person they see is gay. 

I don't have anything against queers hooking up and making honest people out of each other, but it isn't marriage in the traditional and accepted meaning of the word. I don't like people changing the meaning of words. What if one morning you woke up and on the way to work you stopped at MacDonalds and ordered a sausage McMuffin with egg, and you didn't know that those words had been changed to mean liver and onions on toast? The whole time you were puking and trying not to tear your tongue out of your mouth, you would be cursing the bastard that changed the meaning of those words. Either that, or you would have the gay, liver and onions eaters agenda.  And brother, that ain't right.

183 Discrimination suits will fly fast and furious until the targets of the Velvet Mafia are utterly destroyed. Now, now, Dorothy. Velvet is so 1980s. We're all about hemp linen and waterproof leather these days.

184

Come inside, we'll brain each other's hair!

That's a funny typo. Reminds me of Red Asphalt. Good times.

185 Come inside, we'll brain each other's hair!

That was Freudian.  Also hilarious. 

186 Neither homosexuality nor marriage are contemplated in the Constitution.

It takes judges to pull stuff out of their ass, not Founders.

At the heart of liberty is the right to define oneÂ’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life

This was the finding of the court in a case involving butt-fucking,

Clap-trap is a philosophical problem, not a political one.

187 The sober problem.  Which is being fixed nicely at the mo.

Posted by: alexthechick at August 04, 2010 09:36 PM (YBXMV)

Oh.........right. [whistles tunelessly, staring vaguely at ceiling]

188 The sober problem. Which is being fixed nicely at the mo. What, you're not sharing?

189

Where's the thread for stupid people?

Oh that's right!

http://tinyurl.com/26y2be

190 151 Perhaps we can agree there is no "gay agenda..."
There is a leftard agenda pushed by lefty gay activists. Just as the same agenda is pushed by lefty black activists as the "African-American agenda." Lefty feminist activists push the same thing as the "womens' agenda." It's all about collectivism, a post-modern nightmare vision of equality and the road to serfdom.

A distinction without a difference, when some 90% of gays are leftards and leftard-enablers.  Thus there is a gay agenda to destroy the institution of marriage.

Conservative gays may not like the term, but they can't deny they are outliers in what is otherwise a political monolith.

191 Gabe, I know you are for gay marriage, or at least i surmise that from your writing, but I don't think you need to focus so much effort on gay marriage being legally sanctioned. I think you need to focus your attention on the harder nut to crack, convincing DrewM. of his true self and that your two could live happily ever after in each others arms.

192 185Come inside, we'll brain each other's hair!

That's a funny typo. Reminds me of Red Asphalt. Good times.

Wait, Herr's going the route of Gov McGreevy?  NTTIAWWT.

193 Whiny, disingenuous bitch whines that others are super-bitchy about his bitchiness.

194 176

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at August 04, 2010 09:30 PM (oIp16)

There ya go.  Is there something so terrible and "rights-infringing" about that that they needed to fight for marriage, too?

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at August 04, 2010 09:36 PM (zgZzy)

If they want to cram it down your throat, with the force of law backed up by the corruption of language, then no, civil unions are not good enough. As I said earlier, this is not about rights, but instead forced acceptance and your right to disapprove, which they are in the process of taking away. That is all it is about.

195 Oh shit, and I hate fucking plastic bags...

196

Who said it was a typo??!!

_{(who am I kidding. do you people know me at all??)}

197 Also I don't know where in the disaster that is my apartment my camera is hiding

Under the umbrella.  Hall closet.  Move the old shoeboxes.

You're welcomed.

198 Gabe, do you want to be able to marry another man? If so, why? It's not a terribly serious question, just wondering.

199 We've replaced marriage as being between a man and a woman with “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.”...

200 Actually, there was a two-week trial with more than a dozen witnesses and forests-worth of documentary evidence.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 04, 2010 09:26 PM (1TvCg)

Yes, most of which were irrelvent because the issues raised were not in contention because no one one was contesting them. Most of this evidence, and the resulting facts found, amount to arguments why the state SHOULD recognize gay unions as marriage, not why they MUST recognize them which is what the case was about.
If the judge wants to be a legislator he should run for Congress. Congress is where what the government should do is decided. The judiciary is where they decide what can't or must be done. Little of those two weeks had anything to do with can't or must and even less of the judge's facts did.

201 178 #169  'Cause maybe they'll spend enough time nagging each other that you can get a break once in a while?

King Solomon tried that same stratagem with his many wives.  It only lead to his downfall.

You run into a whole different set of issues in societies where polygamy is common, as you end up with a large population of less-successful males who have no prospect of ever finding a mate.  See Saudi Arabia for examples.

202 Take that, you breeders!

203

 the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships.

They want to legislate cultural meaning? That's really all it's about anyway. The civil unions have the same effects but people don't see it as a marriage. This decision is intended to force people to see a marriage where none can exist physically or in the view of most of the population. Why try to make the culture believe that gay marriage is actually a marriage? The only obvious answer is to then be able to go after those who don't accept the gay couple as a married couple culturally----and who whould that be? Anyone not on board with the whole leftist plan to "change" america.

 

204 Another reason is your non-aversion to the word QUEER!

The queer thing is a definite political statement.  I am not gay, I am not homosexual, I am bi.  It is as insulting to be called gay as it is to be called straight.  Thus, I prefer queer.  Plus there's the fact that I'm, er, special in that special way, so it works on multiple levels.

205

194 Whiny, disingenuous bitch whines that others are super-bitchy about his bitchiness.

 

Wait, is this a Charles Johnson thread?  Only whiny, disingenious bitch I know.

206 No doubt this judge prefers a hung jury.

207

The queer thing is a definite political statement.  I am not gay, I am not homosexual, I am bi.

 

Wow, that is so hot.

208 So I wonder if some conservative California town can declare itself a "sanctuary city" for heterosexuals and its town clerk can refuse to issue marriage licenses to homos?

209 197Who said it was a typo??!!

_{(who am I kidding. do you people know me at all??)}

Thankfully not, .

/Just kidding, s.

210 I knew I should have died earlier..

211 Lacey, you can brain my hair anytime.

And I do love the Gabester.  He's an intelligent, great poster with a common-sense attitude toward life and is generally right, and if he's wrong he can fight like a fucking pissed off python to convince you he's right.

What the fucking hell else are you going to ask of someone in this fucked up world?

212 You run into a whole different set of issues in societies where polygamy is common, as you end up with a large population of less-successful males who have no prospect of ever finding a mate.  See Saudi Arabia for examples.

Posted by: Hatchet Five at August 04, 2010 09:41 PM (GBTXy)

Which is why line marriages are far superior.

213 Thanks, Herr!

What, you're not sharing?

You know, I realized that the sno cone maker could be used to make adult sno cones the other night.  That was a happy discovery.

214

211 I knew I should have died earlier..

 

I tried my best.  No luck!

215

Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."

Heh, whenever they discuss the history of homosexuality, they always seem to leave out two salient facts:

1. From a scientific perspective, it was considered a mental disorder until fairly recently.

2. Under many legal systems, it was a capital crime, and under some, it still is.

So, in keeping with the history of homosexuality, he should have ruled that gay marriage should be legal, but the spouses should be deemed mentally unfit and then sentenced to death. ("The happy couple is under a conservatorship, registered at Bloomingdales, and have just filed a petition for clemency")  That's kind of an awkward ruling, though, and why the government should just stay the hell out of the issue entirely.

216 So I wonder if some conservative California town can declare itself a "sanctuary city" for heterosexuals and its town clerk can refuse to issue marriage licenses to homos?

Okay, that would be totally hilarious. 

217 Well,this story has eaten up time that could have been spent on more important matters.Did you see Petraeus is keeping McChrystal's wonderful rules of engagement exactly the same?I'm really beginning to dislike that guy.

218 So basically this judge decided the western idea of family that has existed since ancient times does not really exist. Great...

You mean like marriages in the Roman era where the father could force a daughter to marry or divorce at will as pater familias, or arranged marriages for land, political power, or as agreement as part of contract such as an apprenticeship agreement.  Even in the Bible I don't remember very many marriages for love.  They all had some other purpose as I recall.

219 As a Catholic,  I feel I must echo the warnings I have seen about churches being forced to marry gay couples or lose their tax-exempt status,  be sued, and perhaps disbanded.  

Did you ever notice how the leftists (gays and other groups) infiltrate large churches which have property owned by the denomination,  not the individual congregations?  Why is that?  Why is it that they infiltrated the Methodists and the Episcopalians,  but not the Assemblies of God or Southern Baptists?  

Using that dictum "follow the money,"  large,  old main line denominations have PROPERTY.   They have art work, land,  trust funds,  colleges, endowments,  etc.  They also have cachet with the press and influence through rrepresenting a large number of people.

These people are interested in taking over the Churches so that they can destroy them.  (Sort of like Obama's taking the reins of government in order to destroy the country.)   Once you have a sufficient number of leftists in positions within a church,  suddenly you have lesbian bishops, global warming alarms preached from the pulpit, money donated to Free Muhmia and other stuff the congregations wouldn't support.

As far as my church,  I firmly believe that there was a concerted effort to take it over by leftists.  One portion surfaced as the priest pedophile scandal,  but people are not paying attention to the other leftist ideas pushed by some priests in direct contradiction to the Magesterium.   Examples of this include Obama speaking at Notre Dame, Catholics supporting Obama despite his support for abortion,  weasel words supporting illegal immigrants over national sovereignty, on and on and on.  The only thing that has saved my church from going completely off the deep end was two strong and orthodox popes,  John Paul II and now Benedict XVI.   Both of these popes have appointed more orthodox bishops,  and I am hopeful that the tide is turning as the generation of leftists who came into the church in the late 60's through the 1970's is reaching retirement.

Anyway,  I do think this will be a danger that will be discounted by the left as only a paranoid theory,  right up until they start suing and asking for federal intervention.

220 When I saw lacey talking about braining each others hair, I thought they were tanning hides? Usually we scrape the hair off before we brain them, but to each their own. As long as they ain't eating liver or onions.

221 And I do love the Gabester.  He's an intelligent, great poster with a common-sense attitude toward life and is generally right, and if he's wrong he can fight like a fucking pissed off python to convince you he's right.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 04, 2010 09:45 PM (5Xf3c)

In addition, even with the three hour time difference, he manages to get morning posts in before the rest of the blog wakes up.

222 What the fucking hell else are you going to ask of someone in this fucked up world?

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 04, 2010 09:45 PM (5Xf3c)

To stop singing show tunes?

223 At the heart of liberty is the right to define oneÂ’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life Where did that quote originate? That has to be one of the stupidest things I've read in English. Or Chinese for that matter. Look, I don't know the context but sweet Jeebus in a circle jerk... So if my "concept of existence" is I get to screw my neighbor's daughter and eat off his table but he won't let me, he is trampling my liberty? If I declare my universe permits hammers to fall upwards, and they won't, then my rights have been violated? I feel dumber for having read that. Where did you see that, Herr?

224 220 Of course the lefties are trying to destroy all religion.They are tools of Satan.

225

you may now present the groom with the cock ring

 

_{i keed.}

226 Anyway,  I do think this will be a danger that will be discounted by the left as only a paranoid theory,  right up until they start suing and asking for federal intervention.

Posted by: Miss Marple (redneck teabagger) at August 04, 2010 09:48 PM (bixjr)

I agree with all that and that is the downside I see to gay marriage. Churches are protected by the constitution from government interference, with judges like this asshole though churches will have to fight to keep that protection. That takes money and other resources away from the good they could be doing.

227 224 Like Herr said,it was in the decision of a case on buttfucking.Serially.

228 As to Gabe's position on this issue  you would be have to be brain dead not to get it. Whenever a person describes it in relation to whether it's legal to discriminate as opposed to whether there is any discrimination going on to begin with you know where they stand.  Only someone in favor of "gay marriage" would make the argument that something that was legal and normal for all of recorded history and which never even elicited even a minor protest till 40 years ago would describe the state not recognizing gay unions as discrimination.

229

222 And I do love the Gabester. 

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 04, 2010 09:45 PM (5Xf3c)

The plot thickens....

230

To me the court has simply decided that the cultural values of the State has not progressed as fast as the court sees fit and therefore, the court holds the state unqualified to legislate within the framework of either it's 10th amendament guarantees or it's own constitution.

And, fuck that shit.

231 Where did that quote originate? That has to be one of the stupidest things I've read in English. Or Chinese for that matter. Look, I don't know the context but sweet Jeebus in a circle jerk...

Isn't that from the SCOTUS decision in the Texas sodomy case?  Thus supporting your contention that it's fucking idiotic. 

232

I want legal status for my desire to fuck and marry my pet cat. It is a human rights issue, after all. Oh, I also want to fuck a child, too. Why should the government interfere with my sex life, if the child's parents are o.k.with it? BTW: a friend of mine has a dead uncle, and my friend is the only living relative; we have decide to dig up said uncle and fuck his ass. Why should society tell me my feelings are wrong? It's a human right to do whatever feels good, no matter how perverse; plus, it used to be illegal to have an interracisl marriage, and all of the situations I mentioned are EXACTLY like that, arent they?

