Since Walker is openly gay--you get three guesses on the decision outcome and the first two don't count....

Another link--

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker will issue a decision today on the constitutional challenge to California's Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage, according to a court announcement Tuesday.

Walker's written order will be released electronically between 1 and 3 p.m. It will be posted on the federal court website and will be available later for public review in federal courthouses in San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose.

Walker presided over a historic trial earlier this year in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco.

Two gay couples challenged Proposition 8, which California voters approved in November 2008, saying the ballot measure violated their federal constitutional right to equal protection.

The initiative changed the state constitution to declare that marriage in California is only between a man and a woman.

Walker's decision, whatever it may be, is expected to be appealed.

I can see this Country hasn't matured as fast as it should. There are still people out there wanting to restrict the civil rights of their fellow citizenry. It's amazingly depressing to say the very least.

Larry

Since Walker is openly gay--you get three guesses on the decision outcome and the first two don't count....

#1 | POSTED BY MURPHY AT 2010-08-04 02:11 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Well there is your out murph... you can always cite that he was biased if you lose and crow if you win. It is a win - win for you either way.

Here's a hint for you.... just because it goes against your nature, not everyone will exhibit personal bias in performing their job.

I expect him to do a professional job no matter his personal feelings on the matter. Now if you have proof otherwise I will listen to it, otherwise STFU.

It doesn't matter how this judge decides--since both parties have stated they will appeal if they lose.

I hope you are right about being a professional 726--no need to get snippy.

Prop. 8 Supporters Seek Stay of Federal Judge's Ruling Before It's Released

Supporters of Proposition 8 may already suspect the outcome of today's ruling in the case challenging California's ban on same-sex marriage.

In court papers filed Tuesday night, lawyers for the Proposition 8 defense team asked Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker for a stay of his ruling if the outcome is to declare the law unconstitutional. The motion indicates that the Proposition 8 lawyers will immediately ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the ruling if Walker rules against them.

"A stay is essential to averting the harms that would flow from another purported window of same-sex marriage in California," they wrote.

Yessssssssss take that bigots and or homophobics

Wow...all men ARE created equal.

Go figure.

Eh, that link sucks; you can just read it in the article.

"Since Walker is openly gay--you get three guesses on the decision outcome and the first two don't count...."

What?!? He'd have the gall to believe he should get equal rights as all other Californians???

So it was overturned and now they will appeal.

They may have it heard with the entire panel then it goes to the SCOTUS.

Today's decision is a victory for individual liberty and civil rights in California. In America, a tyranny of the majority must never be able to deny fundamental rights to any minority.

There is no legit reason to deny gay and lesbian couples from marrying. NONE whatsoever

I forget if it was here or elsewhere, but I read an article calling the judge out on numerous points of seemingly improper actions in the case. No doubt it will be appealed before the ink's dry. The only real question is whether there will be more gay couples allowed to get married before the tap's turned off again. I know love comes in spurts, but this is ridiculous.

Common sense wins!

To celebrate "Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more..."

Wow...all men ARE created equal.
Go figure.

#2 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2010-08-04 04:52 PM | REPLY | FLAG Don't forget our lesbian sisters...

Appeal that sh*t.

But, it's more satisfying to see the results of Cali people voting (7 million in favor of prop. 8) than the results of a court case.

Rcade--Ness put up the Prop 8 Overturn thread--should fold these two threads together.

The Mormons paid for most of the anti 8 propaganda. It's a big reason why I'm for it.

"The will of the people be damned" - CA progressive Judge Vaughn Walker

If all men are created equal, please explain affirmative action, university racial quotas, hate crimes, automobile insurance rates, health insurance rates, ladies night at bars, WNBA, men/women pay disparities....

Seems that in certain instances, it is ok that some are more equal than others. As long as it benefits "your" situation.

"Seems that in certain instances, it is ok that some are more equal than others."

You're the one interested in keeping inequality. Name one right a gay couple wants that my wife and I don't already get.

Geese, i just read some of the judges comments as reported by the huffington post, Could this guy be any less biased?

Things like
"Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians"

"Although Proposition 8 fails to possess even a rational basis,"

"Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."

Seriously short of waiving pom poms could this guy be any more unfit to rule on this case?

Oh well, send it on up, maybe the next court will be less willing to redefine equal protection.

Name one right a gay couple wants that my wife and I don't already get.

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-08-04 05:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

The right to re-define the term "marriage" over the will of the citizens of California.

so what...cherry picking judges will get you shit like this...
and besides, when its just the will of the people progressives and thier judges dont give a fuck about what the lowly little pissant people think....

Unfit to rule on this case? Well he was appointed by a GOP prez so you may be onto something...

in other words..

YAWN....oh you mean gays in california can marry..wow..so they will get even more in debt...big whoop...of course when you understand that its the tenth amendment that has become birdcage liner for libfux..then maybe we should be worried....but NOT til tommorrow..

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-08-04 05:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

I agree with one of the DR lefties (whom I can't recall) who proposed that marriage be completed in religious surroundings and civil unions be recognized by the state.

Would you agree Danny? If its just about rights and all...

Yessssssssss take that bigots and or homophobics

#8 | POSTED BY LARRYMOHR AT 2010-08-04 04:51 PM | REPLY | FLAG: just not in the ass, ok?

California's adherence to the referendum process is stupid and it has killed any serious attempts at getting its fiscal house in order - too many monied factions protecting their trough.

This is an interesting ruling - I am curious as to how it will ultimately play out.

The only real question is whether there will be more gay couples allowed to get married before the tap's turned off again...#15 | Posted by valis at 2010-08-04 05:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

From an AP article (I'd quote but it's freakin' AP), the appeals process has to be complete before the state grants any additional gay marriages.

"Would you agree Danny?"

It depends: does making the darkies drink from that "other" water fountain bother you?

The right to re-define the term "marriage" over the will of the citizens of California.

Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2010-08-04 05:56 PM | Reply

Same fucked up excuse was made by whites when blacks were finally allowed to marry the same for mixed couples of Heterosexual flavour. Funny how bigotry doesn't end it just changes who to be bigotted against.

Larry

"Since Walker is openly gay--you get three guesses on the decision outcome and the first two don't count...."

Hahahahaha. Tough shit, Murphy. You lose, loooooooser.

"Funny how bigotry doesn't end it just changes who to be bigotted against."

Next up: Left-Handers!

38-0 when voted on by the states.

Does YOUR worldview really dictate that ALL of those people are "bigots" and "homophobes"?

Great news. Gays deserve the right to marry. It was a sad day in California when a majority of the people used their constitution to deny an entire class of people the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

"38-0 when voted on by the states."

Which is about the same vote segregation would've received. What's your point?

I don't know ANY left handers who were molested by other left handers.

I know PLENTY of people who've struggled with homosexuality who were molested by homosexuals.

I don't know ANY left handers who've willingly had sex with family members, including their own brother.

I DO KNOW homosexuals who've willingly had sex with family members, including their own brother.

Maybe there is something more than "bigotry" at work, Danforth....

38-0 when voted on by the states.

Does YOUR worldview really dictate that ALL of those people are "bigots" and "homophobes"?

Posted by kirk at 2010-08-04 06:06 PM | Reply

Must be since theres no rational reason to deny same sex couples from marrying

It depends: does making the darkies drink from that "other" water fountain bother you?

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-08-04 06:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

The way I read his proposal was that ALL marriages be under the purview of religion and ALL civil unions (hetero and homo) be under the purview of the state. That way you remove the religious aspect from the civil union process, which strengthens the separation between church and state.

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-08-04 06:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Again, is it about rights or some social agenda Danny? Fuck the social agenda. Civil unions would deal with the rights.

Are you ok with a heterosexual pride parade?

California's adherence to the referendum process is stupid and it has killed any serious attempts at getting its fiscal house in order - too many monied factions protecting their trough.

This is an interesting ruling - I am curious as to how it will ultimately play out.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ

you are correct sir...that process has caused them trouble in the past..but havent the elected officials brought the votes on themsleves...and besides...that isnt really a republic form of government anyway..right? wrong?

and this as well as arizona and health care..they will ALL end up with the surpremes....as neither side will cave until

have a link on the segregation, Danforth?
I DOUBT it would've been THAT high.

And the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr won the hearts and minds of the people....the gay apologists just call everyone "bigots and homophobes" and don't even bother making their case here, much less in direct action....

Myself, I'm for Prop 69, which states:

"Any person or person seeking to put the civil rights of any person or group to a popular vote shall be fastened into stocks positioned in the town square and pelted with rotten vegetables by those members of the public having respect for the Constitution of these United States, until such time as the miscreant or miscreants shall profess respect for the rights of all other persons, without limitation or exclusion."

"Are you ok with a heterosexual pride parade?"

Sure. My father used to drag the whole family to those every year in St. Louis. It was called "The Veiled Prophet Parade", of all the debs in town.

"Again, is it about rights or some social agenda Danny? "

The social agenda IS rights. Again, can you name ONE right gay couples want that my wife and I don't already get?

Are you ok with a heterosexual pride parade?

Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2010-08-04 06:09 PM | Reply

Don't most rednecks do that on their saturday night auto racing gigs??"Hell even the winner of the parade gets a trophy

#37 | Posted by rcade at 2010-08-04 06:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Opens the door up for those polygomist mormons also - right RCADE? What about the bestiality people?

Must be since theres no rational reason to deny same sex couples from marrying

#40 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2010

you are right if you prefer to live in the liberal abyss..some of us dont though..and then there is the financail aspects...social security is in no shape to recieve the millions more 'hits' this would cause..BUT it is a states rights issue, just like abortion as far as I believe...but with a despot in the white house..you never knowwwwwwwww

by the way larry...hot where you are...heat index just annouced at FIVE in the fuckin afternoon...106....feels like a thousand

Prop. 8 Overturned

I have no view on this matter.

none.

I DO KNOW homosexuals who've willingly had sex with family members, including their own brother.

Well,you get around

" and don't even bother making their case here"

Their case is made with every post: the case is EQUALITY. At its root, marriage is a legal designation of superseding rights to one person. Current law allows one group, over here, to enter into these super-legal agreements, and that group, over there is denied those same rights.

"I have no view on this matter. "

It's ok cause this ruling means absolutely nothing.

#47 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2010-08-04 06:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Libtard once again proves his "tolerance" and "acceptance" is a facade. Could you sterotype any more larry? I guess all blacks are lazy and have children out of wedlock too? Is that what you think?

by the way larry...hot where you are...heat index just annouced at FIVE in the fuckin afternoon...106....feels like a thousand

Posted by afkabl2 at 2010-08-04 06:12 PM | Reply

I am not some stupid Conservative who goes outside and suffers the heat. I am a smart Liberal who stays indoors where it's nice and cool

and libfux all over the country still trying to equate gay marriage with civil rights...havent seen many clips of dogs sent to bite anyone at gay parade or knocking them over with fire hoses or such...to compare the two is to cheapen the struggle of blacks for equality.

"Current law allows one group"

No, they allow a man and a woman, and everyone has the same opportunity.

"Opens the door up for those polygomist mormons also"

Flag: Doesn't understand the legal concept of superseding rights

"What about the bestiality people?"

Godwin should have a Tangent: The first person who equates equal rights with fucking an animal loses.

Kind of a dicey issue. On the one hand, there is an arguement for equal protection and equal rights as citizens and human beings. Then, there's that pesky aspect that all unrepentant homosexuals will spend eternity in hell along with all the unrepentant heterosexuals...equal rights after all when you think it through.

#52 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-08-04 06:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

So you are ok with civil unions also? Keeping marriage in the churches?

I am not some stupid Conservative who goes outside and suffers the heat. I am a smart Liberal who stays indoors where it's nice and cool
#55 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2010-08-04 06:14 PM | Reply | Flag: Reason #1 manmade global warming exists

I am not some stupid Conservative who goes outside and suffers the heat. I am a smart Liberal who stays indoors where it's nice and cool

#55 | Posted by LarryMohr

AAAAAAAARGGGGGGGGGG good one...of course I step about 10 steps from air conditioned house to air conditioned car and walk into air conditioned store and then back to air conditioned car and then back home....

but I understand...missouri or kansas is filled with wusses...( snicker snicker)

"No, they allow a man and a woman, and everyone has the same opportunity."

No, they allow straight people to marry whom they want, and gay people are denied that same right. Your concept isn't that they could marry whom they want, it's they marry whom YOU want.

I am a smart Liberal who stays indoors where it's nice and cool

#55 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2010-08-04 06:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

I thought liberals shirked harming the environment through the use of fossil fuels? Go figure.

"So you are ok with civil unions also? Keeping marriage in the churches?"

I've answered, twice. Your turn: name one right gays want which my wife and I don't already get.

It may be that the 9th Circuit refuses to review the ruling. Which would really be an interesting turn of events because then the only recourse would be to appeal to the SCOTUS who will probably also be reluctant to wade into this mess as well. Basically, no intelligent jurist wants to get dirtied up by this poorly thought out and unconstiutional piece of shit Proposition bought and paid for by a religious organization.

So you are ok with civil unions also? Keeping marriage in the churches?

#60 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum

My church will let me get married to another man, but I cannot receive a legal document to get it.

Why can't I call it a marriage because the Church down the street disagrees?

I am not some stupid Conservative who goes outside and suffers the heat. I am a smart Liberal who stays indoors where it's nice and cool

#55 | Posted by LarryMohr

From the movie Big Trouble in Little China

A group of guys are walking in the rain and 'Jack Burton' tries to share 'Egg Shen's' umbrella. Jack's buddy 'Wang' says: "A brave man likes the feel of nature on his face, Jack."

To which Egg replies, "Yeah, and a wise man has enough sense to get in out of the rain."

I am not some stupid Conservative who goes outside and suffers the heat. I am a smart Liberal who stays indoors where it's nice and cool
#55 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2010-08-04 06:14 PM | Reply | Flag: Reason #1 manmade global warming exists

Posted by bartimus at 2010-08-04 06:15 PM | Reply

Larry doesn't believe in ANY form of global warming. Sorry

Godwin should have a Tangent: The first person who equates equal rights with fucking an animal loses.

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2010

the goodwin effect hasnt stopped libfux from using the nazi card??

and look how I have condensed liberal fucks into libfux...pretty clever....but again...why dont the supremes just take obamacare, arizona, and this and get all three over with.....

#53
Bull, they don't alow you to marry who you want they allow you to marry someone of the opposite sex that is
a) not underage
b)alive
c)able to make a decision
D)not currently married
f)willing
g)human
h)do i really need to go on?

Your concept isn't that they could marry whom they want, it's they marry whom YOU want.

#63 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-08-04 06:16 PM | Reply | Flag

NO...to use a line from 'silver streak'

we know what goes where...and why...

That would be #63

Keeping marriage in the churches?

Would you be ok with churches that sanctioned same-sex marriages?

My thought: a church shouldn't be forced to marry anyone, but churches should be allowed to marry anyone they please.

#63 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-08-04 06:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

So you would be for extending the rights to people who would like to marry the pet they love so much? Some people love their cats more than Bill loved Hillary. There is a precedent for people marrying animals anyway concerning the Clintons.

Glad to see the good guys won and the bad guys like Murphy lost.

Keeping marriage in the churches?

naw..I got married outside..

BA DUMP DUMP....

"So you would be for extending the rights to people who would like to marry the pet they love so much?"

So...you're admitting you don't know the difference between two adults consenting, and raping animals???

"Why can't I call it a marriage because the Church down the street disagrees?"

You can call it whatever you want, but the government has no business telling us what we have to call it.

That would be #63

#73 | Posted by salamandagator

Bull on you. My church will allow me enter into a marital union before God, friends, and family. I just can't go get a marriage certificate. My church can marry anyone it wants, but I can't get the legal documentation to get the benefits of it.

Opens the door up for those polygomist mormons also - right RCADE? What about the bestiality people?

I'm sick of hearing from bigots who think gay marriage and bestiality are comparable. You should be ashamed of yourself for posting that.

"we know what goes where...and why..."

Like heteros don't engage in anal sex.

I've answered, twice. Your turn: name one right gays want which my wife and I don't already get.

#65 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-08-04 06:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Already answered. You can accept the answer or keep playing with yourself. I don't care.

The people of CA voted their will. This judge told them to fuck off. 38-0 in the state votes.

Why can't someone marry their 1st cousin? Or their sister/brother? We restrict all sorts of marriage combinations.

"Already answered."

That's a lie.

Do you have an answer, or not?

Which would You prefer?

Larry

#82 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2010-08-04 06:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you really want me to answer that? Of course - go ahead use your air conditioner. I don't believe in MMGW so its no skin off my back.

"Or their sister/brother? We restrict all sorts of marriage combinations."

Hey did't you hear rcade, you cannot compare homosexual relationships to anything but heterosexual ones otherwise you are a bigot.

"Why can't someone marry their 1st cousin? Or their sister/brother?"

Genetic malformations.

Any other obvious questions?

So...you're admitting you don't know the difference between two adults consenting, and raping animals???

#78 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-08-04 06:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

What if the animal likes it? Then would you be ok with marrying a pet?

"Why can't someone marry their 1st cousin? Or their sister/brother?"

The same reason you don't understand equality and ride the short bus.

Any other obvious questions?

#89 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-08-04 06:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

You are assuming they will pro-create. Two gay guys can't pro-create by themselves if they get married.

Any other dumbshit responses?

I DO KNOW homosexuals who've willingly had sex with family members, including their own brother. -- #39 | Posted by kirk

You have some strange friends, Kirk.

I doubt anyone could get good numbers on this, but I'd bet that incest by heterosexual fathers and/or stepfathers is much more common than incest between gay brothers.

"What if the animal likes it? Then would you be ok with marrying a pet?"

You don't understand consent either, do you?

#91 | Posted by greeneyedguy at 2010-08-04 06:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

So like I said previously, it is ok to discriminate as long as it does not affect your position.

"we know what goes where...and why..."

Like heteros don't engage in anal sex.

#83 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-

SIGH.....its a joke...

"Genetic malformations.

Any other obvious questions?"

Uh, but i thought marriage was not just about procreating.

You don't understand consent either, do you?

#94 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-08-04 06:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do pets "consent" to be pets in the first place Danny? Did you ask? What about marrying your 1st cousin if they consent?

"You are assuming they will pro-create. "

I'm assuming nothing, other than you don't have a single example of a right gay couples want which my wife and I don't already get.

Obviously you can't answer the question directly.

Bigot:
n.
a person who is obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, practice or ritual. The word is sometimes used in an enlarged sense, for a person who is illiberally attached to any opinion, or system of belief.

Bigoted
a.
an obstinately and blindly attached to some creed, opinion, practice, or ritual; unreasonably devoted to a system or party, and illiberal towards the opinions of others.

(I won't even bother arguing "homophobe" as it is so ridiculous and stupid of a term--I don't know anyone personally who is actually "phobic" of homosexuals or homosexuality)

The definition of these words may be helpful in this debate....

Uh, but i thought marriage was not just about procreating.

#97 | Posted by salamandagator

Then go marry your sister! Is that what you've been waiting to hear all your life?

NEXT thing you know..libfux will support fucks who rape 13 year old girls after drugging them simply because they are a movie director
.

OOPS.......too late

I'm sick of hearing from bigots who think gay marriage and bestiality are comparable. You should be ashamed of yourself for posting that.

#81 | Posted by rcade at 2010-08-04 06:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm sick of hearing from liberals who think gay marriage and homosexual marriage are comparable. You should be ashamed of yourself for thinking that.

Now, what about the mormons RCADE?

"What if the animal likes it? Then would you be ok with marrying a pet?"

Oh, Christ on a bicycle.

Could it be any clearer that this issue is rapidly approaching the point that desegregation reached in '64, and that you're no more equipped to deal with real equality than Ku Kluxers were then?

#104 - BINGO.

Like heteros don't engage in anal sex.

#83 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2010-08-04 06:26 PM | REPLY | FLAG

I KNEW Danforth fought soooooo hard for homosexuality and its behaviors for a reason....
(cue "It's Raining Men")

"I'm sick of hearing from liberals who think gay marriage and homosexual marriage are comparable"

Stupid is as stupid does.

"I KNEW Danforth fought soooooo hard for homosexuality and its behaviors for a reason...."

Yes, and the reason is I've done financial plans for both straight couples and gay couples. It doesn't get much more unequal than that.

The same reason you don't understand equality and ride the short bus.

#91 | POSTED BY GREENEYEDGUY AT 2010-08-04 06:30 PM | REPLY

really?

So you're putting all your eggs in the basket of a SF gay judge and the courts and giving up on the free market of ideas in favor of insults?

Not a winning strategy...

#108,
you've said THAT all along, but now we have a new, darker reason...sexual perversion.

Obviously you can't answer the question directly.

#99 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-08-04 06:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obviously you don't care for my posted response up thread.

The right to re-define the term "marriage" over the will of the citizens of California.

Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2010-08-04 05:56 PM | Reply

A gay judge has done just that. I, nor my wife, have that right. Neither do you.

" now we have a new, darker reason...sexual perversion."

What...you're looking in the mirror?

"Obviously you don't care for my posted response up thread."

You never answered the question, so I'll post it again so you can C&P it immediately before your answer.

Can you name any rights gay couples want which my wife and I don't already get?

"The right to re-define the term "marriage" over the will of the citizens of California."

Sorry, not a real "right". Do you actually have a legitimate answer, or not?

Kirk:

#110 is a foul. Seriously. You should be ashamed of yourself.

"Can you name any rights gay couples want which my wife and I don't already get?"

Before you answer danforth again you might want to ups him some reading glasses.

#104 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2010-08-04 06:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Could it be you along with others are so ill equiped to deal with boundaries set by the community which you disagree with that you feel the need to usurp the will of the people?

The comparison to wedding an animal is overboard for effect. Once the precedent is set, there is no going back. All progression is not progressive.

"Sorry, not a real "right". Do you actually have a legitimate answer, or not?"

question:
How many other "fundamental" rights do you have to pay a fee and get a license for?

"#110 is a foul. Seriously."

Hell, no skin off my nose. I've been in the arts for 34 years; if some idiot wants to suggest I'm gay, BFD. I come here for the comedy.

#114 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-08-04 06:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

What rights are gays denied by civil unions Danny?

"How many other "fundamental" rights do you have to pay a fee and get a license for?"

Yes or no: do you have the "right" to marry, according to the Constitution?

"Before you answer danforth again you might want to ups him some reading glasses."

Why? Because he made up a fake "right"?

"What rights are gays denied by civil unions Danny?"

There are a few, but they are not looking for the benefits of marriage, they are looking for the government to force society to accept there actions when it is abundantly clear that we as a whole do not.

Yes or no: do you have the "right" to marry, according to the Constitution?

Why? Because he made up a fake "right"?

#121 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-08-04 06:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

No. You pay a fee for a license. Like any other license issued by the government, you can be denied based on the laws governing its issuance and use.

What right are gays denied by civil unions?

" Because he made up a fake "right"?"

Like the one to marry anyone you want?

"What rights are gays denied by civil unions Danny?"

The list is too long.

Social Security is one example: gay couples pay into it at the same rate as my wife and I, yet don't get any of the benefits. We also have the right of unlimited marital gifts. And the right of joint adoption. And the right of tax-free inheritance if one of us passes. It goes on and on.

Civil Unions are the segregated drinking fountains of today. Separate but equal is always separate, and never equal.

The comparison to wedding an animal is overboard for effect.

Was the effect to make you look prejudiced and delegitimize arguments against gay marriage?

you don't have a single example of a right gay couples want which my wife and I don't already get.

Obviously you can't answer the question directly.

#99 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-08-04 06:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

I agree with you Danny. Gay couples right now get all the same rights as you and your wife.