233 And I do love the Gabester. 

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 04, 2010 09:45 PM (5Xf3c)

The plot thickens swells....

 

FIFY

234 Rocky pointed out on an earlier thread that any non-consumated marriage is easily legaly annuled. So during his "findings of fact" did the fabulous judge find out how a gay or lesbian marriage is consumated?

235 224 At the heart of liberty is the right to define oneÂ’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life

Where did that quote originate? That has to be one of the stupidest things I've read in English. Or Chinese for that matter. Look, I don't know the context but sweet Jeebus in a circle jerk...

So if my "concept of existence" is I get to screw my neighbor's daughter and eat off his table but he won't let me, he is trampling my liberty? If I declare my universe permits hammers to fall upwards, and they won't, then my rights have been violated?

I feel dumber for having read that. Where did you see that, Herr?

Posted by: George Orwell at August 04, 2010 09:49 PM (AZGON)

SCOTUS (O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Blackmun and Stevens) - Planned Parenthood vs Casey

http://bit.ly/dqNliK

236 Beck was wailing againstr progressives in "both parties" again.The guy does get tiring.One party is 25% bad the other 99% bad but they are both the same,right Glen.

237 Should have also found that G = 9.0 m/s^2.

That factual finding would instantly save Cali 10% on energy costs.

238 At the heart of liberty is the right to define oneÂ’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life

Where did that quote originate? That has to be one of the stupidest things I've read in English.

Lawrence v. Texas.  http://tinyurl.com/nhxfms

At its heart it was a case about your right to stick your cock up another man's ass.  It expanded upon the delightfully named Bowers v. Hardwick.

239

i don't mean to bring this up as the go to arguement, but in all honesty, how can polygamy be illegal if gay marriage is legal? They are consenting adults right? They have rights too, correct?

I just forsee a lot more of this stuff coming down the line, for good or bad.

I am having trouble finding one woman who wants to marry me, so it won't be an issue in my life anytime soon

240 239 LOL

241 Posted by: Miss Marple (redneck teabagger) at August 04, 2010 09:48 PM (bixjr) If the Catholic Church is forced to marry gays they'll just roll up and get the hell out of dodge. They've already threatened to do so with abortion and Obamacare. They'll do what they do in China. Hidden Priests serving the faithful. Spreading an outlaw religion in a dangerous land. Just as in the beginning.

242 Can someone who is mad about this explain to me *why* you're so mad? I need to hear details. What about this, precisely, will break down society? It seems to this anti-theist that anger on this topic is rooted in religion, not practicality, reason, or law. A startling argument which I keep seeing is to equate gay marriage with bestiality. If you can equate a consenting relationship with another adult to sexually abusing an animal beneath you on the food chain, I pity you.

243

@69: "Intervention, for those interested in such things (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure):"

You need FRAP - Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, now, not FRCP.

244 ATC, if you're bi, I wonder if you have noticed how some very liberal people find bisexuality "inauthentic?" Men will sometimes start married to women, split up, then "become" gay. Yet so many people, especially liberals, refuse to see that as a sort of bisexuality and maintain "Oh no, he was always gay." Even though the hypothetical man slept with women and was married and made babies. If a man can actually have sex with a woman for years and then switch to men, that's not gay. It rather puts some nuance upon the "born gay" dogma. It seems that liberal straights insist upon pigeonholing people into gay or straight.

245 This (even if I the 30,000th person to say it) is about two things:
1) The gay-activist community wants the word--they don't give a shit about the rights or the privleges or the "non-stigma," it's about owning a word that the people they hate, hate, absolutely 100% fucking hate charish so they can use it to rub in their face.
2) As an extension of 1, they want the word and the legal dressing so they can assault the other thing they hate, hate, absolutely 100% fucking hate: Religion, that is, traditional, established and consistent. They want the word and the trappings so they can use the state to destroy the church (that made them cry and feel bad when they were little).

Think I'm wrong?
What is a Gay Pride parade but an excuse and a provocation to shove in the face of all those stupid, ignorant, Bible-thumpers?
Think they won't come after religion next? Really? Ask the Catholic hospitals in MA how the state feels about their religious convictions.

Yeah, I saw some jackasses--full of college "wisdom," rhetoric and self-importance--earlier trying to say no one could come up with any real reason to oppose gay marriage except, when you boil it down, homophobia.

Well, fuck you: There's your real reason quite aside from any hint of homophobia. It's about an assault on the beliefs of someone you disagree with and then using and co-opting the machinery of the state to force those views on others.

You cocksucker don't seem to understand that once you destroy the ability of the law to protect individuals, allowing them to believe what they want, that very self-same law will, WILL come back and turn on you soon enough.

246 Where did that quote originate? That has to be one of the stupidest things I've read in English. Or Chinese for that matter. Look, I don't know the context but sweet Jeebus in a circle jerk...

"Isn't that from the SCOTUS decision in the Texas sodomy case?  Thus supporting your contention that it's fucking idiotic."

Yes, that's right: it's our Chief Overlord, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority in Bowers v. Hardwick, the Texas sodomy case, in what has become snarkily known as the "sweet mystery of life" paragraph.

247 Ah yes, the eternal mystery of the lower colon.

248 And what a GREAT time to put a lesbian on the Supreme Court!  What could go wrong????

249

Rocky pointed out on an earlier thread that any non-consumated marriage is easily legaly annuled. So during his "findings of fact" did the fabulous judge find out how a gay or lesbian marriage is consumated?

yes, he even doodled a picture of consumation in the margins of the brief.

250 At its heart it was a case about your right to stick your cock up another man's ass. It expanded upon the delightfully named Bowers v. Hardwick. Okay, that got spittle on my screen. You will be billed.

251 Honestly, it's total crap like this that ensures I will never, ever support homosexuals in anything they want to accomplish. I may even covertly sabotage them where possible. "You wanna get hired? Sure, looks great, I'll call you...." ...not

252 At the heart of liberty is the right to define oneÂ’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life


That's pure Sandra Day O'Connor right there. Distilled essence of "we needed some reason to do what we are doing despite not having a legal leg to stand on."

253 I think it was Justice Kennedy who wrote that clap trap. Scalia regularly makes fun of his "O sweet mystery of life" statement

254 Oops, I mean Lawrence v. Texas, which overruled Bowers.

255 If a man can actually have sex with a woman for years and then switch to men, that's not gay. To be clear, what I mean is it doesn't fit with the liberal notion of "you're born gay or straight." Behavior counts, it's all we have to judge a person.

256 So, how do scientists / biologists find that certain species are monogamous, polygamous, and others, file and forget, or she'll eat your head off?

In any case, that would not be a legal finding, which unfortunately for ignorant judges merely changes the meaning of otherwise common words, not reality.

Power of gods judges do not have, but their ass-lampreys (aka sycophants) do believe.

257 You will be billed.

It'll go in the regular pile, unless you leave a return address.

Then it goes in the "ignore" pile...

258

Will they now be giving out Boy Scout merit badges for dental dams?

259 Okay, Alex the Chick, I need some knowledge on this adult snow cone business, I'm seeing them on clearance at Walmart, and I don't want to miss out.

Oh, and of course, double what Wyatt said.

260 You're not gay is you give only if you receive right?

261

ray - I hear you.  I used to be called a "fag hag" back in the 70s because I hung out with so many gays and went to gay bars with them.  My first roommate when I started out was a gay man.  I've had several friends die of AIDS.  I have a close relative who is in a civil union with another person of the same sex. 

Now I just want to punch them all in the face. 

262 My only point was that Gabe seems to be very quiet on the subject in terms of his actual opinion. Unless I missed it Gabe hasn't stated whether he's pro or con this ruling. Being that he is openly gay and this is an opinion blog that seems odd. I think a lot of people would like to know.

I think the lawsuit was a bad, bad idea and it's going to set back gay rights. We're going to spend Election 2012 talking about a Federal Marriage Amendment and, frankly, that terrifies the stuffing out of me. 'Cause I'd like to get married some day and I have the sneaking suspicion (can't figure out why, though) that some folks are going to have something to say about that and would like to keep me from it even in places where it's legal, like Iowa, Massachusetts, D.C., Connecticut, etc.

I avoided going into my reading of the merits because I didn't particularly want to derail my point in the post: that some douches bitched me out earlier for saying "Judge Walker made extensive factual findings that will insulate his decision on review" and I wanted them to know that there actually is a good legal reason for my observation.

It also spurred a conversation about those factual findings which was getting overlooked elsewhere and -- I believe -- will make or break this case on appeal.

You want my reading on the merits? Here it is:

If you accept the evidence as provided (more on this below because this is the heart of the problem, as I wrote in the post), the part of the case dealing with heightened scrutiny and "ordinary" rational basis is entirely prosaic legal reasoning. It's not a stretch at all. The part of the case dealing with "animus", "rational basis plus" (basically everything he writes about the "moral" stuff) is bad and bad legal reasoning.

That's the short version. But to say the legal reasoning on the strict scrutiny and typical rational basis review is no stretch obscures the point I was making in the post: the evidence is everything and once factual findings are made, the legal conclusions follow.

The proponents put on the absolute worst possible case from an evidence perspective. They lacked witnesses and they lacked documents. The two witnesses they brought actually ended up hurting them.

Now a lot of folks are saying that Judge Walker scared off a buncha witnesses with that television camera bullshit. Thing is, proponents didn't actually withdraw their witnesses until after the Supreme Court ruled against the cameras. More than that, they had leave to bring anybody back they wanted after they started bailing (and an extra ten days to sort that out during the trial). So, while the television issue matters, it seems more like a convenient excuse than an actual cause of their lack of witnesses.

And then, in depositions and on the witness stand, the proponents couldn't actually get their witnesses to say things like: "gay marriage will damage the institution of marriage" or "marriage is solely about procreation." Nor did they produce many documents that would help.

Meanwhile, the putative defendant, the State of California, was doing unhelpful things like admitting facts that would help the plaintiffs. Some of those facts the proponents would probably have denied (or at least failed to volunteer and forced plaintiffs to prove instead) if they could.

So at the end of the case, the judge was left with over a dozen witnesses from plaintiffs and only two from the proponents. And the two from the proponents ended up contradicting themselves and granting some key points to plaintiffs. It was a huge clusterfuck and it essentially left much of the plaintiffs' evidence unrebutted. And because it was unrebutted, the judge held that they were "findings of fact."

As I wrote in the post, the "findings of fact" then pretty much lead right to the legal conclusions and that's all she wrote.

The weak point here is the animus stuff. Judge Walker makes an awful logical leap: "some proponents were motivated by anti-gay animus" therefore "all those who voted for Prop 8 were motivated by anti-gay animus." That's the weak spot in his decision.

Unfortunately for the case on appeal, the animus argument is somewhat separate from the other determinations. The decision is written in the manner of Independent Conclusion 1 and Independent Conclusion 2 and Indpenedent Conclusion 3. The appeals courts don't have to agree with all three of them to uphold the decision. Just one. So a weak Conclusion 3 (Animus) might not be enough for an appeals court to overturn the decision.

I'm late for dinner, I'll check back muuuuuch later tonight.

263 256 I've known several gay men who got married and stayed married for years, having children, etc. Then came out. Were they gay to start with? A least two I could have told and saved them a lot of trouble if they would have listened. I'm still waiting on one of them to let his wife know.

264 262 You're not gay is you give only if you receive right?

According to certain muslims, you are not gay if you pitch.

265 Mmmm... bourbon vanilla sno-cones.

266 jimmuy: What beliefs are any hays forcing on you? This is my point. Say an Indian couple down the street practice Hinduism, which you may find absurd. But they do it in their own home. What are they forcing on you? You're throwing around the word "cocksucker;" you're so mad. Over what? Who are "they" and how are "they" coming after religion? I happen to despise religion and fight it when I can, but no one is "coming after it." To do what? Ban it? Ban religion? You are daft. ray: how is it that you will sabotage homosexuals? You'll sniff out their gayness at a job interview and then discriminate against them before they can contribute to your company making money? Tune up that gay-dar, chief, so you can really show them who's boss...

267 I'm late for dinner, I'll check back muuuuuch later tonight.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 04, 2010 10:02 PM (1TvCg)

That's sweet, in a kind of "fuck you breeders" sort of way.

268 @265 My point is they are not "gay" anymore than someone who eats fish but no other meat is a vegetarian. If a Martian only observed the behavior and ignored the incomprehensible words, he would see a man who slept with women for years and then switched to men. Gay? Bi? Does it matter?

269 Judge Holds Divorcing Constitution Is a Fundamental Right

270 A church or synagogue refuse to marry a homosexual couple (much like doctors refusing to perform abortions and pharmacies refusing to carry contraceptives).

Will the government intercede. Separation of church and state for thee but not for me, eh?!

According to the Law for The Protected Class adjudicated by The Ruling Class,  Black Churches and Islamic Mosques Only are exempt from abiding by the Separation of  Church and State Law dictated by The Ruling Class Assholes.