They can enter into contracts together (like buy a house), they can buy insurance for one another, they can bequeath their property in a will.

You are correct Danny. Gays already have the same rights as you do so there is no need for a change. Unless, after more than 100 post YOU can name a right that gays want that you and your wife don't already get?

"Like the one to marry anyone you want?"

Do you have the right to marry, or not?

"Gays already have the same rights as you do so there is no need for a change."

Ahhhh....the cruelty response.

#122 | Posted by salamandagator at 2010-08-04 06:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

What are they? My understanding is that civil unions would accomplish the same "legal" standings on insurance benefits and death benefits among the other monetary "benefits" married couples receive.

What right are gays denied by civil unions?

#123 | POSTED BY E_PLURIBUS_UNUM AT 2010-08-04 06:47 PM | REPLY | FLAG

The right to a marital deduction for estate planning purposes, equal access to loved ones who may be in the hospital, state recognition as a married couple (i.e. separate but equal). There are plenty of things like this...

"Social Security is one example: gay couples pay into it at the same rate as my wife and I, yet don't get any of the benefits. We also have the right of unlimited marital gifts. And the right of joint adoption. And the right of tax-free inheritance if one of us passes. It goes on and on."

Funny thing social security won't be there in a few years and the death tax will be back on.

If we allow gays to marry, what's to stop blacks from marrying whites?

"There are a few, but they are not looking for the benefits of marriage"

You're full of shit.

Was the effect to make you look prejudiced and delegitimize arguments against gay marriage?

If so, I'd say it was a success.

" My understanding is that civil unions would accomplish the same "legal" standings on insurance benefits and death benefits among the other monetary "benefits" married couples receive."

They could, but they don't now.

"My understanding is that civil unions would accomplish the same "legal" standings on insurance benefits and death benefits among the other monetary "benefits" married couples receive."

Your "understanding" could not be more off-base.

Was the effect to make you look prejudiced and delegitimize arguments against gay marriage?

#126 | Posted by rcade at 2010-08-04 06:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you don't know what the purpose was, you are not as bright as I thought you were. Sarcasm aside, do you have an answer on the Mormon polygamy issue?

" Unless, after more than 100 post YOU can name a right that gays want that you and your wife don't already get?"

Are you a complete moron? Reread #125 as many times as it takes.

"You're full of shit."

Really?
So then why insist on marriage and not equal civil unions?

Your "understanding" could not be more off-base.

#137 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-08-04 06:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Please do tell what a civil union is then danny? Why bring up the separate but equal argument with the water fountain if my understanding was so far off?

I'm sick of hearing from liberals who think gay marriage and homosexual marriage are comparable"

Stupid is as stupid does.

#107 | Posted by Danforth at

TRANSLATION...generically speaking without singling out danforth

"you little pissants with your morals and all..you are all just too fuckin stupid to know that WE know how you should think and you all are just too damn dumb to know whats right on any issue..you MUST listen to us because you rednecks are just so ignorant and we know better than you..WE WILL TELL YOU what to think..you little pissant irrelavant lemmings...and if you dont agree..you are a racist, homophobe, and sexist

BIG BROTHER KNOWS WHAT GOOD FOR YOU...

"Sarcasm aside, do you have an answer on the Mormon polygamy issue?"

I do. Marriage, at its root, is a legal designation, conferring superseding rights to one person. Polygamy negates that, as by definition, you can't bestow superseding rights on more than one person.

"Could it be you along with others are so ill equiped to deal with boundaries set by the community which you disagree with that you feel the need to usurp the will of the people?"

And could it be that you are so uneducated about this nation's principles, laws and traditions that you think "the will of the people" has a single thing to do with anyone's civil rights? That asinine, wrong-headed and un-American concept is a great deal of what is wrong with this nation today. People today are too small-minded and too full of themselves to even contemplate dealing with the idea that other people they may not like are fully equal to them.

Would that we had today a quality of legislative personnel equal to that we had in 1964, when a courageous, informed, Constitution-respecting and fair-minded Congress passed that year's Civil Rights Act, over "the will of the people," meaning the people who wanted racism to continue and remain codified in state laws. That racism was a huge evil, and so is the present situation for gays, because the day YOU have any "right" to vote on any other American's freedoms, it means the day will come when someone else will gain a "right" to vote on YOURS.

"Please do tell what a civil union is"

If you don't have an understanding of all the rights still denied by civil unions, you're beyond help.

They could, but they don't now.

#136 | Posted by salamandagator at 2010-08-04 06:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Then I need to ammend my comparisons and arguments to the future when they do. After we determine marriage is performed by religions and civil unions are performed by the state.

"you little pissants with your morals and all"

It's not morals at all. Who would Jesus codify as a second-class citizen?

The right to a marital deduction for estate planning purposes, equal access to loved ones who may be in the hospital, state recognition as a married couple (i.e. separate but equal). There are plenty of things like this...

#131 | Posted by somoco

Horseshit. Anyone can be designated a medical power of attorney.

I wonder, if anyone here just realized this judge just invalidated the CONSTITUTION of a sovereign governing body?

E Pluribus Unum

I don't believe you have stated why you think gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry. To say it "redefines" marriage is not a reason at all. All laws "redefine" something. Laws are designed to make life safer and add to the quality of life of citizens.

To say it is against the will of the people of California is not enough either. First, it isn't against the will of ALL the people of California--millions support the idea of gays and lesbians being allowed to marry. Second, we don't live in a democracy. I'm sure the South wouldn't have been for freeing the slaves if it were put to a vote in 1861. Third, marriage has had many forms. Even in the bible, multiple wives is not condemned.

I guess what I am asking you is how does the fact that a gay couple or lesbian couple is married have any effect on your life. How will your quality of life be diminished so much that we--as a nation--should diminish the rights of gays and lesbians to be just as happy or miserable in a marriage as heterosexual couples?

"Anyone can be designated a medical power of attorney. "

IOW, what my wife and I got the moment we said "I do", can be obtained. Just see a lawyer and pay for what we got for free.

Doesn't sound very equal, does it?

I do. Marriage, at its root, is a legal designation, conferring superseding rights to one person. #143 | Posted by Danforth at

WOW...how romantic sounding

:)

how about boy meets girl
boy screws girl
girls lawyer screws boy til he dies..every month...

#144 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2010-08-04 06:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

So when is the day when people will not be denied the "right" to marry their sister if they want?

Morality is in the eye of the beholder and is determined by society as a whole based on tolerated actions and behaviors.

Would you say that someone is justified by hunting down and killing a person who molested their child? The law, determined by a majority of the people, says otherwise.

We live in a representative republic - the representatives who make the laws are supposed to represent the will of the people.

The constitution does not cover marriage. It is not a right. You are issued a license by the state and the church performs a religious ceremony if you are so inclined.

Marriage is not a right. Is driving a right?

Good day for liberty, bad day for bigots. This could be the one that makes it to the Supreme Court.

OH SHIT..sorry...this gay judge says we cant use that 'ditty' anymore...

boy meets ?
? meets boy

But seriously, did anyone not puke when they saw the photo in the article of the old woman with warts on her face kissing her partner?

I wonder, if anyone here just realized this judge just invalidated the CONSTITUTION of a sovereign governing body?

#148 | Posted by americanPLY

only time radicals give a shit about that is when it suits thier agenda...and gay marriage is nothing more than a political agenda

And could it be that you are so uneducated about this nation's principles, laws and traditions that you think "the will of the people" has a single thing to do with anyone's civil rights? That asinine, wrong-headed and un-American concept is a great deal of what is wrong with this nation today. People today are too small-minded and too full of themselves to even contemplate dealing with the idea that other people they may not like are fully equal to them.""

Kind of funny, but I seriously doubt that any of the men and women who worked to bring equality to the slaves of the south would even dream that their efforts would be perverted into state sanctioned &$%#sucking. According to the defense: ""[W]hile gays have the right to their private lives, they do not have the right to redefine marriage
for everyone else.""

#149 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-08-04 06:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

My personal reasons don't hold water with this crowd bob. No point in even interjecting them into the discussion.

Suffice to say, marriage is not a right. You are issued a license. Like any other license it can be denied by the issuer based on laws determined by the legislature.

Is it a right to drive?

"Marriage is not a right. "

So you don't have a right to get married? The SCOTUS disagreed, calling it one of the "basic civil rights of man".

"The law, determined by a majority of the people, says otherwise."

And the law, determined by a majority of Supreme Court Justices, says marriage is a right.

"gay marriage is nothing more than a political agenda"

Nonsense. Gay couples are currently treated under the law as second-class citizens.

"Suffice to say, marriage is not a right. "

Suffice to say, you're pulling shit out of your ass.

I wonder, if anyone here just realized this judge just invalidated the CONSTITUTION of a sovereign governing body?

And if that Constitution is in derogation of the United States Constitution, it deserves to be "invalidated."

Besides, if the people of California amended their Constitution in a way you didn't agree with from a political standpoint, my guess is you wouldn't care about their "sovereignty" anymore.

"bad day for bigots"

Bigots?
Like the ones that say "if you don't support me it must be on a religious issue?"

Sarcasm aside, do you have an answer on the Mormon polygamy issue?

If three or more consenting adults wanted to marry each other, I don't have a problem with it. There are probably legal complications, but I'm not in the business of telling other people how to live their lives. That's apparently your job.

This just went from a civil rights quest to a concerted effort to undermine the constitutional processes that keep this country free and ordered. Laugh now. But this will FURTHER galvanize the right, and anyone else with common sense. when it comes to the election this fall. The American public, is not on board with their sons and daughters abandoning the proper structure of the family for a sexual fantasy.

" Gay couples are currently treated under the law as second-class citizens."

Bull
They are treated the same way any non married couple is treated, and whats more individual the same way anyone one else in this country is treated. Define away but you cannot change the fact that they are asking for right which do not currently exist, regardless of your sexuality.

And the law, determined by a majority of Supreme Court Justices, says marriage is a right.

#159 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-08-04 07:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did they say what defined marriage in that decision?

"They are treated the same way any non married couple is treated"

Horseshit. The non-married couple has the option to marry and get those rights automatically. The gay couple doesn't.

Suffice to say, marriage is not a right. You are issued a license.

This is absurd. The issuance of a license does not invalidate a right. The legal decision that it is a right means the state can't issue the license to one preferred group and deny it to another.

"Define away but you cannot change the fact that they are asking for right which do not currently exist, regardless of your sexuality."

The right to marry? How dumb are you?

Only people who don't like homosexuals oppose this ruling. And, biblical religious paranoid nonsense aside, there is no reason for disliking homosexuals.

Marriage is not a right. Is driving a right?"

Actually, both are privileges, not actual rights. However, we have a tradition in this country of granting privileges to citizens on a non-discriminatory basis. We do not tell Hispanics they may not drive because some Americans don't like them, for instance. The bar is that citizens applying for the privilege must all pass the same test, and must all abide by the same rules.

By the way - mention bestiality or incest in support of your arguments just one more time, and you will have forever marked yourself here as someone who has so little understanding of this nation's principles that you must resort to throwing whatever pile of manure you think is handy instead of mounting a cogent response.

...but I'm not in the business of telling other people how to live their lives. That's apparently your job.

#164 | Posted by rcade at 2010-08-04 07:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sure you are. You among others on this site are all for telling people how much they can make and how much they should be taxed. You are all for telling people that they must buy health insurance and what cars they can and can't drive.

Please don't act all high and mighty - it does the site an injustice for the moderator to lie.

Suffice to say, you're pulling shit out of your ass.

#161 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-08

oh thats a real pleasant way to make an arguement

I'm done, this is the same as any other discussion of homosexuality. "If you are not for it you are a bigot," wake me up when they get some new material.

Question for those in favor of Prop 8:

Why should we bar homosexuals from marrying one another?

Sure you are. You among others on this site are all for telling people how much they can make and how much they should be taxed. You are all for telling people that they must buy health insurance and what cars they can and can't drive.

#173 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2010

BOOM...well said...

As I said before Joe, the people that fought and died so that we had a constitution, probably wouldn't have even went through the effort had they known that it would be used to corrupt the oldest of institutions. Nothing in the federal constitution mentions marriage because the founders, and everyone else up until now, would never DREAM that this would be a hot button issue. and they also believed that the people of this country would use the legislative process to protect the constitution. The gay marriage movement has been invalidating it since the beginning, because gay just isn't cool, and the majority of people agree.

Today's decision is a victory for individual liberty and civil rights in California. In America, a tyranny of the majority must never be able to deny fundamental rights to any minority.

#13 | Posted by moder8 at 2010-08-04 05:23 PM

I'm sure you feel the same way about the tax rates the top wage earners in the country make, don'tcha?

"oh thats a real pleasant way to make an arguement"

Tell the guy who keeps claiming marriage isn't a right.

RCADE> feel a little woosy from that body blow....

e is right...libs love to tell US how to spend money when they go unchecked...tell us how much energy to use when algore and others have no limits...

michael moore talks about unions on larry king when ITs a fact that he uses film crews from canada because they are cheaper...
AND he bashed haliburton at the same time he MADE MONEY Off haliburton stock...(Info from book...'do as I say, not as I do"
and on and on and on...and this issue is the same...WHO do most gay couples vote for...radical leftists of course....
I SAID MOST...

Our weekly requisite gay marriage thread.

I know how the 9th Circuit will go, just like it was no mystery how a gay federal judge would go. It'll be up to the Supreme Court.

They're likely to be pretty busy next year. Missouri just voted last night to exempt themselves from Obamacare, another dopey judge just said last week that a border state can't enforce the border, and now this.

oh thats a real pleasant way to make an arguement"

Tell the guy who keeps claiming marriage isn't a right.

#180 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-08-04 07:13 PM | Reply

you are the one who published THAT image...
:)

KEEP THE FAITH RIR....

I can see november from my house...HEY theres the ice cream truck too....

Horseshit. Anyone can be designated a medical power of attorney.
I wonder, if anyone here just realized this judge just invalidated the CONSTITUTION of a sovereign governing body?

#148 | POSTED BY AMERICANPLY AT 2010-08-04 06:56 PM | REPLY | FLAG

what is horseshit is if you believe that civil unions give gays the same rights as heteros. to deny this is just a display of ignorance.

having said this, i don't think Prop. 8 is an easy issue. States definitely have an interest in preserving marriage in its historical form. The only question is whether that interest is sufficient to withstand scrutiny, and what level of scrutiny need be applied. i think if there's scientific evidence supporting that being gay is an immutable characteristic, then equal protection is violated. I'm not sure that state of the scientific evidence in this regard.

i'm not sad about the decision, though. i voted against prop. 8, unlike many other conservatives. i'm not at all comfortable with this being in federal court, and would much rather have seen prop. 8 go down in flames (Which it didn't), or be overturned by proposition. at the end of the day, however, i'm not sure this decision will stand with the Supreme Court. so, you might 'win' in the end; but, that doesn't change my feeling that prop 8 was a loss for humanity.

"it was no mystery how a gay federal judge would go."

And who was the fuckin' idiot democrat who nominated him?

From the decision:

"CONCLUSION
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in
singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.
Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than
enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-
sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California
has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and
because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its
constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,
the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

Sounds about right.

By the way - mention bestiality or incest in support of your arguments just one more time, and you will have forever marked yourself here as someone who has so little understanding of this nation's principles that you must resort to throwing whatever pile of manure you think is handy instead of mounting a cogent response.

#172 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2010-08-04 07:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why, because you say so? Please. Are you for nationalized healthcare mth? What about SS? Medicare? Medicaid?

Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. All men are created equal. Marrige in its currently defined state is denied to no one outside of bestiality or incest. So we are all equal.

Gays want to redefine marriage as part of a social agenda. Make civil unions equivalent and there is no issue. Right?

"I'm sure you feel the same way about the tax rates the top wage earners in the country make, don'tcha?"

Oh, good God.

Is there nothing you folks won't say in an attempt to get or keep your unease with others codified into law?

I personally can't wait for the day that everyone can marry their pets and their sisters and we have the right to force all of you to perform in gay porn flicks.

That's the agenda, you know.

Jeez.

""it was no mystery how a gay federal judge would go."

Yeah, RightisHomoHater. If it was a negative decision handed down by a straight judge, I could say: it was no mystery how a straight federal judge would go. Pieces of shit like you don't believe that gays should be judges in the first place.

A1st: If you don't see the difference between the right to marry and the right for a legislature to determine a reasonable tax rate, yer really stupid. Don'tcha think?

This is one of those really frothy issues for Dandy Dan. I know who nominated him.

I also know that on the same night the Californians proved themselves to be open-minded enough to send Barack Obama to the White House, the homos still don't get the respect blacks do. Even grossly underqualified blacks.

Isn't that funny? As progressive as California pretends to be, they can't even throw a bone the gays' way. They'll vote to raise their own taxes for embryonic stem cell research, they'll vote to send a partial-birth abortion absolutist to the Senate, and they'll put the first black guy who can give a semi-coherent speech in the White House. But there are limits even to what California will do.

As I said before Joe, the people that fought and died so that we had a constitution, probably wouldn't have even went through the effort had they known that it would be used to corrupt the oldest of institutions.

Oh well. Just because you "fight and die" to uphold the Constitution, that doesn't preclude judges from issuing any further rulings upon said Constitution. Or should we have "freeze framed" all of our Constitutional jurisprudence the moment someone "fought and died" to uphold it?

Nothing in the federal constitution mentions marriage

Just about every specific item regulated by our government is not actually "mentioned" in the Constitution.

And the best part:

"Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence
that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection
rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional
violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition
8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex
couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-
sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result,
see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to
defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of
judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the
official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and
directing the official defendants that all persons under their
control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.
The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of
plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and
defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED."

And a big Happy 2 year anniversary for my friends Donnie and Mike who were married just about 2 years ago in San Francisco.

My personal reasons don't hold water with this crowd bob. No point in even interjecting them into the discussion.

Then you would have to admit that your personal reasons are not valid points.

Suffice to say, marriage is not a right.

Agreed.

You are issued a license.

Agreed

Like any other license it can be denied by the issuer based on laws determined by the legislature.

Up to a point. This is a country of checks and balances. If the legislature or a vote of the people violates the Constitution, a judge may overturn that decision or vote. That is the case here. There has to be a good erason--a valid reason to deny gays and lesbians the rights granted to those who are married. So far, I have seen no damage to heterosexual marriage or anyone for that matter when gays and lesbians are allowed to marry. Several countries, and several States already allow such marriages, and the results don't show any damge being done to anyone.

Is it a right to drive?

All rights come from the government. The right to drive is not among them. However when people are married, the government does grant them certain rights that are not granted to those who are not married.

Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Zero. All religious entities that can perform legal marriages get the right to do so from the government. No religious person is necessary to make a marriage legal. No religious person is necessary to end a marriage. What makes a marriage legal is government sanction---not religion at all.

But if you can't give a valid reason for gays and lesbians not to marry, why are you even on this thread? You just seem to be clouding up the waters with nothing valid to add. There is enough hate in the world--why are you spreading more? Try not to just respond to just one sentence of theis post, like the previous sentence, like most posters here. Let's see some depth of thought. Let's see some logic.

#158 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2010-08-04 07:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm with you though, AmericanPly. The Constitution doesn't mention marriage - so why is government telling us who can get married and who cannot?

Actually, I don't care if gays get married or not. What I want is Equal Protection Under the Laws interpreted to throw out every single law that benefits married people, and discriminates against single people. No more lower tax rates, no more survivorship benefits for Social Security, no more tax-free exchanges at death, no more rules about whom an adult American is allowed to have in his or her hospital room. It's not their sexual proclivities that make gays second-class citizens; they're no more second-class than anyone who's divorced. Or widowed. Or single.

Must be the money. It's always the money.

Tell the guy who keeps claiming marriage isn't a right.

#180 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-08-04 07:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

The decision you speak of (Loving vs Virgina) also lent itself to these fine comparisons in 2006:

The Majority Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles (2006) rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage, holding that:

"The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.[13]"

And:

Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.[13]

"It's not their sexual proclivities that make gays second-class citizens; they're no more second-class than anyone who's divorced. Or widowed. Or single."

And once again, RiR avoids the salient point: all of the above, except teh gheys, have the option of marrying and getting those rights. An option he exercised, yet wants to deny others.

"Fundamentaly, gays can't procreate without a chemistry set."

Neither can infertile men or post-menopausal women. Would you deny equal rights to them as well?

That's the agenda, you know.

Jeez.

#189 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2010-08-04 07:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

That is the agenda. Along with no borders, free drugs and equal pay regardless of performance.

The end of civility. Basically. Anarchy is the goal.

How do you feel about telling people what to drive mtw? Should I be forced to buy healthcare?

what is horseshit is if you believe that civil unions give gays the same rights as heteros""

Uh no SOMOCO, what I believe is that you can designate anyone a medical POA, what is horseshit is that you play down every right an American does possess because you want to turn this country's culture on its head. The gay marriage movement, like every other liberal movement, seeks to stomp on the inherent American right to contract, by limiting a defining our right make binding agreements. Two men can do everything that a married couple can do, with the exception of filing jointly, just differently named, with the exception of the tax code, which is proof positive of the fact the left has no consistency in treating people equally.

I will accept gay marriage when one of a couple things happens.

I can contract freely with my employer.
I and every other American tax payer is charged the exact same LOW tax rate.
My laws, and the constitution that they support, are enacted solely by the elected representatives of my legislature.

This is a GOOD day to be a Californian.

Liberty and Justice for ALL!

The sky is falling!
The world's going to quit spinning!
The end of civilisation as we know it!
Plague's a'comin'.
Fire will be raining down on us at any second.
Get under your desk, stick your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye!
They'll be wanting to marry box jellyfish before they're done!

Next stop, SCOTUS.

We'll see.

I do. Marriage, at its root, is a legal designation, conferring superseding rights to one person. Polygamy negates that, as by definition, you can't bestow superseding rights on more than one person.

#143 | Posted by Danforth

No problem, only the first wife would have legal rights superceding those of the subsequent wives. If she dies, its then conferred to the second wife. There should be no difference for someone who marries one woman and has other women living in the same residence. All your doing is "defining" polygamy as different, you are no different than the haters. The principle of "consenting adults" is what it is. Within the framework of same-sex marriage, polygamy should work just fine.

And I am ok with it, why aren't you?

So it's okay to discriminate against straight single people, because . . . umm . . . single people could get married if they could find a partner, and wanted to.

I see. So it's perfectly fine that I, as a single man, can't have my significant other in the hospital with me after visiting hours. And that married persons can leave their estates and Social Security benefits tax-free, but if I wanted to get in on the party, all I gotta do is get married.

Whatever. Why not just make it the same for everybody, single or married, gay or straight?

Nothing like a libtard who wants equal protection for me, but not for thee.

"That is the agenda. Along with no borders, free drugs and equal pay regardless of performance.

The end of civility. Basically. Anarchy is the goal."

Thanks for the best laugh I've had in a month.

so why is government telling us who can get married and who cannot?

#198 | Posted by JOE at 2010-08-04 07:23 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

The right to perform legal marriage ceremonies comes from the government. If the Church of the Large Salamander performs a marriage without government sanction, the marriage isn't legal. The government holds the keys to making marriages legal or not. Churches have nothing to do with the legality of any marriage.

Neither can infertile men or post-menopausal women. Would you deny equal rights to them as well?

#202 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-08-04 07:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

As my answer would be based on personal feelings due to religious beliefs, what's the point in answering to you? You will disqualfy my reasons for the same reason I would disqualify your reasons for smoking pot.