Hey Gabe, when you find out that Gay will NEVER be allowed to marry in either a Black Church or an Islamic Mosque remember you lost your right   to bitchiness about your fucking 'unequal' female-facing life.

271 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 04, 2010 10:02 PM (1TvCg)

Thanks for the inside baseball, Gabe.  Sounds like the anti gay-marriage folks fucked the pooch.

272

 I happen to despise religion and fight it when I can, but no one is "coming after it.

What?

Your statement is paradoxical.

How long before the first suit is filed to demand that a Catholic Church marry a gay couple? That's "coming after it". The Catholic Church cannot do that and will not.

273 "The fact that Judge Walker made pages and pages of factual findings indicates to me that he was extremely conscious of the standards of review and used the shoddy performance of proponents to produce evidence (who were actively sabotaged by putative-defendant the State of California) ......"

Considering this excerpt, and the underlined sections in particular: did Walker generate more of a case than the plaintiffs?

 To what extent is Walker actually arguing the  plaintiff's case?

274

Gay? Bi? Does it matter?

Only to the 3 women I know who were married to these guys.

275

That's sweet, in a kind of "fuck you breeders" sort of way.

Posted by: TexasJew at August 04, 2010 10:06 PM (o7kZZ)

Now, now........  I appreciated his insight.

Not like an Ohio Orthodox and a Texas Jew could spend as much time paying attention as a California Gay Law Student....

276 243 Can someone who is mad about this explain to me *why* you're so mad? I need to hear details. What about this, precisely, will break down society?

It seems to this anti-theist that anger on this topic is rooted in religion, not practicality, reason, or law.

A startling argument which I keep seeing is to equate gay marriage with bestiality. If you can equate a consenting relationship with another adult to sexually abusing an animal beneath you on the food chain, I pity you.

Posted by: Unifried at August 04, 2010 09:56 PM (hpkKQ)

OK, I'll try.  First of all, there is no right to marriage of any kind found in the U.S. Constitution.  The 10th Amendement states that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people.  There is no history of Congress making any sort of law about marriage.  It's ALWAYS been understood to be a state matter.  Second of all, when you get married, the minister or J.P. generally says, "by the power vested in me by the State of XXX, I declare you husband and wife."  Your marriage license is granted by your state of residence.  That means the power to marry people is a STATE power.  Therefore, the State of California has THE right to decide who can and cannot be married in the state of California.  And under the California Constitution, such issues can be decided by popular referendum.  A Federal judge has no business ruling on this at all, and should have thrown the damn case out to begin with. 

277

@202: "You run into a whole different set of issues in societies where polygamy is common, as you end up with a large population of less-successful males who have no prospect of ever finding a mate.  See Saudi Arabia for examples."

Sheeeit, I have no prospect of ever finding a mate, and I live in America.

278 Where did that quote originate? That has to be one of the stupidest things I've read in English.

Lawrence v. Texas.


Actually, Lawrence was quoting Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992), the fundamental restatement and upholding of Roe v. Wade (and how sad Bob Casey, Sr.'s name is on it).

See how condoms, abortion, and ghey seks all fit together.  Like a perversity burrito.

279 The proponents put on the absolute worst possible case from an evidence perspective. They lacked witnesses and they lacked documents. The two witnesses they brought actually ended up hurting them.

But the onus is not on the proponents.  They are not the ones arguing to change one of the foundations of American culture, that goes as far back into Western history as one wants to look.  They are not the ones who are trying to introduce a totally new idea that had never really been contemplated by any other major culture.

The people voted for what has always been and the court puts the onus on them to prove that they are right ... in just doing what has always been done.  That's insane.

280 Posted by: rockmom at August 04, 2010 10:14 PM (w/gVZ)

This making sense.  It is foreign to me.

281 The whole problem is the deception of the whole thing. If you want to be queer and permanently hooked up, more power to you. Don't pretend that you're married and then be pissed off when someone assumes you're fused with someone of the opposite sex. Why cause the confusion?  Do you want people to feel bad? Spit it out straight up and see how people feel. It's better than leading them on.

282 GFY

283 To what extent is Walker actually arguing the  plaintiff's case?

Posted by: Arbalest at August 04, 2010 10:12 PM (gma26)

That's the legal rage, these days.  The administration doesn't mention racial profiling in its argument but the judge rules that there might be racial profiling ...

Hah-vahd.  Matches.

284 Can someone who is mad about this explain to me *why* you're so mad? I need to hear details. What about this, precisely, will break down society?

It seems to this anti-theist that anger on this topic is rooted in religion, not practicality, reason, or law.

A startling argument which I keep seeing is to equate gay marriage with bestiality. If you can equate a consenting relationship with another adult to sexually abusing an animal beneath you on the food chain, I pity you.

Posted by: Unifried at August 04, 2010 09:56 PM (hpkKQ)

You want to know why I am so "mad"? It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with that fact that a judge or even 9 of the best judges in the country were never granted the ability to decide for all of society what basic words mean. In Roe vs Wade they redefined what LIFE is. They routinely twist the plain understanding of words to fit their conclusions related to "cruel and unusual punishment" and the "right to bear arms" or "the common welfare" or "eminent domain" or "interstate commerce". Now they want to decide what MARRIAGE is despite the fact the word has been clearly and unequivocally defined for all societies throughout recorded history. Who the hell ever gave these few people the right to do this without the people getting a say? Now they will do it even after the people clearly have disagreed and AMEND the damn Constitution to say that.

People here are all excited about the Heller decision. Instead of being disgusted with the idea that judges have been allowed to suggest for 80 years that "To keep and bear arms" doesn't mean exactly what the hell it says.

Forget marriage. Imagine a judge today just issued a ruling stating an amendment recently added to the California Constitution stating it's citizens can own weapons is unconstitutional under federal law because the 2nd amendment really means people are allowed to wear sleeveless shirts (bare arms) instead of being allow to carry a weapon. Wouldn't you be mad?

285 Actually, Lawrence was quoting Planned Parenthood v Casey

Did that ridiclous bullshit quote come from Casey?

286

22 I would say that a great many of those "factual findings" were nothing more than statements of raw opinion.

Clearly the judge does not know fact from fancy.
----------------------------------------------------------

I'm not buying Ace's hand-wringing on this.

AS IF a single lower-court judge can find as "fact" issues that are and will be debated forever.

AS IF.

Sorry, but a formalistic attempt at fact-finding by ONE JUDGE will not be politically acceptable, nor(I suspect) will the Supremes fail to understand how the judge tried to make his decision "bullet-proof".

 

287 Because it's really easy to find proponents willing to testify when they think their very lives are in danger to a hostile judge

288 And this why Law is retarded...

289

265 256 I've known several gay men who got married and stayed married for years, having children, etc. Then came out. Were they gay to start with? A least two I could have told and saved them a lot of trouble if they would have listened. I'm still waiting on one of them to let his wife know.

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

Will you please have a chat with my wife?

290 Oh,and sno cones are just shaved ice,add any flavor you want to them.Booze,cough syrup,whatever.

291

@243: " If you can equate a consenting relationship with another adult to sexually abusing an animal beneath you on the food chain, I pity you."

What if I want to fuck a Great White, Grizzly Bear, or Tiger? They're above me on the food chain. 

And how do you know the animal is being sexually abused? Maybe it likes it.  Emus have been shown to be sexually attracted to humans, so at least bestiality should be legal with them, right?

292

IS,

I would probably go to jail because I forgot that

293 Posted by: Rocks at August 04, 2010 10:19 PM (yLPXs)

THAT²

294 289 Not Ace,Gabe.

295 There is no history of Congress making any sort of law about marriage.  It's ALWAYS been understood to be a state matter.  

Posted by: rockmom at August 04, 2010 10:14 PM (w/gVZ)

This is untrue The federal government clearly made laws touching on or and defining marriage when it passed polygamy laws in the 19th century. At the very least it made clear congress reserved to the federal government the ability to define marriage for the federal government and SCOTUS upheld that.

296 294 Chickens too!

297 Did that ridiclous bullshit quote come from Casey?


From Justice Kennedy in the Casey decision.

Bob Casey, Sr. (RIP) knew better than that.  Junior, not so much.

298

"There is no history of Congress making any sort of law about marriage.  It's ALWAYS been understood to be a state matter."

Better go look up the "Defense of Marriage" act.

299 Okay, Alex the Chick, I need some knowledge on this adult snow cone business, I'm seeing them on clearance at Walmart, and I don't want to miss out.

It's simple.  It says fill to here with liquid.  It doesn't say what the liquid has to be.  So if you aren't trying to make for a ton of people, you can have yourself a $20 personal margarita machine. 

300 5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."

5A. People who like to fuck 5 year-olds "are well-documented in human history."

What is the difference?  One is between consenting adults so is less morally reprehensible.  5 is considered "normal", 5A is a considered a mental disorder and a crime.  The problem is people in both groups are making the same argument, which is they cannot control their desires or urges.

Is the anus intended to be a reproductive or sexual organ?  No.  Is fecal contamination a normal part of sexual intimacy?  Is it healthy to engage in it?  Seems it isn't as the leading cause of the transmission of AIDS is sex among males.  Sounds like we are legitimizing a mental disorder to me.  Not  to say gay people should go straight, but I see no reason to promote their lifestyle.

301 Posted by: Goorge the Lawyer at August 04, 2010 10:23 PM (mAm+G)

I'm em-bare-assed I didn't know that.

302 There is no history of Congress making any sort of law about marriage.  It's ALWAYS been understood to be a state matter.   

Posted by: rockmom at August 04, 2010 10:14 PM (w/gVZ)

Actually, Congress was given a Constitutional role in marriage.  Making laws of naturalization was given to the Congress and everyone knows that marriage is part of citizenship determinations.  Further, our immigration policies are very much family-based, so the federal needs its own definition of marriage in dealing with other countries and their definitions, as relates to family allowances in visas and such.

The point is that the federal government had its definition and all the states had their definitions, and they were all the same, save minor differences in age allowances, and that's what everyone always understood "marriage" to be.  It was only when the leftists started tearing this to shreds in a few states did it throw everything into disarray, as full faith and credit cannot be forced on such moves against the culture.

But this decision is even far removed from all that.  This decision was nothing but a gay-marriage advertisement .. that isn't going to help sell anything, but it's going to piss a lot of people off.

303

Better go look up the "Defense of Marriage" act.

Posted by: effinayright at August 04, 2010 10:24 PM (GNTj/)

The DoMA says "the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not apply to acknowledging the marriages of knobgobblers".

It is blatantly unconstitutional.  A joke.  A political bone tossed to us.  Bullshit.

304

The plurality of Gabe: I guess he analyzed it and released  before he was against it, and then realized he had to go to dinner and then and only then realized the animus of his amicus and then disappeared. 

 

 

305 Because it's really easy to find proponents willing to testify when they think their very lives are in danger to a hostile judge

Posted by: dagny at August 04, 2010 10:20 PM (XNUrZ)

I assume this is what you're referring to. (I read this somewhere else today)

Proponents informed the court on the first day of trial, January 11, 2010, that they were withdrawing Loren Marks, Paul Nathanson, Daniel N Robinson and Katherine Young as witnesses. Doc #398 at 3. Proponents' counsel stated in court on Friday, January 15, 2010, that their witnesses because they "were extremely concerned about their personal safety, and did not want to appear with any recording of any sort, whatsoever."

306

@267: "Thank you very much for this article!
For a long time I have done exactly what you warn against. This article was a slap in the face - but a needed one.
That being said, what is the value of an intuitive explanation? Is it to give a lay person an "ah-ha" moment? Is it good to have SOME understanding, even if it is "vague and mush?""

Um....so, does the shoe make you pitch, or catch?  And how happy would Nike be to know that you're advertising their shoe as gay?

307

There is a tendency some fall into (certainly not all or even most) to impugn the motivations of someone you disagree with.

It's really not called for.

Please lighten up.  Not that Gabriel requires it from me, a breeder (well, ok, a retired breeder), but come on.  I'm reasonably sure he doesn't despise me for siring children.

 

Ok?

308

The DoMA says "the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not apply to acknowledging the marriages of knobgobblers".

It is blatantly unconstitutional.  A joke.  A political bone tossed to us.  Bullshit.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 04, 2010 10:27 PM (5Xf3c)

There's nothing un-Constitutional about the DoMA.  That was another bullshit ruling.  The DoMA doesn't stop any state from having its own sort of marriage definition.  It just prohibits states from forcing extreme redefinitions of "marriage" on other states, with the limiting case being the definition of marriage accepted by the federal government.

309

@275: "How long before the first suit is filed to demand that a Catholic Church marry a gay couple? That's "coming after it". The Catholic Church cannot do that and will not."

But priest/altar boy relationships are still cool.....go figure.

Still can't figure out how the Church heirarchy fucked that one up so badly for so long.

310 One finding of fact that Walker seems to have missed entirely is that homosexuality was illegal in the early Republic, and even in the 13 Colonies, and even in Europe, after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, and during, and even before; perhaps as much as 1500 years before.

As I've posted before, the real problem I have with this is the cavalier seizure of power by the judiciary.  Walker seems to have heard only what he wanted to hear, possibly even argued the plaintiff's case for them. Who's next?