#199 is Right on. For poignant people, the deeper issue is why are we creating another special group. Why is marriage even codified? If the gay rights group wanted to get this done, they would seek to simplify the tax code, bolster contract rights, and limit the governments interference in our personal decision making. But they arent trying to do that are they? Thats why they rely on the fortune of one erroneous ruling to keep the issue alive and the attorneys tallying their billable hours.

I'm with you though, AmericanPly. The Constitution doesn't mention marriage - so why is government telling us who can get married and who cannot?

#198 | Posted by JOE at 2010

because this present government is in the middle of the biggest rights and freedom grab in our history...think this issue is about right to marry who you want..bullshit...its about control and big brother deciding for you...
if they can make you buy health insurance..what CANT They make you do..

this, like abortion should be a states rights issue...if I dont want to live in a state that approves of this and the murder of innocent life, then I shouldnt have to on an issue as this one...libs also dont think of the constitution as a power LIMIT...see it as a way to CREATE rights..just like the senator said when obamacare was FORCED ON us...

#209 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2010-08-04 07:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your welcome. If you think that was funny, watch MSNBC more. It will really make you laugh.

CONCLUSION
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in
singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.
Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than
enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-
sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California
has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and
because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its
constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,
the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."
Sounds about right.

#187 | POSTED BY NESS_GADOL AT 2010-08-04 07:16 PM | REPLY | FLAG

I'll have to read it now. If the analysis is one of rational basis only, I think Prop 8 would ultimately be upheld. I think that the state does have a rational basis for prop. 8 that is not just same sex couples are superior - but rather in preserving the historical institution of marriage and stability of family units.

#204. Yes you can designate someone in a medical POA, but it's not the same. There are many other things where people who are gay are treated differently - there is no question here. It's not a political issue to be horse-traded either.

"Nothing like a libtard who wants equal protection for me, but not for thee."

Too funny, coming from the guy who always conveniently omits the most important part: one group has the option of changing their status and getting those rights, and one group doesn't.

RiR's solution? No rights for anyone!!! He always retreats into the ridiculous.

That is the agenda. Along with no borders, free drugs and equal pay regardless of performance.

The end of civility. Basically. Anarchy is the goal."

Thanks for the best laugh I've had in a month.

#209 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 20

please keep in mind that winston smith loved big brother at the end also...

"You will disqualfy my reasons for the same reason I would disqualify your reasons for smoking pot."

You've obviously got me confused with someone else.

"my answer would be based on personal feelings due to religious beliefs"

Really? What other rights do you get to deny based on your religious beliefs?

If the right wants to continue their war against minorities of most kinds in this country then more power to them. The right of course is too stupid to figure out that if they alienate enough minorities they become a majority against them. Since the right is incapable of governing either the country or itself the longer they keep shooting themselves in the foot like upper-class twits in a Monty Pyton sketch the better.

"But they arent trying to do that are they?"

No, they're not trying to rewrite the tax code and the contract laws. They're trying to be treated equally.

#221. Ya. Cali is a bastion of conservatism. I wouldn't crow too loud, November is almost upon us.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... """

and try as Fred might, Larrymohr, he just isnt going to get Ted pregnant. No next generation for the St. James family!

RiR's solution? No rights for anyone!!! He always retreats into the ridiculous.

#216 | Posted by Danforth
* * * * *

Hey. I just want the same rights you and your wife have. What's the problem? Are you some kind of bigot? I know it's probably nice to get a free ride on the majority of Americans who are unmarried.

A million homos could get married tomorrow, and all they're doing is signing up for having their lifestyles subsidized by the rest of us, just like you are now.

Let me leave Social Security benefits behind to one of my loved ones, whether I'm married or not. Let me leave my estate behind tax free, whether I'm married or not. Let me give the doc a name of someone I want in the hospital with me, 24/7, whether I'm married or not.

Gays aren't fighting for those things for everyone. Just for themselves. Follow the money.

Oh--and let me pay the same tax rate as a married guy who makes the same money.

"If you think that was funny, watch MSNBC more."

Oh, I thought it was a scream.

Just not in the way you seem to think.

but rather in preserving the historical institution of marriage and stability of family units.

The testimony entered in the trial was found to be unconvincing of the fact that allowing gay marriage had any effect on opposite-sex marriage at all. That includes raising kids.

In other words, they already thought of that, and it failed.

I wish I had the resources to be a California fag wedding planner, bet theres some bucks in that!

j/k. lighten up, people.

#227. at the 9th, but not at Supreme Court. I don't think that the state needs to conclusively prove those things, and don't think it's within the judge's purview to decide that. That's why I say this is likely to be a temporary victory.

Gays aren't fighting for those things for everyone. Just for themselves. Follow the money.

#224 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-08

BINGO BABY

Again, No, Danforth, they are not. They are pissed off at their fathers, and their own inability to get shit straight in their own lives. So, their projecting their hate on society. Instead of consciously realizing they have a problem, and fixing it, or keeping it to themselves, like gentlemen, they want absolution. As much as they claim they are proud of who they are, they're not, and they have zero character, and are complete cowards, which is why they need someone to tell them that what they are doing is ok. And they are so selfish, they will sink the entire ship to get what they want.

AND nice post to leave on....

watch tomorrow for answer to 'who shot jfk'....

hasta laredo...suckers...

ONE MORE THING THOUGH SUCKERS...

stimulous...did you libfux know that YOU SENT STIMULUS Money to

BP ??

ha ha ha ha .

suckers..

I don't think that the state needs to conclusively prove those things

Well, if they can't prove their reasons for enacting the law in the first place, there's no real point to having the law, now is there?

Funny how the liberals also seem to think the constitution provides for limits on personal freedom when it comes to owning/carrying a gun but not when it comes to gay marriage despite gun rights being clearly called out in the constitutional while gay marriage is completely absent. I think we need to start a movement to de-fund the courts to take back power for the people. At this point, voting is meaningless whether it comes to marriage, immigration, or even selecting a president. What the hell happened to this country? Let's just hit the reset button now while there is still something worth saving....

"What I want is Equal Protection Under the Laws interpreted to throw out every single law that benefits married people, and discriminates against single people."

Agree with that. Let's get rid of child tax credits as well.

Well, if they can't prove their reasons for enacting the law in the first place, there's no real point to having the law, now is there?

#234 | POSTED BY NESS_GADOL AT 2010-08-04 07:52 PM | REPLY | FLAG

There are levels of scrutiny. To establish a rational basis, great deference is given to the state so that Courts don't usurp legislative power. I'd talk more with you on it, but you're clearly too emotionally wound up in this. All I can tell you is that when this decision is overturned, "I told you so."

Hey. I just want the same rights you and your wife have.

Then get married to someone.

Consenting individuals/adults should be allowed to do anything they want/agree on.

So say's corkdandannimoderdummiesleftis tidgits.

Except enter into a labor agreement, opt out of health insurance, opt out of social security etc. etc. etc.

Phonies and don't even know they are. Sad really.

Rightisright is right again #199.

I'd talk more with you on it, but you're clearly too emotionally wound up in this.

Try me.

The right to perform legal marriage ceremonies comes from the government. If the Church of the Large Salamander performs a marriage without government sanction, the marriage isn't legal. The government holds the keys to making marriages legal or not. Churches have nothing to do with the legality of any marriage.

You're a dumbshit, Bob. Some other moron made the argument that because the Constitution says nothing about "marriage," that there is no Constitutional right to marriage. My point is that carried to its logical conclusion, government shouldn't be regulating marriages at all, since the Constitution allegedly says nothing about it.

#240. ok

Strict Scrutiny Test

Applies to laws and practices that discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, alien status, or some fundamental right such as freedom of speech or religion. As the test suggests, the government's act is scrutinized closely. The government must show that it has a compelling interest, in other words, an extremely important reason for treating people differently on one of these bases. It must also show that this governmental action is the least restrictive means to achieving its purpose and is narrowly tailored to advance this compelling interest.

Substantial Relationship Test

This intermediate scrutiny applies to government acts that classify on the basis of gender. In these cases, the government must show an important reason to justify its classification. There must be a close relationship between the government's act and its purpose.

Rational Relationship Test

Otherwise and in most cases, government actions that classify one group differently from another must pass this minimal scrutiny. There must be a logical relationship between the classification and the law's or practice's purpose. The government's interest in discriminating must be a legitimate one.

The rational basis review tests whether a governmental action is a reasonable means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by the government. This test requires that the governmental action be "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest.[2] [3] Under this standard of review, the "legitimate interest" does not have to be the government's actual interest. Rather, if the court can merely hypothesize a "legitimate" interest served by the challenged action, it will withstand the rational basis review

Application of the rational basis test almost always means a ruling favorable to the government, as the Court will normally show deference under the rational basis test

ha,
the judge passed on assigning any level a scrutiny on the theory that it doesn't bass the rational basis test. there's work left to do before we've heard the end of this. it would've been nice if there was clarification on the level of scrutiny to be applied for other types of issues. someone, sometime is going to have to decide that issue.

Joe

You missed the point. Let's try again. Should the Church of the Large Salamander be able to perform marriage ceremonies for gays and lesbians? If not--why not. Should the Church of the large Salamander be able to perform marriage ceremonies for heterosexual couples? If not--why not.

Let's make it even simpler still. If the government says your marriage is not legal---is your marriage legal? If the Catholic Church says your marriage is not valid, and the government says your marriage is valid--are you married?

The point is--government says whether a marriage is legal or not. Government says who has the right to perform legal marriages. No Church can make a marriage legal without government sanctions. Not even the Church of the Large Salamander.

Maybe your point is that the Church of the Large Salamander should be able to perform legal marriages without government sanctions. In that case, you seem to be making the point that the Church of the Large Salamander should be able to marry gays and lesbians.

Who exactly do you think has the power to say whether a marriage is valid or not?

The judge in the case was gay? I'm not against gay marriage but how was he allowed to hear the case? He obviously would have been biased...

#245 although the same could be said if he was hetero, or a christian, or single...

I tend to agree that a gay judge -especially one with a long-term life partner- probably should have recused himself. Still, he reached the only logical conclusion.

The judge in the case was gay? I'm not against gay marriage but how was he allowed to hear the case? He obviously would have been biased...

#245 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

BINGO!!!

The judge should have recused himself.

Welcome,Granny

"The judge in the case was gay? I'm not against gay marriage but how was he allowed to hear the case? He obviously would have been biased..."

Maybe straight people should be recused from judging a gay rights issue as well. They're biased. Maybe only bisexual people should be allowed to judge these issues. Idiot.

Maybe male judges should be recused from women's rights cases like abortion.

BINGO!!!

#248 | Posted by MURPHY at 2010-08-04 08:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

So a heterosexual judge wouldn't be biased? Do you ever look at both sides of an issue? Here is a bit of background where this judge was seen as insensitive to gays and the poor.

Walker's original nomination to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987 stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics".[4] Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his alleged "insensitivity" to gays and the poor.

Maybe white judges should be recused from issues involving discrimination against blacks.

This test requires that the governmental action be "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest.[2] [3] Under this standard of review, the "legitimate interest" does not have to be the government's actual interest. Rather, if the court can merely hypothesize a "legitimate" interest served by the challenged action, it will withstand the rational basis review

And you think this will lead to today's ruling being successfully appealed?

Explain.

The judge in the case was gay? I'm not against gay marriage but how was he allowed to hear the case? He obviously would have been biased...

Brilliant! Likewise any heterosexual judge should be disqualified for the same reason!

#245 although the same could be said if he was hetero, or a christian, or single...

#246 | POSTED BY SOMOCO

I disagree because in that case he's not directly being discriminated against.

I'm hetero and christian and I don't have a problem with gay marriage.

As a gay man he's ruling in a case for a law that is saying he as a gay man can't do something. That to me at least is more likely that he would be biased then finding a Straight Christian man that is biased against gays.

Of course a straight christian judge could be biased, I just think its more likely in this case, the gay judge is the more likely to be biased.

I wonder if this is one of those cases where the Supreme Court will pussy out of a real ruling on this once and for all and just throw it out saying the judge shouldn't have been deciding the case.

Nullifidian beat me to it. It was just too stupid a remark to pass up. Carry on.

#257. Sure is a good thing we didn't have any black judges when it came to ruling on Civil Rights.

Maybe straight people should be recused from judging a gay rights issue as well. They're biased.

There are plenty of straight people here that aren't biased, sounds like you are one... I am too.

He's gay ruling in a case that if he ruled with Prop 8 would say that he can't get married... I'm sure there was no bias at all.

I think alcohol drinking, non pot-smokers should be recused from marijuana possession cases.

#257. Sure is a good thing we didn't have any black judges when it came to ruling on Civil Rights.

#259 | POSTED BY YAV

Civil Rights is a much less cloudy issue than gay marriage (if it weren't then Gay Marriage would just fall under current civil rights legislation).

Are you saying there is no way that this Gay Man didn't have any bias in this decision as to whether he should or shouldn't be allowed to marry his boyfriend (if he has one)?

#253 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Normally it wouldn't matter the sexual orientation of a judge to the issue at hand.

But little ceasar tried to force the pro-Prop 8 folks to be on camera.

He was overturned by the CA Supremem Court on both issues.

Allowing cameras and TV into the hearing and

Forcing the witnesses to be shown on TV.

#262 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

He has a boyfriend--reportedly over 20 years.

#224 | Posted by rightisright

Get married. You have the right to. Everything you listed will be so.

Isn't the point for a judge to recuse himself or herself is so there can't be legitimate claims of bias in the ruling?

The link to a story about the judge being gay is at the top of Drudge right now meaning millions and millions will see/read that and probably feel there was bias in this case.

" Sure is a good thing we didn't have any black judges when it came to ruling on Civil Rights."

Too bad that blacks were legally lynched by white judges and white juries in the South. They should have recused themselves.

#263 | Posted by MURPHY at 2010-08-04 09:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have no idea what your post was trying to say. It was mostly incoherent. Try a link. Try responding to the point that this judge was opposed by Pelosi and 20 house dems when nominated by Reagan as being insensitive to gays. That shows me he is fair and impartial. What does it show you?

"He has a boyfriend--reportedly over 20 years.

#264 | POSTED BY MURPHY "

The horror!

Are you saying he ruled incorrectly and with bias?

If so, present your argument. His reasoning is solid. Those seeking to support Prop 8 failed miserably, and all their witnesses refused to testify save 2. That wasn't just happenstance. Their argument when presented to themselves proved unsustainable, even to them.

But we see what previously was so defended by the Right when it came to cases before SCOTUS when Scalia refused to recuse himself.

You cut the legs out from under yourselves with that argument so it's rather hard to stand on them when making this argument.

And you think this will lead to today's ruling being successfully appealed?
Explain.

#255 | POSTED BY NESS_GADOL AT 2010-08-04 08:54 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

if the level of scrunity is a rational relationship, i believe that the decision would be overturned. As a general matter, courts will take the state at its word about there being a rational relationship - regardless of whether the rational relationship is strong, weak, whatever. Courts are reluctant to second-guess states on this issue. If they do, then they take on the role of the legislature - all in the context of an expert-driven, inherently subjective arena.

preserving the historical nature of marriage would be sufficient justification under a rational relationship test, in my opinion, because the level of what the state needs to show is soooo lowwww. all the state has to show that it's not arbitrary or irrational (yes, i know your response, and think you're wrong on it)

i think it would've been nice for the judge to have decided the issue of level of scrutiny to apply - which i think it will have to ultimately do.

i'm afraid i cannot be more specific with you than that, without quoting cases, which i have neither the time nor inclination to do. it is just my opinion of what the Supreme Court will do if this is analyzed under a rational relationship test. having said this, i think that the Court may well analyze it under a higher scrutiny.

Too bad that blacks were legally lynched by white judges and white juries in the South. They should have recused themselves.

Exactly my point. Thanks for making it CLEAR.

This proposition was found to be constitutional before it was put on the ballot.

So the CA Supreme Court found it so as well.

Now it goes to a federal judge who doesn't point to coherent issues except to say--the people of CA have no good reasons to deny gay people the right to marry.

(I am still reading the pos opinion--so this is my initial reading)

Except that 7 million people voted to define marriage in a traditional way of between one man and one woman.

Just like lawyers are required to get a license or the person cutting your hair--or the dentist.

There are rules and laws that society imposes on society.

And this guy gets to overturn the will of the people in defining marriage.

He is wrong and this will go the 9th circus. Hopefully they will have the entire panel hear it rather than 3. This will save time and expense--as whoever who loses--will appeal from there. They should just have it heard by the full panel. I think it is 9 judges??

Then it will go the SCOTUS.

He has a boyfriend--reportedly over 20 years.

#264 | Posted by MURPHY | Flag: Jealous

Remarkable, the citizens voted against it and a judge over turns it.

That is the new America?!?!?!?!?!?

#274 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

lol

Hubby and I celebrated 21 years...

Are you saying he ruled incorrectly and with bias?

I guess I have to say again that I'm not against gay marriage... if gays want to marry why is that my concern? I'm not gay and I'm already married.

What I'm saying is that clearly he has opened the door to accusations of bias, and with a 5-4 conservative lean to the SC, I wouldn't be shocked if they say he should have removed himself from the trial.

He's gay and if what Murphy says is true he's had a boyfriend for 20 years. I'm guessing he'd like to marry him.

#273 | Posted by MURPHY at 2010-08-04 09:14 PM | Reply | Flag

Your every point has already been refuted. Either refute the point that make your points null and void, or simply walk away when you have nothing more to say. To keep repeating points that have been shown to be invalid time and time again makes it look like you can't read or comprehend that your points have already been discussed and dismissed as being poor, and faulty logic.

Remarkable, the citizens voted against it and a judge over turns it.

Thankfully we don't live in a country or have a Constitution that allows a majority to decide the rights of a minority.

Consider that a safeguard in case you find yourself in the minority.

Just like lawyers are required to get a license or the person cutting your hair--or the dentist.

None of which are based on a moral argument.

Too bad that blacks were legally lynched by white judges and white juries in the South. They should have recused themselves.
Exactly my point. Thanks for making it CLEAR.

#272 | POSTED BY YAV

And what point was that? that you two are race card playing assholes who are afraid of having an open and honest discussion so you call the people who don't agree with you bigots and racists until they just stop? Great point... adds a lot. Thanks.

I'm guessing he'd like to marry him.

#277 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2010-08-04 09:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

He had his chance. 18,000 couples married in California before the ban. You guess wrong.

I'm guessing he'd like to marry him.

I'm guessing he would have already which would make him as biased as a married hetero.

And what point was that?

You really aren't that stupid, but you do play the race card well.

None of which are based on a moral argument.

#279 | POSTED BY YAV AT 2010-08-04 09:24 PM | REPLY | FLAG

i voted against prop. 8, and don't agree with it. but, i call bullshit, and with all due respect, all laws based on a moral argument.

He had his chance. 18,000 couples married in California before the ban. You guess wrong.

#281 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB

Maybe... maybe as a judge he saw the legal clusterfuck coming and they decided to wait until a final decision rather than go through what I'm sure was heartache for those 18,000 who did get married only to see prop 8 pass. Maybe they don't want to get married. Maybe they were saving up for a great big princess wedding. Who knows... basing things off of how straight people act if you're with someone for that long you clearly love him/her and if marriage is an option its clearly a step one would take.

You really aren't that stupid, but you do play the race card well.

#283 | POSTED BY YAV

Yeah, I'm playing the race card... you and Nulli keep linking this to Black lynchings though.

"21 years..."

My first marriage lasted that long.

There are plenty of straight people here that aren't biased, sounds like you are one... I am too. -- #260 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Lol. I take it your criterion for unbiasedness is "opposes gay marriage."

"The link to a story about the judge being gay is at the top of Drudge right now meaning millions and millions will see/read that and probably feel there was bias in this case."

But were he straight and ruled for the Proposition then that would, of course, not be a result of his bias.

Either he is a qualified and impartial judge or he is not, his sexual preference is irrelevant to the case or else the sexual preference of all straight judges should disqualify them as well. Probably a good idea, no one is really qualified to judge the relationships of others.

Who knows... basing things off of how straight people act if you're with someone for that long you clearly love him/her and if marriage is an option its clearly a step one would take.

#285 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2010-08-04 09:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell---in a relationship since 1983. You can't fit everyone into a neat little box.

For Bob

On the rulings the judge tried and were overturned by the CSC..

He also wanted all the campaign finance docs from Prop 8 supporters.

I don't think Rob should be allowed to sit on a jury if the defendant is female. Murphy shouldn't be allowed to sit on a jury if the defendant is male. Also, if they are Christians they should not be allowed to sit on a jury if the defendant is an atheist.

and impartial judge or he is not

That is determined on a case-by-case basis, not a once and for all decision.

But were he straight and ruled for the Proposition then that would, of course, not be a result of his bias.

I'M NOT AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE!!! Holy shit how many times do I have to fucking say this.

Well by that standard Nulli--you shouldn't serve at all--ever--on a jury involving anyone.

#289 | Posted by danni

You are right Danni for the most part.

The judge had no business overturning the votes of 7 million people either.

"The judge had no business overturning the votes of 7 million people either."

The judge's duty was to decide on the constitutional issues, the votes of the people are completely irrelevant to that task.

The judge had no business overturning the votes of 7 million people either.

#295 | POSTED BY MURPHY AT 2010-08-04 09:41 PM | REPLY | FLAG: Argumentum ad populum

The only way the people rallying against this Judge and His decision would ever be happy is if this decision came from 12 Old spinster Women that had caves that never had been spelunked before. Then there would be no problems for the Anti Walker clan.

Larry

Really? What other rights do you get to deny based on your religious beliefs?

#219 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-08-04 07:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

I get to deny none - I do not get to make laws. I said it was my belief. I would vote for someone with similar beliefs. If enough people think like I do my candidate will get elected and hopefully he or she will vote like the constituents who elected him/her. If enough people in the country think like my representative laws are made that reflect the will and beliefs of the people the government was elected by.

Supposedly that's how it works. Don't like the laws, get enough reps to change them. 38-0. Most of the country thinks like I do on this issue. Just because a gay judge with a 20 year boyfriend doesn't, does not mean it is going to stand.

My religous beliefs influence my behavior just as a lack of religous beliefs influence yours.

Civilization dictates tolerated behaviors. The greeks and romans liked young boys in some circles and it was socially accepted. Want to go back to those days?

Well, there we go then! Time for the fun to really begin...

...if two men can constitutionally get married, then...

...so can three men, or women, or all sorts of combos in exciting flavors.

Why? The same reasons and logic apply.

And shoot. All they need to say is that they're all in love.

Yeehaa!

Bite my bait (zat). You deserve it.

The judge's duty was to decide on the constitutional issues, the votes of the people are completely irrelevant to that task.

#296 | Posted by danni at 2010-08-04 09:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

So how constitutional is it to force people to buy health insurance DANNI?

Once again, constitutionality only rears its head to libruls when it affects "their" rights.

The judge had no business overturning the votes of 7 million people either. -- #295 | Posted by MURPHY

You asking for a do-over on Bush v. Gore 2000?

ooooh nice one Phoenix!

" Don't like the laws, get enough reps to change them."

Didn't hear your argument when the SC struck down McCain Feingold.
What you really mean is that if you agree with the law then the court is wrong to strike it down but if you disagree with it then it is their patriotic duty to strike it down.

The judge's duty was to decide on the constitutional issues, the votes of the people are completely irrelevant to that task.

#296 | Posted by danni at 2010-08-04 09:46 PM

So it's NOT okay for the voters, or their elected officials, to dictate the norms of society?

Okay then. Games on for all those horny 11 year old's out there then? If they're so willing, who the hell is "society" to say it's bad? Hell, it happens overseas anyway, right?