The only way we have to limit Walker's tour-de-force (he's effectively unleashed, and is going to make people accept things, maybe even do things) is to have him impeached and removed from the bench.

November is coming. Perhaps impeaching and removing Walker, and a few others, will make a useful campaign side-issue.

311 Please lighten up.  Not that Gabriel requires it from me, a breeder (well, ok, a retired breeder)

Well, it was the 60s.

312 I am not entirely buying the "what really gets me is that the will of the people was overturned by edict" thing. We ask the courts to rule on the constitutionality of laws all the time. It is one of the main things an appeals court does. When congress passed Obamacare the states sued! Where were you guys and your distaste for the courts then? I don't remember anyone here horrified by the idea of the courts overturning the will of congress then. I can see how one could disagree with the decision but it is by no means an unreasonable one and, in fact, one that I agree with for the same reasons the judge ruled. This is not Roe v Wade where the supreme court essentially avoided the question at hand (when does a fetus have rights) in lieu of a wholly irrelevant right to privacy, borrowed from a unrelated case. This was not done here. The reasoning is very clear and reasonable people can disagree on it. Many of you just wanted a different outcome and you're being babies about it. But the way I see it, the judge did not overreach and the system worked exactly as it should.

313 Frankly, I don't care that much whether gay marriage gets a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. 

For me homosexuality is like smoking or tattooos - maybe a little icky, but within the bounds of normal human behavior. 

What matters to me, in purely a mercenary sense, is that people who should feel reamed by Judge Walker's ruling - people with whom I tend to agree on a whole lot of OTHER issues, if not this one - will feel extra super-duper motivated to make sure that the Democrat Oligarchy in DC isn't around to make and confirm further Supreme Court appointments after 2012.

314

"This is untrue The federal government clearly made laws touching on or and defining marriage when it passed polygamy laws in the 19th century."

"At the very least it made clear congress reserved to the federal government the ability to define marriage for the federal government and SCOTUS upheld that."

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

Congress can't reserve anything to the federal government --- the Constitution does that.  

Outlawing polygamy is NOT "defining marriage".  Bigamy was always a crime under British common law.  

315 There's nothing un-Constitutional about the DoMA

Under Full Faith and Credit, it doesn't even get out of the parking lot, never mind making it to the court room to take the "laugh test".  It's a chimera, a figment, an apparition.

It's bullshit.

316 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 04, 2010 10:02 PM (1TvCg) Thanks for the info.

317

The thing I find distressing about this is the legal precedent it sets up -- the gay marriage thing is of only secondary concern (and should be)...it's how the legal precedence can be used by the government at a later date.

And no, the legal precedent is not good, not good at all -- and this was the perfect case for it, because most people are going to be focusing on the "gay" thing (incorrectly)...so everybody, all the little people, give themselves up as patsies and useful idiots, yet again.

318 LOL at Gabe wanting "to get married some day".  You realize that whatever the government decides wouldn't make your "marriage" any less of a joke, right?

319

>> Well, it was the 60s.

Moves HM from the "kill when convenient" list to "kill immediately".

320

And no, the legal precedent is not good, not good at all -- and this was the perfect case for it, because most people are going to be focusing on the "gay" thing (incorrectly)...so everybody, all the little people, give themselves up as patsies and useful idiots, yet again.

Posted by: unknown jane at August 04, 2010 10:36 PM (5/yRG)

I'll take you newsletter when you please expound.

You're going somewhere with this train of thought, and knowing you, I'd love to hear it.

321 Right on ATC, I'm getting one! (snowcone machine, not liver and onions on toast)

322

Still can't figure out how the Church heirarchy fucked that one up so badly for so long.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at August 04, 2010 10:31 PM (ySNz/)

Because gay and pedophile priests get promoted, and they promote others of like mind. Whatever rot was/is in the Catholic church went on for multiples of decades and went straight up to the Cardinal level. The deviants were protecting their own.

323

Moves HM from the "kill when convenient" list to "kill immediately".

Posted by: Dave in Texas at August 04, 2010 10:36 PM (Wh0W+)

First!

324 305 There is no history of Congress making any sort of law about marriage.  It's ALWAYS been understood to be a state matter.   

Posted by: rockmom at August 04, 2010 10:14 PM (w/gVZ)

Actually, Congress was given a Constitutional role in marriage.  Making laws of naturalization was given to the Congress and everyone knows that marriage is part of citizenship determinations

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

"Everyone knows" as an argument  is utter total bullshit.   BULLSHIT.   "As any FOOL can plainly SEE".

 

325 We ask the courts to rule on the constitutionality of laws all the time. It is one of the main things an appeals court does.

Posted by: Tommy V at August 04, 2010 10:33 PM (qU57d)

It wasn't a law, it was an amendment to the State Constitution.  How many times do we ask appelate courts to rule on the Constitutionality of any State Constitution?  Over something as OBVIOUS as marriage, as it has always been defined - as between a man and a woman?

Now, federal courts ruling on the Constitutionality of federal legislation ... yes, we do that all the time.  That is especially important when we have a federal government that is waging a war on the citizenry.  Sadly, the federal courts are on the side of the Legislative and Executive.  They are pushing a citizenry that is running out of tolerance, after having shown far too much.

326 As a Catholic,  I feel I must echo the warnings I have seen about churches being forced to marry gay couples or lose their tax-exempt status,  be sued, and perhaps disbanded.

That's my belief as well. And for those who keep clinging to the 1st Amendment, I remind you that words are only constructs for the left. It will take only one untimely retirement or death and then it's Katy bar the door on the Supreme Court. Oh, they won't force churches to perform gay marriages, they'll just fine them for violating civil rights (because violating someone's civil rights will be found to be an "invalid" expression of religious faith). Or they'll just remove the church's tax exempt status for violating the law which will essentially force the established churches to close down.

This is not about gays or marriage or gay marriage, it's about the Left's need to destroy all components of the traditional society and replace them with their own. The State must be above everything, which is why the Church must be destroyed.

327 But the way I see it, the judge did not overreach and the system worked exactly as it should.

Posted by: Tommy V at August 04, 2010 10:33 PM (qU57d)

Really? The only thing at issue in this case was whether the state of California can reserve the use of the word marriage for one specific meaning. That's it. This is judge gave us a 2 week long farce and an ruling filled with enough findings of fact to cover 10 rulings none of which dealt with this one issue and you don't think he overreached?

328 Quit the polygamy argument. It's not as persuasive as you think. Nor is bestiality or brothers getting married or any of those other stupid examples. It misses the point as much as "privacy" missed the point of Roe v Wade.

329

Still can't figure out how the Church heirarchy fucked that one up so badly for so long.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at August 04, 2010 10:31 PM (ySNz/)

Because gay and pedophile priests get promoted, and they promote others of like mind. Whatever rot was/is in the Catholic church went on for multiples of decades and went straight up to the Cardinal level. The deviants were protecting their own.

Pretty much right.

I've seen this not in Churches, but in corporations.  Institutional thinking.  Too many people's fortunes are tied to the fortunes of others, and if one of those goes down, you're soiled, so you prop up the web around you, and...

Sad, institutional shit, in the end.

330 Under Full Faith and Credit, it doesn't even get out of the parking lot, never mind making it to the court room to take the "laugh test".  It's a chimera, a figment, an apparition.

It's bullshit.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 04, 2010 10:35 PM (5Xf3c)

Full Faith and Credit is not a license to every state to push anything it wants on the other states and the federal government.  There are breaking points, you know.

331 "To what extent is Walker actually arguing the  plaintiff's case?"

Very much so, and more than the plaintiffs themselves.  Walker made it clear from the start that this was going to be an absolute sham.  He should have recused himself since he has a direct personal interest in the outcome.  Moreover, the very idea that there even were disputed facts necessitating a trial undoubtedly came as a surprise to all the parties, who if I'm not mistaken largely if not entirely stipulated to the facts and were expecting the court to decide the case on pure issues of law.

When you have constitutional appellate attorneys and others who deal in abstracts suddenly having to do mundane things in the trenches at the trial level, they often don't condescend to have any idea of the mechanics and minutiae of trial work, so they don't actually play the full hand that might be available to them.  What I would've LOVED to see is the proponent-intervenors somehow come back and counter-sue the plaintiffs for some kind of legal rather than solely equitable remedy, i.e., for monetary damages, which would've given them the opportunity to demand a jury trial, removing from Walker the ability to make his BS "findings of fact."

332

@315: "We ask the courts to rule on the constitutionality of laws all the time. It is one of the main things an appeals court does."

Which is bullshit in and of itself.  Constitutions say how laws are made. For example, at the Federal level, a law is constitutional if passed by both houses and signed by the President.  Those are the only requirements. No one else gets to pass judgment on it.  The Supreme Court arrogated that power, but doesn't actually *have* it as a matter of law.

And no, appellate courts don't mainly rule on the constitutionality of laws.  The mainly rule on whether the proper law was properly applied in the circumstances of a particular case 

333 right, these constitutional amendment thingies and history are just so much stuff to be swept aside by findings of fact. How about this standard: democracy?

334

315   Setting up a straw man argument narrative usually requires . . . some um straw. So you may want to remeber this.  Look, Obamacare was against the will of the people and the Judge's ruling against California's prop 8 was against the will of the people.  Utilizing the court in undoing such injustices does not contradict a "Will of the People" argument.  

Common sense is what needs to make a comeback.   

 

335 progressoverpeace: "It wasn't a law, it was an amendment to the State Constitution. " Good point. I stand corrected. But the main point is still the same. The judge was being asked if this amendment to the CA constitution violated the US Constitution which, obviously, takes precedence.

336 #312

The Church does NOT condone immoral relationships.   Priests swear to be celibate,  and that doesn't just mean with women.  They are not to engage in any sort of intimate relationship.  What those priests did was a mortal sin.  The Church has never condoned it.

It is hard to realize unless you actually go through all of the media coverage,  but many of these instances happened 20 or 30 years ago.   We don't even know for sure if all of them actually did happen,  because in some cases the priests were dead and the lawsuits went after the bishop (or his successor) for damages. 

Thirty years ago psychiatrists were telling people that pedophiles could be counseled and re-oriented.  In some cases,  bishops were so horrified they didn't want to cause further scandal by making things public,  so they mistakenly thought moving a guy and telling him to sin no more would solve things.   Of course,  knowledge of pedophilia was unknown.

In addition,  many of these cases are not priests molesting small boys,  but entering into relationships with adolescents.   In those cases you are not dealing with pedophiles but rather predatory and/or seductive homosexual men,   who knew full well what they were doing was prohibited by the Church.

I would also point out that there are numerous cases of protestant ministers molesting boys,  young men,   and young women.   It doesn't get the splash in the press that the priest scandal does because the press has a particular animus to Catholicism due to the Church's stand on abortion,  ordination of women priests (not going to happen), divorce,  and homosexuality.  

337 Full Faith and Credit is not a license to every state to push anything it wants on the other states and the federal government.  There are breaking points, you know.

Of course there are.  We're probing those points for the first time since Dred Scott.

338

@325: "Because gay and pedophile priests get promoted, and they promote others of like mind. Whatever rot was/is in the Catholic church went on for multiples of decades and went straight up to the Cardinal level. The deviants were protecting their own."

That part of it, I understand.  It was how the rest of Church allowed it to happen and get so widespread.  That there was never any sort of revolt/reformation....

339 Journolist: The states did not argue that Obamacare was "against the will of the people". They are arguing that it is unconstitutional. You guys are terribly guilty of having an outcome in search of reasoning for it.

340 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 04, 2010 10:02 PM (1TvCg)

If and when you meet the right guy*, and want to have a public dedication to be with each other, I hope you'll remember to invite us morons to the party. It's always right to celebrate love (at least, between adults) and salute the formation of a happy partnership -- hoping, of course, that it is successful and enduring.

That said, it may need to be a quiet affair -- the antics of this meddlesome judge make it substantially more likely that the day will be marred by unseemly vitriol or heartless bureaucratic wrangling.

You're entirely right to be concerned -- this is nearly a worst-case scenario as far as peaceably settling the issue. At least you've got morons.

*And, BTW -- if we say, "you're too good for him," we are NOT putting ourselves forward as a substitute.

341 Thanks for the inside baseball, Gabe.  Sounds like the anti gay-marriage folks fucked the pooch.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz

In a related story, Judge Walker has just ruled that pooch fucking is also a legally protected right.

342

I hate this expansive view of the judiciary.  It may be well established now that judges don't just rule on the constitutionality of laws, but rather supplant their will and moral wishes in their place.  But that doesn't make it square with the role laid out for them in the constitution. 

We are watching this American experiment take its last few gasps and it will be lawyers and judges who apply the coup de grace.

343 As to pedophile priests.All men are weak,and weakness can be used by Satan as a tool against a hated(by Him) institution.

344

Congress can't reserve anything to the federal government --- the Constitution does that.   

They can if SCOTUS upholds it.

Outlawing polygamy is NOT "defining marriage".  Bigamy was always a crime under British common law.  

Posted by: effinayright at August 04, 2010 10:34 PM (GNTj/)

The question wasn't one of legality of polygamy but whether the federal government had ever got involved in legislating marriage. It did and when it did it used marriage as society defined it. One man and one woman. The Edmunds-Tucker Act is what first made civil marriage licenses a requirement.

345 Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at August 04, 2010 10:21 PM (ySNz/) Nothing is higher than us on the food chain. We have guns and chainsaws.

346 Hmmmm.

Well.  Guess it's time for a Constitutional Amendment.

That'll fry their asses.

347

@335: a law is constitutional if passed by both houses and signed by the President

Wow, that's full-on retard, there.  You're not from around these parts, are you?  In the US, we have (ostensibly) a federal government of limited and enumerated powers.  In theory, if a bill is passed and signed into law that exceeds these powers, it is unconstitutional, and courts can make that finding.

348

Since when can the old blanket be used to cover things never intended then for now?

These leftards keep inventing new ways to destroy foundations....soon they will allow adults to have sex with your pre-teen daughter/son. It's called dumbing deviancy down.

349

Posted by: Miss Marple (redneck teabagger) at August 04, 2010 10:46 PM (bixjr)

True.  Everything you said.

Look, I'm not even Roman Catholic, and the RC church got a bum fucking rap on that whole thing.  This is a HUGE institution.  There were a few boy buggerers in there,  While the actions of the administrators (bishops) were not always admirable, overall they handled it OK.  It could've been better, but they were herding cats the whole time.

350

@339: "Priests swear to be celibate,  and that doesn't just mean with women."

Not after today's ruling. The oath of celibacy means not getting married.  The oath of chastity means no sex.

And the Church may not have condoned all the stuff that happened, but it pretty much did everything but.  It should have immediately defrocked and excommunicated anyone involved, at any level, with that sort of thing.  Even if it was covering it up.  Bell, book, and candle time. 

351

Reading the comments I think a lot of people are buying into the idea that if a judge says something is unconstitutional, it is.

FUCK THAT. ESPECIALLY when we have whack opinions like this one.

If we're faced with federal judges who are the intellectual equivalents of Alcee Hastings, we need to rid ourselves of them.  

Defenestrations come to mind.  (though the prospect of having to grab Sotomayor's thigh while helping her out the window would give anyone the willies)

352 Argue on,   morons.  I have hit my bedtime.

353

339 #312

The Church does NOT condone immoral relationships.   Priests swear to be celibate,  and that doesn't just mean with women.  They are not to engage in any sort of intimate relationship.  What those priests did was a mortal sin.  The Church has never condoned it.

I don't think anyone here is thinking that the Catholic Church actually condoned that (I know I'm not thinking that). But the Catholic Church, like all originations, are ultimately a product of who is involved in them.

I do have to ask, what exactly did it take to get defrocked back in the day? I'd think if it were not pedophiles supervising pedophiles, then those priests would have been out the door in a hurry. That's what leads me to think that this had a much deeper level of corruption than being just a few bad priests in the mix.

354 Tommy V,

What makes those arguments so lame? Your personal opinion of the normalcy or societal percentage of these tendencies?  At what level of occurrence does deviant behavior become accepted? These other aberrations are accepted in other cultures. So is cannibalism. So is lots and lots of other stuff. What makes changing the word of marriage from being a union between a man and a woman to something else different?      

355 353 No question there were men in the Church who condoned such behavior.Nothing made by men is perfect.Quite the opposite.

356 Some issues should never be put in the hands of Judges. Abortion, the death penalty, and marriage are the top three. These matters must be subject only to statute, only to the voters and their representatives. These sorts of issues can never be solved with an answer that suits everybody. That's why we have 57 States.

357

323  What happens when the federal government can overturn, through the judiciary branch, any sort of state mandate (Arizona -- through the immigration bill, which was brought up through the state house, in a republican manner, if you will; Prop 8, through the democratic principle of a direct vote mandate of the people)?

By taking this through the courts, in lessens and sets the precedent for nullification of any mandate at the state level by the central/federal government.

But...people are so emotionally wedded to the overlying issues of sexuality and race, that they are not paying attention to that.  Beliefs on racial equality and sexuality (or one's guilt or whatever) are going to hand over this authority to the central government...making the rule/role state government ancillary at best, not needed at worst.

It's the difference between living in a comparatively free society where power is located more closely with the people, and a totalitarian centralized state.  That's what I see here -- and that's not good; legal precedents have repercussions beyond the individual cases.

358 What makes changing the word of marriage from being a union between a man and a woman to something else different?      

Posted by: TheGhostWhoWalks at August 04, 2010 10:55 PM (9tt+Z)

Well, since you compared it to the abomination of cannibalism, I guess I won't argue with you.

359 356 It did go deep.Their were and are bad men in the Church.

360

Quit the polygamy argument. It's not as persuasive as you think.

Well, that was persuasive.

You know, that assertion you made.

Very, very persuasive. Were you on the debate team in high school?

361

@348: "Nothing is higher than us on the food chain. We have guns and chainsaws."

Konnichiwa, bitch!

362 I'm gonna find my pants and go to bed.

You're all retards and miscreants.  And you know it.  Peace.

363

The polygamy argument is absolutely spot on. That's why Tommy V doesn' t like it.

Tommy V is arguing that marriage should be redefined as a right available to consenting adults who wish to form a legal union.

Which is exactly what a polygamistic marriage would be.

That troubles him, so he tries to draw some arbitrary distinction by limiting the number of consenting adults who may be married to one another.

Which, of course, runs contrary to his argument.

But whatever. He's already decided he's unable to take this blog as seriously as he used to and I'm pretty crushed by that.

364

342 The will of the people was overturned in the prop 8 ruling & Obamacare was enacted against the will of the people.  

Arguing points of law inside the domain of the constitution, does not automatically invalidate the will of the people as being anything less than dispositive.

You are promoting legal sleight of hand and argumentative obfuscation.

   

365

@350: "In theory, if a bill is passed and signed into law that exceeds these powers, it is unconstitutional, and courts can make that finding."

No, in fact, the courts legally cannot.  Judicial review does not exist under the Constitution.  The Supreme Court arrogated that power to itself.  As a practical matter, it has not been challenged very often, but a President could (much like Jackson did in a different circumstance) tell the Supreme Court to go fuck itself if it ruled a duly passed and executed law to be "unconstitutional."

 

366

I do have to ask, what exactly did it take to get defrocked back in the day? I'd think if it were not pedophiles supervising pedophiles, then those priests would have been out the door in a hurry. That's what leads me to think that this had a much deeper level of corruption than being just a few bad priests in the mix.

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at August 04, 2010 10:54 PM (oIp16)

This is a fundamental problem people have with the catholic church. What did it take? Being unrepentant, that's it. Even the priests who have confessed to these things are repentant.  The Church is obligated to forgive so they can not really defrock out of hand. but they are not obligated to forget and too many Bishops and cardinals did. THAT was the really awful thing here. A priest does not have to serve a parish or deal with people by church law. He could serve his jail term and become a monk making fruitcakes all day. Why there were allowed back near kids just boggles the mind.

367

341

The relationship between a bishop and his priests is one of a parent and his children. At the time, the psychiatric community insisted that pedophiles could be rehabilitated. They did not know that they could not be. The John Jay Institute of Criminal Justice did an extensive study found that by far the majority of the cases of reported (not substantiated, just reported often many years later) abuse were of male adolescents. The majority of the crimes were more of a nambla type situation. The priests should definately not have been moved around and should have been watched more closely but the bishops were trained to think that they were rehabilitating their sons which is different than punishing or firing an employee. Very very few priests are defrocked and expelled from the priesthood because their ordination is a special sacrament that cannot be undone. They may be pulled from service but very rarely defrocked. I've only seen it once and the priest had an affair with a girl/woman and tried to drag an entire parish down in revolt against the bishop.

I still think that many of the cases reported now, years later, by homosexual men about dead priests are not about justice but about the church never condoning their lifestyle.

368 #134 That has been my point exactly to others. If a union between two consenting adults of the same sex is allowable, then shouldn't that also allow for the union between other consenting adults, e.g. Brothers & Sisters, Parents and Children?

369

Well, since you compared it to the abomination of cannibalism, I guess I won't argue with you.

What we have here, is a failure to communicate. Reading my post, I see that cannibalism was the only thing that you could see on the other side of the sound proof booth. You couldn't hear me rebutting the argument against comparing polygamy and incestuous relationships with legalizing the change of the meaning of the word marriage. And it was all so clear on this side of the wall. 

370 Wow busy day ! Good thing all this hoopla is being used constructively, and that the new SCJOTUS won't be rubber stamp or anything. I mean if this hadn't brought the imminent appointment to the fore (good thing the decision wasnot delayed till after hearings)... not to be defeatist or anything.

371

@369: "The Church is obligated to forgive so they can not really defrock out of hand. but they are not obligated to forget and too many Bishops and cardinals did."

That's a pretty expansive view of forgiveness - yes, the sin could be forgiven after appropriate pennance thereby allowing redemption and access to Heaven, but that doesn't mean that defrocking and/or excommunication should have been off the table as an earthly punishment.  Certainly, after any second instance of abuse, regarless of pennance, excommunication should have followed.

372 Dagny, that is essentially the entire debate and the crux of the disagreement. TheGhostWhoWalks: Those arguments are lame because they miss the point. It's not a question of whether the state has a right to regulate marriage or not. This is equivalent to the privacy argument of Roe vs Wade where SCOTUS said the state did not have the right to violate a woman's privacy. But that decision it itself made an assumption about the only important question: when does the fetus have rights? Once the fetus has rights, the woman's privacy and the state's ability to violate it are irrelevant. The real argument about gay marriage is the legal status of homosexuality. Is homosexuality a state of being, like race or disability, and therefore granted legal status, or is it simply a voluntary action, and therefore given no special treatment. Those who believe the latter believe all legal matters are left to democratic choices. Why wouldn't they be, if no one's rights are being violated? Of course you would leave them to elective processes. But those who believe the former, that homosexual rights are violated, would then believe the majority's will is irrelevant since you can not legally discriminate or violate rights by vote or decree as it would be unconstitutional. This is why I disagree with others here. When it comes to people's rights I really don't care about the will of the people. Whereas others don't see rights being violated and therefore see a imperial judiciary dictating to the electorate. For them its a question of whether the state is allowed to define marriage or not. Those who claim it is exactly the same as polygamy or bestiality are already making an assumption about the actual question... the question of whether homosexuality is a protected legal status or just character trait like any other. It's the main reason why these heated debates are so silly: there is not even agreement on the primary assumption so there is no way we can follow each other down any logical paths. We will ALWAYS disagree and think the other person is a complete idiot for not seeing our way.

373 Really...we have serious, important shit that we should be concentrating on.  Like being able to control our own property, and whether the federal government has the power to make us do whatever they want--buy insurance, buy a GM vehicle, dance a jig at high noon daily--under the commerce clause.  Why are we wasting energy on whether gay people can enter into the same kind of contracts as straight people, and what's the interest in stopping that?

374

Not after today's ruling.  The oath of celibacy means not getting married.  The oath of chastity means no sex.

Sorry but celibacy means no sex, not even with your hand. There is no oath of chastity. Chastity is a virtue not an "oath". You can't vow to be chaste because it is a spiritual state.

375 Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at August 04, 2010 11:11 PM (ySNz/)

It is an expansive view but that's what the church has become. Look at it's attitude toward war or capital punishment. To listen to the Vatican you would think these things are proscribed by church law but they aren't really.

376 "No, in fact, the courts legally cannot.  Judicial review does not exist under the Constitution."

Then what exactly is "the judicial power of the United States" with which the courts are vested in the first clause of Article III?  Is that not the power to, among other things, determine what law governs a case brought before them?  And if there is a conflict between the Constitution and some other arguably applicable law, must not a court apply the Constitution and force the other law to yield, since by its own terms the Constitution is the supreme law of the land?

Note that I do not believe Walker was correct in this case, just that the canard sometimes raised that "judicial review doesn't exist" strikes me as inviting the question of what exactly one thinks courts are for?  Why would the Framers have made the judiciary a separate branch of government if they NEVER had the power to check the political branches?  After all, in the UK at the time, legislative and judicial power were deeply intertwined, not separated: the House of Lords was the highest court in England and Wales, and the seniormost judge, the Lord Chancellor, was its presiding officer.

377 Judicial review is pretty well established now. I'm no lawyer but I'll go out on that limb. Arguing that its not in the constitution became pretty irrelevant a long time ago. We can't pretend Marbury v Madison didn't happen now. Arguing otherwise is tilting at windmills.

378 68 God, identity politics sucks cassowary dick. Why would you wish that on the poor cassowary? What did it ever do to deserve that? Also, a cassowary has a cloaca (a pee, poo, and procreate all-in-one orifice), not a dick. Actually, they DO have a dick, it's just inside the cloaca...

379 Is homosexuality a state of being, like race or disability, and therefore granted legal status, or is it simply a voluntary action, and therefore given no special treatment.