Or, does do we only ere when society decides the norms for marriage?

hmmmmm? It is entirely constitutional for the voters to decide the standards for marriage. Otherwise, and without societal tandards, what good is it?

This ruling will be overturned. The peoples decision will stand.

on some things I guess I am old fashioned. if they want to get all weird in the bedroom, that's their business. but-

marriage is between a man and a woman.

marriage is between a man and a woman.

#306 | Posted by AuntieSocial

Guess that settles that

Can anyone answer on what basis this judge had to overturn Prop 8??

Morality? Nope.

14th Amendment? Nope.

The answer is he based it on his opinion of Prop 8.

We had three cases ruled on by federal judges--

1) The AZ law and the judge chopped out parts of a state law--defying loads of precedent laws and cases. She was sorely wrong in her decision.

2) The VA judge who ruled against the gov't and said the case on health care goes forward. Denying the gov't motion to dismiss the case. He based his decision on the fact that the Commerce Clause is being twisted to force people to buy a product when that has never been done before. Imagine that!

3) Then there is this pos--federal judge who says morality isn't what it's cracked up to be --and because HE feels gays have rights to be married--despite the lawful ballot measure that 7 million people voted yes on. He knows best and overturned it.

Amazing times--a tale of two countries within the same borders.

(And NO Bob--we don't split the country)!

Can anyone answer on what basis this judge had to overturn Prop 8??

Well, it's a combination of two things. First, the law does not advance any legitimate interest of the State. Second, what it does achieve, it achieves in an unjustifiably discriminatory fashion. Prop 8 was overturned because here's no compelling reason for the State to impose this restriction.

It's called freedom. Some people like it.

"Common sense wins!"

To celebrate "Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more..."
www.funnyordie.com
#16 | Posted by LeeAtwater at 2010-08-04 05:27 PM

so where do we go from here?

Will the Roberts' SCOTUS say that THEY need to rule on this as a federal issue?
(I'm guessing "no")

If not, then it goes back to the states?
(fought on a state-by-state basis, which is 38-0 when voted upon....which will eventually lead to more judgements like today's)

What is YOUR endgame scenario?

Do you honestly think this will yield nationwide gay marriage via the Supreme Court?
Domestic partnerships and some kind of new dichotomy?

Do you honestly think this will yield nationwide gay marriage via the Supreme Court?

Ah, the unintended consequences. That day will be one of glorious irony.

First, the law does not advance any legitimate interest of the State.--snoofy

Of course it does--just like any law that society takes interest in.

Second, what it does achieve, it achieves in an unjustifiably discriminatory fashion. snoofy

No it doesn't--you can marry any man or woman if you are a woman or a man.

Prop 8 was overturned because here's no compelling reason for the State to impose this restriction.snoofy

That's your opinion.

And apparently the opinion of the judge because that's all he's got.

The states and the country make all kinds of laws that benefit society and society determines them thru the people they elect and the propositions that CA is allowed to put on the ballot.

Prop 8 was determined to be constitutional BEFORE it went on the ballot.

This judge says they are all wrong too.

Will the Roberts' SCOTUS say that THEY need to rule on this as a federal issue?
(I'm guessing "no")

I believe they will take it up after the 9th Circuit gets done.

The party who loses will appeal.

Now if the 9th Circuit decides that the Prop 8 WAS constitutional and upholds it--SCOTUS could turn down the appeal and it would be over--the CA voters win.

CA has a lawful referendum system and the people voted yes on Prop 8.

I would expect the SCOTUS to back up the voters of CA.

Maybe they won't--we'll have a year or so to wait to find out.

A federal judge in California on Wednesday overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying the voter-approved rule violated the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.

Good call; it did.

What I can't wait to see is how this plays out for the democrats with the voters. This is a LOSER with voters all over America. An even BIGGER loser with minorities, particularly blacks, who are opposed to gay marriage by a huge margin.

A house divided......

Hopefully the will of the people will prevail maybe then we can avoid the inevitable crying due to the laws of unintended consequences when someone loses their domestic partner insurance.

"Will the Roberts' SCOTUS say that THEY need to rule on this as a federal issue?
(I'm guessing "no")"

I believe they will take it up after the 9th Circuit gets done.
The party who loses will appeal.
Now if the 9th Circuit decides that the Prop 8 WAS constitutional and upholds it--SCOTUS could turn down the appeal and it would be over--the CA voters win.
CA has a lawful referendum system and the people voted yes on Prop 8.
I would expect the SCOTUS to back up the voters of CA.
Maybe they won't--we'll have a year or so to wait to find out.
#316 | Posted by MURPHY at 2010-08-04 11:22 PM

All correct aside from the SCOTUS purpose - which is to uphold the Constitutional law, not State intentions or interpretations. This includes what constitutes individual liberty of which Proposition 8 is undeniably hindering.

Can anyone answer on what basis this judge had to overturn Prop 8??

Morality? Nope.

14th Amendment? Nope.

The answer is he based it on his opinion of Prop 8.

How about reason and the law?

Civilization dictates tolerated behaviors. The greeks and romans liked young boys in some circles and it was socially accepted. Want to go back to those days?

No, and I don't see how allowing gay marriage between consenting adults will take us "back to those days."

"Funny how the liberals also seem to think the constitution provides for limits on personal freedom when it comes to owning/carrying a gun but not when it comes to gay marriage despite gun rights being clearly called out in the constitutional while gay marriage is completely absent. "

Straight marriage is absent, too.

Kinda blows your talking point all to hell.

It's called freedom. Some people like it.

Freedom and equality.

This whole notion of keeping marriages in the churches is asinine. My wife and I are both atheists. Get that? We are fucking married and it has nothing to with magical beings in the sky. Religion does not own the trademark to marriage.

"My religous beliefs influence my behavior just as a lack of religous beliefs influence yours. "

All due respect, you have no idea what my religious beliefs are; and in point of fact, my belief in equality is Jesus-based; something about loving thy neighbor as thyself. If I can't, in good conscience, embrace the idea of a gay majority dictating to me whether or not I could marry the woman I love, I don't believe I should be able to dictate to a gay couple they can't have the same rights I have.

"(Gays) are pissed off at their fathers, and their own inability to get shit straight in their own lives. So, their projecting their hate on society. Instead of consciously realizing they have a problem, and fixing it, or keeping it to themselves, like gentlemen, they want absolution."

Bwahahahahaha!

You don't know three gay people, do you?

When marriage becomes anything--it will then have to include polygamy.

Folks say that won't happen--but using the same contorted logic and reason--the courts will force society to allow polygamy.

Afterall--they are discriminating against people who want multiple spouses.

Individual liberty as Red posted.

And of course the ACLU has already filed cases in court for polygamy.

There are all kinds of laws that are passed by society that hinder individual liberty.

Laws against drugs, laws requiring licenses and laws against fraud, stealing, lying...

So now it comes down to one judge and his definition of morality--or lack therof--and his feelings on how society should treat it.

Murphy-
How about if you argue against polygamy when it's an issue instead of hiding behind a hypothetical to bash gays.

Freedom and equality.

#322 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Hi Gal, nice to see you again. You should post more often.

"(Gays) are pissed off at their fathers, and their own inability to get shit straight in their own lives. So, their projecting their hate on society. Instead of consciously realizing they have a problem, and fixing it, or keeping it to themselves, like gentlemen, they want absolution."

Who posted that??

That is so wrong on so many levels.

"When marriage becomes anything--it will then have to include polygamy."

You don't understand the first thing about superseding rights, do you?

"There are all kinds of laws that are passed by society that hinder individual liberty. Laws against drugs, laws requiring licenses and laws against fraud, stealing, lying..."

Except none of those laws apply only to this group, over here, while excluding that group, over there.

"So now it comes down to one judge and his definition of morality--or lack therof--and his feelings on how society should treat it."

Do you believe gay couples are currently treated the same as you and your husband? Or, more to the point: would you trade your rights for the rights of a gay couple? You know, no unlimited marital gifts, no social security, no tax-free inheritance, no joint parenting, possibly forced to testify against one another, etc...?

How about if you argue against polygamy when it's an issue instead of hiding behind a hypothetical to bash gays.

#327 | Posted by BetelG

Because it's in our face Boyd--just like this judge and his dorky decision.

And I am not bashing gays.

I am for traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

I voted yes on 8 because I care about the kids of California. A public schoolteacher could quite possibly get through the whole year without mentioning the mother/father scenario here. Furthermore, this slippery slope could lead to forced curriculum IMO.

"Hey. I just want the same rights you and your wife have."

And -- unlike gays -- you can marry and get them.

Again.

Murphy-

If you are against gay unions and/or marriage, then just say so. Polygamy has nothing to do with it.

Furthermore, this slippery slope could lead to forced curriculum IMO.

#332 | Posted by phys_ill

Already has...

"Furthermore, this slippery slope could lead to forced curriculum IMO."

Wha?!? Do you actually mean teachers might have to admit gays exist?!?

Oh, the horror!

" Then there is this pos--federal judge who says morality isn't what it's cracked up to be --and because HE feels gays have rights to be married--despite the lawful ballot measure that 7 million people voted yes on. He knows best and overturned it."

You listen to me, you sad piece of work.

I've been down this road before, as someone who grew up in the South during a time of segregation. I personally heard ministers preach from the pulpit that it was God's plan that some people were destined to be "hewers of wood and drawers of water." I saw the "White Only" and "Colored" signs, which were posted BY LAW. I saw that African-Americans had to be damn sure of the correct size when they bought clothes, because they weren't permitted to return anything they bought.

I saw people hit in the head with a policeman's club because they dared to try and order a ham sandwich at the lunch counter of their choosing. I saw white boys assault black girls who refused them sexual favors. When I was five, I saw - on television - the Governor of the State of Arkansas, Orval Faubus, try to keep African-Americans out of s school they wished to attend. A few years later, I saw the Freedom Riders get clubbed and kicked and shot at when they tried to speak out against all this wrong, and to help those who needed help.

And I saw many, many more than seven million people willingly and enthusiastically participate in, encourage and uphold this apartheid with their votes for segregationist candidates. These people felt, very strongly indeed, that they had God on their side - and unlike many of today's "moralists," these were people who were actually in church twice every Sunday and again on Wednesday, too.

As I've said earlier in this thread, the great wrong of segregation was righted in 1964 by legislators of a kind I wish we had today, men who understood what this nation of ours stands for, and who gambled their entire political futures on standing up to an electorate that was hell-bent on enshrining hatred and intolerance in every possible aspect of American life, including our laws, our workplaces, our schools and our churches.

I know this will not penetrate that lump of meat between your ears, but what you are participating in is exactly the same thing as those so-called "nice" people of 1957, who so heartily believed that "the Nigra better know his place," and who so heartily believed that they had the blessing of the Lord God Almighty in their efforts to keep African-Americans in that place.

What you want is to feel better about yourself by making someone lesser than yourself. You'd like to have the law of this nation behind you. And you justify it with talk of "morality."

What you are doing is a stench in the nostrils of God, and I pity you your small-mindedness and your fear of anything you don't understand. I am glad that one judge has the decency and the courage to stand up to the likes of you and those seven million cretins whose prejudice you cite as justification for the horrible wrong you have done and want to keep doing. We need more Americans like that judge - people who actually respect the law instead of trying to make it suit their emotional convenience.

I hope that when America makes marriage equality the law of the land - as it eventually will - that people like you can find something more constructive to do with your twisted need to put your prejudices above the human rights of others.

Murphy-
re: Because it's in our face Boyd--just like this judge and his dorky decision.

And I am not bashing gays.

I am for traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

#331 | Posted by MURPHY at 2010-08-05 12:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

What's "in your face"?

But it does Boyd.

Are you going to deny polygamists their individual liberty and discriminate against plural marriages?

It's the next stop on the road if this is allowed.

And I can put forth my arguments--just like you.

Mary--I understand your arguments--but---

Gays and blacks are not the same.

And more name calling--there seems to be a pattern...