Posted by: Tommy V at August 04, 2010 11:14 PM (qU57d)

Who cares if homosexuality is a state of being? Race and disability are not states. they are not transient, which is why they are not states of being but states of fact. The idea that sexual preference is immutable fact is ridiculous as suggesting that I will always hate spinach is a fact. Making laws and protected classes on it are even more ridiculous.

380 Rocks, Okay. We know where you stand on that question.

381

379  But what happens when the judiciary branch begins to take on the role of the legislative?  Especially in regards to the federal judiciary in relation to the state legislative?

At what point do we say "the people have spoken, let it stand", or do we willingly hand over all decisions to the federal government through the judiciary?  This does have severe implications if/when the executive attempts to pack the judiciary (and succeeds) as a way to circumvent the legislative, no?

382

does the will of the majority mean anything anymore?

and if not, then aren't we all living under a tyranny of the minority?

383

, but that doesn't mean that defrocking and/or excommunication should have been off the table as an earthly punishment.  Certainly, after any second instance of abuse, regarless of pennance, excommunication should have followed.

The Church should have had a facility set up for this kind of thing and sent these priests there. Priests are attached to specific bishops, it's not a free for all within the church. A bishop just can't send one of his priests to some monastary out of state. It doesn't work like that. There is a psychiatric facility in Michigan that is often used for priests with depression staffed by psychiatrist nuns that many dioceses fund.

Excommunication is not an earthly punishment. It is purely a spiritual punishment is very very rarely used. It doesn't have to be because in the case of mortal sin, a person has already excommunicated themselves--taken themselves out of communion with the Church---and can only be readmitted upon confession and penance. Formal excommunication exists for only extreme discipline problems where a priest or bishop is actively teaching heresy and abusing the sacraments.

The priests involved in the scandal were mostly men who liked teenage boys from 14-18. The others were pedophiles who the psychiatrists assured the bishops could be rehabed.

384

385  And what happens when the people lose all faith in the judiciary to uphold the legality of their will; they've already lost faith that the legislative will represent their will faithfully -- as for the states, they are being rendered inconsequential in the eyes of their citizens.

What happens when things get really bad, and the people have lost faith in all aspects of their government (all branches, both federal and state)?  It's happened in history before.

385 It's all about equality, huh?  Then they'll need to shitcan affirmative action, Title IX, and all that.
Right?

386 Nemo, Abso-fucking-lutely.

387 #375  Tommy V at August 04, 2010 11:14 PM (qU57d)
“Is homosexuality a state of being, like race or disability, and therefore granted legal status, or is it simply a voluntary action, and therefore given no special treatment.”

An interesting question.

Race, or perhaps skin color, is something humans are born with, is only marginally alterable (tanning, and temporary), and pretty much only one way (darker; no one seems to have invented a method for going the other way).

We see, by observation, that it is possible to have a particular skin color and simply exist; no action is required.  And, as a practical matter, permanently changing oneÂ’s skin color is essentially impossible.

But homosexuality is an act, a behavior.

So hereÂ’s the danger: we are now on the verge of making practitioners of a certain behavior (voluntary or internally compelled) a mark of a protected class.

Why behavior? And how do we verify?

With no verification, everyone could claim protected status, but then no one has such status.

What about others who practice certain behaviors (voluntary or internally compelled)?  Cannibalism? Sadists, of various sorts? Serial killers (there's a judge, who claims that ......)? Many claim to be compelled, genetics, brain-wiring, etc., and thereÂ’s reasonable evidence that some truly are.

Where do we draw the line at what behavior is suitable for generating a new protected class?

The historical answer of “No” seems appropriate here.

388

re #275: dagny, my statement in #269 was not paradoxical. Coming after religion legally and trying to make it socially obsolete are two different things. I fight it locally in my life when people feel the need to proselytize or fail to use reason... but suing would be ridiculous. Catholic priests would also refuse to marry me *because I'm not a Catholic*, but I can't sue them...

re #279: so you're mad because a state's-rights issue has been taken up by the federal government? A completely valid gripe. But as you point out, marriage isn't anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. This is where I'm ignorant--where *is* it defined then? Or is it at all?

re #287: of course I would be mad--it would be a direct destruction of our Second Amendment. I would be so mad, in fact, that I would ignore such a ruling, and exploit the fact that it's unenforceable by defying it. And of course, my gripe in that case would be totally practical, because an armed citizenry is a really good idea, and overturning it would fly in the face of logic (i.e. I would not debate it on the basis of feelings or opinions). The opposite of this issue...

389

Well, since you compared it to the abomination of cannibalism, I guess I won't argue with you.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz



Yeah.  In cannibalism one man eats another.  While in gay sex......

....
....
....

Wait, what was your point again?

390

Why all the snarling about gays being a "protected class?" Do you really think that's what they're after? They are a "protected class" when it comes to hate crimes, for instance, because of the rash of actual violent hate crimes directed at gays in decades past. I doubt they wanted to be such a "protected class." (I am reminded of Chappelle's skit about the first black man to use a white toilet). What does this ruling have to do with that status anyway?

391 Hey Gabe,

In his ruling, did the judge mention anything about the "contract of marriage"? I would bet that was one of his reasons behind overturning Prop 8 was something about two adults being able to enter into a contract.

392 I'm glad I got in before the vibrators!

393 The fact finding bullshit aside...I'm not sure how any jurist could find that this fails rational basis. There are tons of decisions on rational basis where the actual reason for the law is held irrelevant as long as a rational basis exists. (too drunk to cite).

It seems to me that this judge is actually pushing for intermediate scrutiny, with all the talk of stereotypes and such.

Prop 8, Obamacare, Arizona...gonna be a fun SCOTUS term...

394 Posted by: Arbalest at August 04, 2010 11:39 PM (gma26)

That is Tommy V's whole problem. At one point he will suggest homosexuality is immutable and at the next say something like 'Homosexuals want to marry in their same sex. That is what makes them Homosexual" and so it is a behavior. What he really means is we are no longer allowed to debate the idea that homosexuality shouldn't be protected because no matter what it is based on it should be protected. People are just supposed to get whatever protections they want simply because they announce they want them. That is not how it is supposed to work.

395 The judge claimed that Prop. 8 was contrary to the United States Constitution.

Guess who gets the final say on what is "constitutional?"

Not the people of California.

Not Judge Walker.

Not Gabe Maylor.

It will go to the Supreme Court.  You can bet on it. 

396 "5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."" As is the fact that formal marrage based on "same-sex love and intimacy" ISN'T. The judge makes a HUGE presumptive jump here and hopes we'll just go along for the ride. His "finding" of this "fact" is irrelevant as presented.

397 All of his supposed "fact finding" belies the actual issue. The only issue is whether or not there is any rational basis for this law, the procreation argument is certainly rationally related to a govt interest (population growth). This judge violates his own standard, this is every bit as sloppily decided as the most infamous cases in US history. I am actually an agnostic on the gay marriage issue, but this kind of results-based decision pisses me off beyond belief.

398 "Race, or perhaps skin color, is something humans are born with"

Can we please stop conflating race and skin color?  Race means who your ancestors are.  Skin color varies wildly among races and is easily altered by such factors as sun exposure and skin lightening creams.  This whole "race = skin color" concept is a fabrication of the left intended to suggest that we are inherently xenophobic because of irrational NOT THE RIGHT SHADE bigotry rather than recognizing a person who is of radically different heritage.  If it was about skin color, people like Charlie Crist would be their own race but they're not and everyone knows it.

399 I just can't get over how cool it is that judges can redefine words and human institutions, such power! I wonder where in the constitution they're given that ability.

400 Arbalest, I think you make my point that we disagree at the very fundamental level. You see it purely as a behavior and as such voluntary and is not a state of being. (and as such, is no different than cannibals, polygamy, etc...) If I agreed with you on that point, we would agree on everything else as well, I think. I see it differently, of course. I see their homosexuality as fundamental to them as my heterosexuality is to me. (Whereas I do not see that for cannibals or bestiality, etc...) We can't even agree on shared assumptions, so it is unlikely we would have any luck persuading each other on anything that requires that first assumption.

401 Rocks, I think I have been pretty clear on what I really mean. I really do. No code words or hidden agendas. You may not agree with me, but there is no lack of clarity.

402 I see it differently, of course. I see their homosexuality as fundamental to them as my heterosexuality is to me. (Whereas I do not see that for cannibals or bestiality, etc...)

Posted by: Tommy V at August 05, 2010 12:23 AM (qU57d)

Homosexuality is, IMHO, for the most part like left-handedness.  Most sexual perversions/fetishes (when only a small percent of the population engages in them, they are perversions/fetishes) are like that.  There is also a fashionable aspect, to be sure, and those who choose the lifestyle.

But, none of this matters as regards the case.  This is about the age-old institution of marriage, not the biological or environomental factors that make certain people gay. 

403 I have two  gay people working for me. I'm gonna fire them. take me to court Assbites.

404 Even if a werewolf's inner nature is to be a werewolf, would it not be constitutional to forbid transformation within city limits and criminalize predation upon citizens?

405 'Cause I'd like to get married some day

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 04, 2010 10:02 PM (1TvCg)

WHY???

Heterosexual men get married because it's an obligation, not because they want to (don't tell their wives).

Why do you want the state butting into your relationship? Why should the state compel gay couples to stay together when they no longer love each other, if there are no children involved? Why would you want to be so compelled?

406 cthulhu, I would have to agree that it would not only be okay, but absolutely necessary to limit the damage a werewolf could legally inflict within the city limits. I would hope, and frankly expect, that county and state authorities would take proper measure for any area outside the city limits. I am not convinced, however, that it would be a federal issue unless the werewolf crossed state lines (assuming it did so while transformed of course).

407 What could possibly go wrong?

Posted by: Millard Fillmore at August 05, 2010 12:48 AM (XlnH3)

The milk.

408 That's sweet, in a kind of "fuck you breeders" sort of way.

Posted by: TexasJew at August 04, 2010 10:06 PM (o7kZZ)

*grumbles* Well next time I guess I don't have to bother responding to comments at all. *grumbles*

Seriously, some dudes up there asked my opinion. So I cut into my dinner plans to answer. That's not "fuck you breeders", that's trying to be nice.

As a Catholic,  I feel I must echo the warnings I have seen about churches being forced to marry gay couples or lose their tax-exempt status,  be sued, and perhaps disbanded.

No churches in the United States have lost tax-exempt status or been forced to marry gay couples.

409 I think I have been pretty clear on what I really mean. I really do.

No code words or hidden agendas.

You may not agree with me, but there is no lack of clarity.

Posted by: Tommy V at August 05, 2010 12:25 AM (qU57d)

I'm not suggesting you are being unclear. I'm suggesting that you argue despite the fact that the argument is irrelevant to you. As long as the conclusion is what you think it should be then any argument works, even demonstrably false ones. I believe in the right to bear arms but if we did not have the 2nd amendment I would be working towards an amendment that does say it. Not cheering some judge who invented the right out of whole cloth. The problem with your way, even if it was right 99.9% of the time, is that we are now totally dependent on whoever is in power at the time.  No thanks.

410

No churches in the United States have lost tax-exempt status or been forced to marry gay couples.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 05, 2010 01:02 AM (1TvCg)

Yet...

411  Yet...

I'm just saying. People keep erroneously claiming, as the commenter did above that it has happened. It hasn't. No church or clergyman has been forced to solemnize a gay marriage on threat of losing tax-exempt status, or on threat of losing any other status.

(There was a church-operated beach pavilion -- not a church, but rather some church-owned property -- in New Jersey that decided it would rather not rent the pavilion to anyone when told that if it rents the pavilion as a "public accommodation" it must comply with New Jersey's "public accommodation" laws, which include anti-discrimination rules. But (1) that wasn't a church; (2) neither the church or its members were forced, or even asked to perform gay marriages; and (3) churches aren't "public accommodations" anyway.)

412 No churches in the United States have lost tax-exempt status or been forced to marry gay couples.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 05, 2010 01:02 AM (1TvCg)

Yeah we'll just wait and count on the idea that once these rulings are on the books everything will be just fine and dandy. That whole "the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples"  will only ever apply to governments. You can trust the impartiality of Judge Walker on that.

413 throw out the decision because the judge in question is gay and therefore should have recused himself from the case.

retry the case in front of a straight, unmarried judge.

414 Rocks, It's interesting, because that's exactly what I think many are doing. They have a conclusion and they work backwards from there. I have tried to give people the benefit of the doubt and say that we're just coming from different starting points, and therefore disagree. I hope that's the case and it's not something less respectable. But I have gone step-by-step with my assumptions and where they take me. It has taken me to to disagree with people that I usually agree with 90% of the time because I just can't follow their logic and/or their logic violates cherished principles of mine regarding limited government and individual rights that I am not willing to sacrifice. I rely heavily on my intellectual consistency which is why I am able to state my beliefs with confidence and go against nearly everyone on the only site I frequent that allows comments (Powerline is the only other blog I follow). I take this consistency quite seriously. Again, you may disagree with my conclusions, but the idea that the argument is irrelevant to me or that I am working backwards from pre-conceived notions is willingly and purposely obtuse. You have gotten way too used to claiming that judge and liberals do such a thing (rightfully so) and you are leaning on such an argument now.

415 Posted by: Tommy V at August 05, 2010 12:54 AM (qU57d)

As it should be. I was tossing a nature/behavior grenade into the mix in order to illustrate the difference between enumerated powers and None of Their Goddamned Business.

It doesn't really matter whether it's a behavioral or innate issue if it lies outside of Federal jurisdiction. Equal protection, under the 14th amendment, doesn't relate to drinking age, drivers' licenses, in-state tuition, or state taxation rates -- these are all within the purview of the individual states.

Anyone who weds a 14-year-old (in New York, perhaps -- "New York: 18, 16 with parental consent, 14 with parental and judicial consent.") gets recognized in every state that recognizes marriage as having wed. That doesn't mean that anyone desiring to wed a 14-year-old in any of the myriad states where that is statutory rape gets a pass.

416 throw out the decision because the judge in question is gay and therefore should have recused himself from the case.

retry the case in front of a straight, unmarried judge.

Posted by: redc1c4 at August 05, 2010 01:15 AM (d1FhN)

I don't think the decision should be thrown out because the judge was gay. I think it should be thrown out because his handling of the trial clearly demonstrated he isn't impartial and his ridiculous findings of facts he used the trial to produce proves it.

Was  Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history." ever at issue in this case? 

417 To me, the argument for gay marriage relies on the legal, not the moral or religious status of marriage. Those arguments would fall apart if they tried to force churches engage in homosexual marriage that did not want to. I think its right to be concerned about what churches will have to participate in, and I am sure we will have to deal with over-zealous anti-religious parties with a desire to litigate. But fear of such a thing should not have a bearing on making the right call either way regarding prop 8.

418 Seriously, some dudes up there asked my opinion. So I cut into my dinner plans to answer. That's not "fuck you breeders", that's trying to be nice.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 05, 2010 01:02 AM (1TvCg)

I appreciate the effort you put in.  I disagree with you on this issue and how this decision should be viewed (this one is a particular sort of doozy, I think), but you operate in good faith. 

419 throw out the decision because the judge in question is gay and therefore should have recused himself from the case.

retry the case in front of a straight, unmarried judge.
Posted by: redc1c4 at August 05, 2010 01:15 AM (d1FhN)

Does not compute. The counterargument: straight judges should recuse themselves from cases determining straight rights, like Prop 8.

Do you think that minority and women judges should recuse themselves from cases involving affirmative action? Or maybe it should be white judges recusing themselves in affirmative action cases. It's so hard to tell!

420 You guys sure are smart for a bunch of morons!  I didn't read/comprehend the post and/or the comments.  Gabe is "good folks" in my neck of the woods, you know, the hills of Kentucky. Seriously Gabe, don't "grumble", keep up the good posts!  I for one welcome your takes on shit, whether I like em or not.  Now I suggest you go have a nice dinner;  I look forward to your next opinion/analysis, whether I like it or not. 

421 Yeah we'll just wait and count on the idea that once these rulings are on the books everything will be just fine and dandy. 

So you think it's alright to lie? Because there's a difference between saying: "gosh it could totally happen, we think, even though it's never happened before, that priests could be forced to gay-marry people or lose tax exempt status." and "OMG they already forced churches to gay-marry people!"

422 Posted by: Tommy V at August 05, 2010 01:16 AM (qU57d)

That is the problem with the entire argument of suggesting the people  can't decide the meaning a a word will not change which is what has happened here. I'm not starting with a conclusion. I'm starting with a fact. A fact which has never been in dispute throughout recorded human history. That fact is that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. A fact as immutable as any known to mankind. You suggest that the immutability of homosexuality should have some bearing on this case but we are just supposed to ignore the demonstrated immutability of the word marriage. Somehow this fact of what marriage is now has to have some rational basis other that the fact that it is and always has been a fact. You are suggesting people are working backwards when in reality you are insisting they go forwards without ever making a convincing argument as to why it's even necessary never mind that you even convince a majority of the people it is required and prove that with a vote.

423 hope and chances...
.a hope is the idea that one day being a "progressive justice" will appropriately identified as an oxymoron. It is a disqualification by definition.
.a hope is the idea that one day a president will campaign on leaving the office with less power, less say over US, than when entered, and follow through when they are unanimously voted in.
, a hope is the idea that one day congress will pass a bill, for once, that actually reduced the size of govt, rather than enlarging it with every stroke of the pen.

The rest is dregs; in the long run all spoils go to 'them' (who are exhibiting their fear of rejection (thus imposition of 'right'), a human, but social/emotional, fear, if they win. And though I understand and also feel the prescience of the issues (the data), I firmly and strongly feel that 'we' need to do away with the board-games and start playing leap-frog. And while I hope for the above things, all indicators and derivatives indicate the opposite (eg crist <- the antithesis of character, obvious to even the least informed and cognizant electorate); say this because I have calculated there are not more than a handful who would, if they could even win, go to DC and not turn with, as is the nature of, the fishbowl; as it's power is great and requires firm principles and character ( the progressives of course have no principles other than to take from others what they deem 'necessary',and then connive to impose it's social rightness on the minds of unassuming humans- the thinking ones also fear an honest days hat work). But a handful does not a change of course make and I am weary, and wonder just what world will I be responsible bringing humans into (they are scammed at birth (ie SS) - it makes me want to puke). But let's be merry and congenial, on the way down. I likely don't know what I'm talking about. Certainly no blog or anything. K feel better now.

424 OMG they already forced churches to gay-marry people!"

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 05, 2010 01:27 AM (1TvCg)

Did someone here say that? or that they were worried about it?

As a Catholic,  I feel I must echo the warnings I have seen about churches being forced to marry gay couples or lose their tax-exempt status,  be sued, and perhaps disbanded.

A warning concerns things that could happen, not things that have happened. Hyperbole isn't lying.

425 Somehow, I keep coming back to:

12. "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."

This seems like a judicial finding that "cultural meaning" is within the purview of Federal jurisprudence, which raises all sorts of alarms.

426 "gosh it could totally happen, we think, even though it's never happened before, that priests could be forced to gay-marry people or lose tax exempt status."

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 05, 2010 01:27 AM (1TvCg)

And don't expect people to count on "even though it's never happened before" for too much longer. Most of those people counting on the idea that marriage is a union of a man and a woman never changing did it chiefly because it never happened before.

427 Glad to see you back, Gabe. Seriously, if you run off and elope, us morons will be very disappointed about having missed the party.

428 This seems like a judicial finding that "cultural meaning" is within the purview of Federal jurisprudence, which raises all sorts of alarms.

Posted by: cthulhu at August 05, 2010 01:46 AM (/0IOT)

It's pretty fucked up.  First, the judge recognizes the deep cultural significance of marriage, and then he wipes it aside in the next clause, without any effort.

This is the sort of brazen lying that people ought to take a real note of, because it usually signals some serious ugliness to come.

429 cthulhu, I agree with you there. It's the one on the list I disagree with. I don't know why the cultural meaning is something the court wants to get into. It's a little "touchy-feely" to me. I think its probably the main reason this hasn't really been decided yet. Do civil unions equate equality? Or is the word marriage necessary? Do those civil unions cross state lines to be recognized by other states? Rocks, I think I lost you on that last one. But that's okay. Again, the reason why you find my argument lacking is because you and I disagree on the very thing our arguments are based on. We disagree on step 1! Of course we disagree on the conclusion at step 4.

430 Doesn't it matter that the idea of "marriage" and "husband" and "wife" are centuries old and clearly understood?  A marriage involves one man and one woman coming together "before God and man" pledging their commitment to each other as husband and wife.  As I said, a centuries-old concept.  But can this dude just leave these words alone, and let them keep their given, set, specific meanings?   Nooooo......  He knows better than historical definitions and social norms, yes he does.  His job is not to use law to maintain a civil, orderly society, it's to find ever-new ways to corrupt that society and its traditions and its laws.  If you can have a two-man "marriage" because "they both want to", then why not a three-man "marriage"?  Hell, let's just marry everybody on the block to everybody else on the block.  "I want to because I want to" is the new American logic justifying everything, including this judge's "carefully crafted" decision.

Just because this guy made it through law school he thinks he can redefine well-understood words to mean whatever he wants?   OK, then, let's redefine the term "capital crime" to include "some looney-tune judge deciding to change the fabric of society because he's sorry that homosexuals don't feel they're treated equally".

Feh.

431

418 No churches in the United States have lost tax-exempt status or been forced to marry gay couples.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 05, 2010 01:02 AM (1TvCg)
Per Gabe - No churches in the United States have lost tax-exempt status or been forced to marry gay couples.

< Pssst. Gabe, until now the State of California enjoyed stautory preogative in upholding the basic fundamental imperative of marriage.

So Gabe, intoning the fact churches have not, to date, lost tax-exempt status over the issue is not the best elixir for many of us.

The natural vector of this new secular religion of progressive aesthetics will be to deconstruct those institutions, churches, at odds with the aesthetic's deity.

Those that oppose on moral grounds are already being villanized as fostering "hate" on an individual basis.  Just think then what the progressives have in store for those institutions i.e. churches that preach pursuant to the traditional biblical translations as found in the Douay-Rheims Bible of traditional Catholic formation? 

We are at the precursory stage of religious persecution in this country ... soon to be challenged by the progressive religion of intellectual aesthetics.

 

 

432 Rocks,

I think I lost you on that last one. But that's okay. Again, the reason why you find my argument lacking is because you and I disagree on the very thing our arguments are based on. We disagree on step 1! Of course we disagree on the conclusion at step 4.

Posted by: Tommy V at August 05, 2010 02:05 AM (qU57d)

No the reason I find your argument lacking is it's not an argument, but that it's a denial. All of history says a marriage is a man and a woman is a fact. Not an opinion and not a belief. A fact. As immutable as the words water or gold. No one makes any argument that this isn't a fact, they simply deny that it is one. You have to before you can  begin even making an argument. The idea that  this denial is somehow now part of the argument is ludicrous and is exactly why these rulings keep sending people out in droves to vote for amendments which reject this denial.

433 "gosh it could totally happen, we think, even though it's never happened before, that priests could be forced to gay-marry people or lose tax exempt status."

I think it is inconceivable that anyone who is even passingly familiar with the extortion racket known as tort law cannot conclude that:
(a) Priests will be sued to perform same-sex marriages, either by ideological tort lawyers or by those who believe there is a reasonable probability of success.
(b) It will be prohibitively expensive to defend those lawsuits.

Voila!  Force!

And that's assuming that you won't have another federal judge who will do something funny like...oh, I don't know...have a long list of "findings of fact" with the full knowledge that his decision is an activist one that overturns centuries of precedent, law and logic.

Even though that's never happened before, has it?

434 I dunno, there are gays, there always have been, there always will be. Why should straight people be the only ones in a miserable marriage.... If you can find love in this miserable veil of tears, who am I do deny you that? One day in the distant future, the sun will go red giant on us, the oceans will boil away and we will all become cinders. Have a nice day.

435 TommyV (if I've not already missed the rest of the argument): First, I come at this from a standpoint similar to yours - I don't actually care that much about gay marriage, I don't see it as the end of society, and I don't quibble with most of the judge's points, though I am not fully on board with your "12 of 13" grade. I also, however, don't fall for your conflating opposition (in the courts) to Obamacare with opposition to a court overturning the clearly expressed will of the people. Saying that something goes against the will of the people is definitively not the same as saying it goes against the will of congress, particularly when the real hemorrhoid about Obamacare is that it was passed by our "betters", even in the face of clear popular opposition. And having a judgment like this come down from an arguably conflicted judge, papered however he thinks best to protect it from review, stinks of rent-seeking by a small special interest group.

436 Gabe Malor has another key excerpt from the opinion the lack of compelling witness testimony in defense of the law.

Gabe if your still around and so inclined please answer a question I have which came to mind based on Allahpundit's description of your post.

Prop 8 state's that for the purposes of the  government of California  "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.". Was any defense of the right of the people to do this even necessary? Any judge can rule concerning the rights which gays are entitled to regardless what word is used so the only thing at issue is the use of the word marriage. Do the people even require a reason to tell the state how it may use a word?

If yes then would the people of California be proscribed from passing an amendment which said that "only a body of water at least an acre in surface area shale be recognized as a lake in California" to the provisions which deal with lakes? If no body of water in the history  under an acre in surface area was ever called a lake is it within the power of a federal judge to vacate this amendment?

437

So when churches are threatened with loss of their tax exempt status, and they will be, I can just see Gabe sitting in his cushy chair going, "oops, I didn't see that coming!" Riiiiiiight....

 

438 OK, I will admit it, I know the judge. No, not "know" in the biblical sense. "Know" as in, I see him socially. He is very competent, very fair, and I don't think he would arrive at this decision on a whim. Ted Olsen argued against Prop. 8, and he is no quivering liberal. I say, let it be, let the States hash it out. I have lived in SF 30 years, gays already have committed relationships, raise adopted children, have their own churches with their own hymns and bibles and the whole deal. Not all of them, but lots. A lot of them are good conservatives too.

439 As for tax exempt status for churches, that is one oft abused statute. It is more like a racket. Satanist churches get tax exemption. So do churches worshipping John Coltrane. So do churches who worship not much else other than their tax exempt status.

440 Rocks, I really did try to give you the benefit of the doubt. I just don't find the "it's always been this way" argument very compelling. You can say I have no argument, but I am pretty comfortable resting on my arguments as proof of the contrary. Anyone is free to have their own opinion about that. I am sure almost everyone here will agree with you. Patton, We'll have to agree to disagree. I just don't think one can remain consistent and be for judicial review when we don't like a law and be against judicial review when we do like it. I have stated many times that I don't think the will of the people is relevant when the question is constitutionality. The will of the people does not have the right to violate the US constitution, only to change it.

441 I think most of us are just uncomfortable with the "sin that dares not speak its name" becoming the "sin that won't shut the hell up..."

442 The church compulsion argument is weak sauce, I'm afraid. The Catholic church (back in the day, at least - I'm 35 years lapsed) wouldn't marry a divorcee. I'm unaware of any judicial attempt to force a change to that dictate, and the existence of such would clearly be an easier slog than arguing for the same treatment for gays. A "right" to marriage is not the same as a right to force performance of that marriage by a non-government actor. The steps from here to polygamy, however, aren't nearly as specious as you seem to think, Tommy - given the fact that there are no group rights enumerated in the Constitution, only individual rights, it's no stretch at all to further redefine marriage to include groups of 3 or more. Would that destroy society? No, of course not - no more (IMHO) than state sanctioned (civil) gay marriage. But don't discard the argument as silly, please. It's not.

443 rawmuse: Agreed, no disrespect to our homo-leaning brethren & cistern. The sometime insistence that the hetero world not only accept homosexuality, but somehow revel in it, grates. Much the same, I suppose, as would an insistence that I revel in fishing, or bird-watching.

444 This entire movement toward "gay marriage" is a sham. Any the gays are the ones being suckered here. (You Morons are gonna find all sorts of double entendre, intended or no, so go ahead and laff).

Marriage is a definitional thing.  In it's most crass form, it's a way to try and assure a particular male is the same father of all offspring from a female, and vice-versa.  Not because he's so great, mind you, but to cut down on the number of justifiable homicides (and treasons) the lack of such protection would engender. In essence, marriage is the first great attempt by man to create civilization. Without it, only the strongest would be able to procreate. Without it, anarchy or totalitarianism is guaranteed. If you doubt this claim, ask yourself why even the most primitive societies (possibly excepting tiny, isolated tribal systems, and they are welcome to it), have chosen marriage as a fundament of civilization.

You don't need such protected unions to accommodate sexual pleasure. You don't need them to accommodate the merging of wealth.  You don't need them for nearly any other agreeable merging of interests in society, whether physical, financial, or, spiritual.  For those you simply need freedom to associate, and freedom to make legally binding contracts.

But when it comes to procreation, the protection of this particular union is of primal importance to maintaining a society of free people. Can other arrangements exist? Sure. You can procreate by lottery.  You can procreate by rape.  You can procreate by directive.  You can become the strongest and take all the genitive partners you need. The possibilities are nearly endless. But the thing you must remember is that in all of human history, clever men have found a way to try them all. (I know I sure would if I was all of them doods.)

But of all of those methods for protecting the genetic imperative, only the institution of marriage works.  The rest all suck, and you know it. Yeah, I know you can adopt, and bless those who do, but that is not procreation.

So marriage is not about sexual preference. (And it's certainly not maintained and endured by your fellow humans to assure your sexual pleasure.) In a society that is already civilized, you don't need special protections maintained for the convenience of keeping the same sex partner. Think about it.

Besides, the civil union of same-sex partners, whether legally-defined or not, is already protected by civilization.  Yes, it was protected poorly until this generation, but it is now protected.  Since procreation by chromosomal blending is not possible for them, continuity of the genetic line is not even a consideration, so special protections for that aspect are not warranted.

And there is this: calling themselves "married," even with the sanction of law, is as silly as calling themselves heterosexual. A thing is what it is, whether you get a court to say so, or not.

Arguments about hospital visitation rights, inheritance, and other problem areas for gays are things to be handled directly.  Grasping at the special protection of marriage in a lazy-assed attempt to "fix" those problems "automatically" will not work. First, it weakens the institution of marriage, and marriage is already under enough stress as it is. Second, it doesn't fix any of the underlying problems gays face for simply "being gay" in a society that is overwhelmingly heterosexual.

Gays are being offered this phony panacea as a ploy to secure their vote. The fight for gay "marriage" is about gaining political power. If you fall for this ploy, you are being played, and you will gain nothing of lasting value.

Consider this: If the institution of marriage is further damaged, what's to prevent an ecumenical council of leaders from all religions from gathering to redefine it? Explicitly.

Don't think it won't happen.

I propose the term, "sanctified union."  (Mostly because I can't think of a better one.)

445 The biggest problem with this whole thing is not the same-sex marriage, it's the eventual demand that churches marry everyone regardless of the church's belief on the subject.

We will never see a finding of fact like this:

 "Marrying a person of the same sex is an unrealistic option for Catholic clergy."

This ruling will cause many churches to stop marriage ceremonies all together.

446 What the dykes and fags won't admit is that ANY same-sex relationship is not a marriage. It's like what Congressman Bono had to remind people about illegal immigration: it's illegal. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. Duh. If the homos want to transcend FWB let them make a contract. If they feel they've been discriminated against in any specific instance with actual damages, let them sue.  Btw, in the old days, you had to have a strong moral character to be a judge. Now, it seems, it actually helps not to have one.

447 if Judge Walker is right that domestic partnerships do not provide equivalent status as marriage...

She neglected to provide evidence to substantiate that claim of non-equivalence.

448 Not that many spammers interested in this thread ....

Anyway, Gabie, you neglect to mention on thing: "factual" findings must be based on fact.  The gay judgee's fantasies aren't.

449 Patton, I think society could absolutely redefine marriage to allow for polygamy if it chose to. Laws would have to be rewritten up and down but I don't see any reason why we couldn't. I just don't see how it could be done through the courts. If no one is being allowed to marry multiple partners, how can one claim they're being treated any different when they are also denied the same thing? Which brings everything back to step 1. What is the legal status of homosexuality. Is is protected? That's where we all disagree.

450 It is not illegal to be a homosexual. Yes, there are laws against public displays of sexual activity of any kind, and protection of minors. If anyone wants to return to the times of open persecution of homosexuals, go join the Taliban. They have all kinds of restrictions on sexual activity, and on kite flying too. sheesh

451 That the gay-activist community won't come after churches because that's never happened before and because of the 1st Amendment is, I'm sorry, the most blatant and sophomoric dissembling I've heard in a long time.

Oh, so all the Facebook groups and other groups that were banding together after the passing of Prop 8 to yank the tax-exempt status of churches who supported Prop 8 never happened? And that same impetus toward totalitarian "right-think" will just dissipate and fade away once they have the force of law behind them, a legal recognition that your beliefs are unconstitutional?

It's not what they say, it's what they do. Did you recall any--any--gay groups condemning those extremists who were targeting individuals and businesses with threats and getting them fired? No. Why?

Just like there wasn't a single molsem charity that raised funds for the 9/11 victims. Thousands of charities of every other religion around the world raised money and sent it in; while the moslems all said it was horrible, not one of them ever got together and sent in a single dime.

 

452

I don't get what this is going to change. It's not like more or less people will be gay now. I guess, when you go to get a marriage licence at the courthouse, you might bump into a few gays?

The most substantive arguments I am hearing from anybody (anybody, that is, who can refrain from using religion) come in two forms:

1. I don't want them putting my face in their lifestyle and flaunting it

2. Everybody knows that a marriage is between a man and a woman

On the first point, everybody wants to live in a society of their own world-view, but you don't really get that privelege. As an atheist, I feel this way about people knocking on my door with religious handouts.

On the second point, I disagree. I like what K-bob had to say about this above: it's nothing more than an institution designed to be the basis of a civilization. It is the next best thing to being a blood relative, a legal kinship, that makes it hard for a man to leave his family with no means of survival when the going gets tough. I mean, the Abrahamic religions have injunctions against pork because trichinosis was probably a big deal 2,000 years ago. But times change, and our legal system now has the legal part of "marriage" under control. So why can't the cultural part just be a time when you call your friends/family together to honor a commitment, gay or straight?

453 Gabe, the argument that marriage has nothing to do with procreation because there is non requirement couples somehow prove oe establish or claim to be able to procreate, is fatuous in the extreme. What is true is that sexual congress of opposite sexes produces new people. All those who might reproduce in the unmarried state are thus diverted into legal obligations and attachments the foster a stable society. There is no compelling interest to know whether any given heterosexualncouple can produce children...it is clear enough what the general case of sexual union between men and women is capable of producing. Homosexuals will never in any case, by means of sexualmcongress with one another, produce any issue. There is a good and rational reason to favor heterosexual union and none to privilege homosexual unions. It is not he businessnof the government to micromanage the sex lives of individuals, but there is to constrain the potential of men and women to have issue from their sexual conacts. There is no such potential for any homosexual sex act. Marriage exists to protect society from random production of new people...all the ills that come from unconstrained reproduction. The burdens of pregnancy are not borne equally, and allocation of resources to one woman for life and any issue produced, is the ordeal for stable society and the protection of individual men, women.

454 This just in, gays do adopt kids. I am in a faithful, hetero marriage for 26 years. We have no kids. Instead, we care for the numerous nieces and nephews we have from our siblings whose hetero marriages (and indiscreet dalliances) are in shambles.

455 Yes, the Intervenors can appeal to the Ninth. Intervenors have party status.

456 Adoption doesn't damage the institution of marriage.

Adoption is a separate issue altogether.

457 Married people pay more taxes. If anything damages the institution of marriage, this does.

458 Another problem I have is that some commenters are under the impression that promiscuity and reckless behavior are a purely homosexual characteristic.

459 This is another slight of hand by a socialist judge. The reason California doesn't have a fertility requirement for marriage is because liberal activist judges have manufactured rights out of whole cloth (nowhere mentioned in the actual text of the constitution) that would have resulted in the immediate holding by a cali federal court that such a requirement would be unconstitutional. indeed, if banning birth control and abortion is unconstitutional, how could the state argue that only fertile couples could marry or how could a court following the precedents of activist socialist judges rule otherwise?  This is an old liberal trick. Eviscerate laws and institutions to the point of collapse and then when the coup de grace comes, say in the form of gay marriage advocates or polygamists, the socialist judge can point to the evisceration of the institution of marriage to claim that gay marriage is 'no different' from the eviscerated heterosexual marriages that the courts and liberal legislatures imposed on the populace.

460 rawmuse, but you kind of miss the point. The government interest is to constrain creation of new people by creating a favored legal protection and status for people whose sexual activity has the potential to create children. NOT BECAUSE THEY MIGHT ADOPT. Because boinking makes people. If you are married, you are agreeing to limit your partner (for males this means children with one woman instead of half a dozen or more) and for women it means protection from abandonment and for children it means support and stability and for society it means fewer children "put upon the parrish" - fewer bastards needing other peoples money to live. There is no compelling interest to get Gay people to form lifetime monogamous relationships, as they do not make babies together as a general rule... or rather NEVER make babies together. There might be compelling interests in prohibiting sodomy for health reasons or order reasons, but there is no compelling reason to favor such a relationship.

461 "There is no compelling interest to get Gay people to form lifetime monogamous relationships, as they do not make babies together as a general rule... or rather NEVER make babies together. " And THERE is where your argument goes COMPLETELY off the rails, and could not be more wrong. Our society is RIFE with all manner of petty social engineering based on marital status. From tax codes to banking to hospital rules, and on and on. Take those away and this entire lawsuit becomes moot. My point all along. Making babies has absolutely nothing to do with it. If so, I am guilty of being married, straight and childless.

462 All this sympathy for homosexual "marriage" you would think that heterosexual reproduction and monogamous relationships are unnatural / learned behavior.

463

More manipulation of the Law.  What ever happened to Stare Decisis?  Cowards, Liberals are unmitigated cowards, they don't have the guts to accept they lost the argument with the voters so they resort to the Courts to force their opinions on the rest of us. 

Judges have made a mockery of self governance, it's long past time to have judical reform.  First we must demand Congress pass a law to forbid the violation of Stare Decisis by the Courts.  Second, Congress must publicly reprimand the Courts for infringing on the self governance of the voters and if necessary defund ALL the offending Courts until they cry UNCLE!  Thirdly, Congress must pass a law that forbids the Courts from over turning voter initiatives that codify the Social Standard of the majority.  Finally, Congress must pass a law that forbids the Courts from defining the terms, as only the people through their elected representatives create the Law and that Law is defined by the terms enumerated within the legislation.  Do these 4 things and the cowardice of liberals and the judges is stopped in their tracks. 

ONLY A TYRANT FORCES THE GOVERNED TO ACCEPT WHAT THEY DESPISE.

464 the  passage  read  so  nice!