I am for traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

Murphy doesn't realize she's on the losing side of history. Young people are much more favorable to gay marriage. When these old reactionaries die out, it's inevitable.

The old get old, and the young get stronger.

May take a week, and it may take longer.

They got the guns, but we got the numbers.

Gonna win yeah, we're taking over.

Come on!

And you justify it with talk of "morality."

Actually --the judge brought it up--not me.

Murphy-
re: "And I can put forth my arguments--just like you.

#339 | Posted by MURPHY at 2010-08-05 12:11 AM | Reply | Flag:"

But your arguments aren't against the issue at hand. It's like fearing a commie takeover because you can check out the books at the library for free, not that you would ever do that...

re: "I am for traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

#340 | Posted by MURPHY at 2010-08-05 12:14 AM | Reply | Flag:"

Then do so.

Maybe this all started with the "slippery slope" of allowing blacks and whites to marry...

Conservatives were against that too.

Boyd--How many times do I have to post that I am for traditional marriage between one man and one woman for you to get it?

When you change marriage to include gays--it is no longer between one man and one woman.

It is whatever some judge feels it should be--not society.

So it is entirely probable that polygamy will be the next stop in the road.

#328 | Posted by nullifidian

Hi Null! Good to see you too. I was just thinking that posting on Drudge feels like coming home. OTOH, sometimes one needs to get away from hom, ya know?!?

I am for traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

Murphy, the problem isn't that you are for traditional marriage. The problem is that you are trying to impose what you are for onto other people who are not like-minded, don't share your values or, in this case, heterosexual persuasion. Danforth said it best:

"If I can't, in good conscience, embrace the idea of a gay majority dictating to me whether or not I could marry the woman I love, I don't believe I should be able to dictate to a gay couple they can't have the same rights I have."

"So now it comes down to one judge and his definition of morality--or lack therof--and his feelings on how society should treat it."

Did I hear correctly that this particular judge was a Bush appointee?

Murphy-
re: "It is whatever some judge feels it should be--not society."

So, just to get your position clear, "society" and not a judge or the constitution should decide what rights someone has?

"Gays and blacks are not the same."

Bullshit.

All available scientific evidence suggests that sexual orientation is determined either genetically or in utero, which makes it precisely the same - a trait for which the bearer has no responsibility, cannot really change (Ted Haggard and Michael Jackson, anyone?) and should not have held against him by any decent person.

Murphy-
I'm just trying to figure out who or what you think should make the decision.

"What you are doing is a stench in the nostrils of God, and I pity you your small-mindedness and your fear of anything you don't understand. I am glad that one judge has the decency and the courage to stand up to the likes of you and those seven million cretins whose prejudice you cite as justification for the horrible wrong you have done and want to keep doing. "

That was good, Mary.

any decent person

It's Murphy. There is no hope for that one.

Wha?!? Do you actually mean teachers might have to admit gays exist?!?

No, I mean that if you tell kids about traditional marriage you absolutely have to pair that with same-sex marriage.

Whereas, I believe kids should learn about the family starting at preschool... The teaching of sex partnerships (alternative or not) should occur at around 5th or 6th grade.

"I believe kids should learn about the family starting at preschool..."

All families, or just the families of which you approve?

" if you tell kids about traditional marriage you absolutely have to pair that with same-sex marriage. "

Okay.

Where's the problem?

"No, I mean that if you tell kids about traditional marriage you absolutely have to pair that with same-sex marriage."

Um, is it just possible that you could simply say, "Grown-ups get married a lot of the time?"

The rest they'll figure out as they're old enough to process it, just as you processed that there was more to hetero marriage than white dresses and wedding cake when you were old enough.

Gays have always had the right to marry. All a gay man has to do is find a woman to marry him, and he can be married. All a gay woman has to do is find a man to marry her. And she too can be married. And not one legal authority can deny them marrige. No one can. Same rules as for straight people. The gays want to change the rules. Marrige always has been 1 man + 1 woman, and always will be. How long before this case hits the supreme court?

HLAY-
Why are you so threatened by this?

In other words, traditional marriage is cheapened when you have two same sex people get married, but the sanctity of marriage is preserved when a gay man or woman fakes being attracted to the opposite sex in order to get married.

You can't be serious.

"Gays have always had the right to marry. All a gay man has to do is find a woman to marry him, and he can be married. All a gay woman has to do is find a man to marry her."

If the majorities were reversed, do you believe the gay majority should have the right to say you could only marry someone of the same gender?

"Marrige always has been 1 man + 1 woman, and always will be."

Pick up a history book, for God's sake.

When did the gays get the bright idea to marry? I would think if something was truely a "civil right" they would have been trying to get married for a couple of hundred years now. Funny how this "civil right" just popped up recently.

"Funny how this "civil right" just popped up recently."

Did you think the same thing about lunch counters? I mean, they certainly were around for a long time before Greensboro.

would have been trying to get married for a couple of hundred years now.

Seeing as how as recently as the past decade or so a person could be dragged behind a truck for being gay, I think I can understand the hesitation.

I really hope you're just a troll.

"If the majorities were reversed, do you believe the gay majority should have the right to say you could only marry someone of the same gender?"
Wouldn't that be funny? If gays were the "majority", we wouldn't have a society for very long, would we?

"Wouldn't that be funny? If gays were the "majority", we wouldn't have a society for very long, would we?"

Or course we would. Families would continue to procreate, or adopt, just like now.

So are you going to address the question, or not?

"I really hope you're just a troll."
Nope, no troll here. Actually, I'm an Obama loving Liberal, who just happens not to support gay marriage. FYI - I don't support the "global warming" crap either.

Ummm look at history. Gays have never been the majority, will never be the majority. So, why ask questions about something that will never be?

"Actually, I'm an Obama loving Liberal"

HLAY2009
Seniority: 655
Party: Independent
Ideology: Conservative

Oops.

Another conservative caught in a lie.

"why ask questions about something that will never be?"

What's the harm in answering? Since you believe the majority should be able to dictate which rights are granted to the minority, I'm wondering if you really believe it, or if your philosophy only goes so far.

"Gays have always had the right to marry. All a gay man has to do is find a woman to marry him, and he can be married. All a gay woman has to do is find a man to marry her."

In other words, this situation is best addressed by people not marrying those they want to marry, and instead, marrying those you want them to marry.

Oh yeah, real Solomonic solution there.

Another conservative caught in a lie

I lied about nothing. I am an Obama loving liberal. I walked in the freakin hot sun for hours doing voter registration on behalf of Obama. I gave over $300 towards his election campaign. And that's not counting the money i spent on T-shirts, mugs, and an umbrella from the Obama campaign. While your doing your detective work, why don't you look up my posts, and see who i support? FYI - The Greatest prersident Ever of The United States - Barack Obama doesn't support gay marriage either - he's for civil unions.

"I lied about nothing. I am an Obama loving liberal. "

"Ideology: Conservative"

You wrote both. You were lying at least once.

why don't you look up my posts

Your only recent posts are apparently the ones on this thread. Got another story?

No, all i'm saying is, they have always had the right to marry. Just like everyone else. one man + one woman. I am no more discriminating against the gays than I am the mormons who want to marry 10 people, or others who want change marriage to be what they want it to be.
Gays can love whomever they want - no one can stop them.

Why are people accused of being "bigots" or whatever just because they haver a different point of view?

"Why are people accused of being "bigots" or whatever just because they haver a different point of view?"

Because you're confusing the right to marry with the right to marry the one you love.

Again, if gays were in the majority, would you want them to have the right to say you could only marry someone of the same gender?

"Did you think the same thing about lunch counters? I mean, they certainly were around for a long time before Greensboro."

You really think gay marriage is the same as the civil rights movement? come on ....

You really think gay marriage is the same as the civil rights movement?

It's not? Explain.

"You really think gay marriage is the same as the civil rights movement? "

Of course. Second-class is second-class is second-class.

Why won't you answer my simple and direct question?

"Again, if gays were in the majority, would you want them to have the right to say you could only marry someone of the same gender?"

If gay marriage was the standard, then yes they would have the right to say that since gay marrige had always been the standard, then we are going to continue with the same standard. This isn't about being against gays. I'm not against gays. But that doesn't mean i have to go along with everything the gays want.
I love Obama, but that doesn't mean I go along with every single thing he does.

Since we're asking questions, i have one for you.
I have gay friends. When the day comes that i get an invitation in the mail to a gay wedding, what do i do? Do i go and act like a hypocrite, or do I be honest and say, sorry, I just can't come to your wedding? i mean, they know how i feel, so i would be shocked to receive an invitation, but I can't act like i support something I don't. If i were one of your friends, would you be offended if i were honest with you?

"If gay marriage was the standard, then yes they would have the right to say that since gay marrige had always been the standard, then we are going to continue with the same standard."

If you think that gays should have such a far-reaching right - one impacting your own freedoms - under Danforth's hypothetical circumstances, why do you have such a problem with them wanting to marry under today's real circumstances, something that does nothing to you whatever?

"When the day comes that i get an invitation in the mail to a gay wedding, what do i do?"

It depends. Do you think that day is about you, or them?

It depends. Do you think that day is about you, or them?

It would be about them of course. But would you want me putting on a happy face, when inside I'm really thinking that what is going on is not really a marriage?

"Since we're asking questions, i have one for you.
I have gay friends. When the day comes that i get an invitation in the mail to a gay wedding, what do i do? Do i go and act like a hypocrite, or do I be honest and say, sorry, I just can't come to your wedding? i mean, they know how i feel, so i would be shocked to receive an invitation, but I can't act like i support something I don't. If i were one of your friends, would you be offended if i were honest with you?"

Gentle Reader:

The point of etiquette is never self-expression. It is, rather, contributing in small ways and large to the general well-being of the circles in which you move, sacrificing your own personal comfort to a greater good.

Since you do not wish to appear as if you are approving of a ceremony about which you have reservations, the polite thing to do is to beg off on some grounds that are universally acceptable, even if you are lying through your teeth.

Tell Adam and Steve that business concerns will make it impossible for you to be there on their Big Day. Or that you are having your piles operated on, or whatever white lie you find convenient.

Whatever you do, do not be honest with them. Nothing damages friendships as much as honesty, as any man who has had his mistress confront his wife can tell you.

See how easy that was?

"It would be about them of course. But would you want me putting on a happy face, when inside I'm really thinking that what is going on is not really a marriage?"

Only if you really believe your first sentence.

We can go on about this until the sun comes up, but it is going to boil down to what supreme court says. How long before this issue gets to the supreme court?

How long before this issue gets to the supreme court?

What difference does it make?

What difference does it make?

Because that will be the final word on gay marriage. They will either say yes or no and that will be the end of the debate. We wont have one group saying no, another group saying yes. one state saying no, another state saying yes. There will either be gay marriage or there wont be.

" There will either be gay marriage or there wont be."

Not so. If it is ruled that there is no Constitutional right for members of the same sex to marry one another (and with John Roberts as Chief Justice, that is possible, if not exactly correct), it would still be possible for states to authorize such marriages under states' rights, as they have already.

You might like to know that I live in a state where same-sex marriage is legal (Iowa), and that it has changed nothing whatever except to give a little dignity to a few people who needed it. The corn still grows green and lush, John Deere still churns out tractors in their thousands, the Lutherans still have their hot-dish socials, and old ladies still swap crocheting tips. There have been no floats full of naked, copulating gays in the local Fourth of July parades, nor are mental institutions full of dazed, tearful children unable to cope with the idea that Aunt Bea loves Lynette, the cashier at Hy-Vee.

The only thing that has changed is that people laid aside an ancient hatred in the name of fairness, a path I would recommend to any state considering the issue.

"If it is ruled that there is no Constitutional right for members of the same sex to marry one another... "

Wouldn't it also have to be ruled there is no Constitutional right for members of opposite sexes to marry one another?

There have been no floats full of naked, copulating gays in the local Fourth of July parades, nor are mental institutions full of dazed, tearful children unable to cope with the idea that Aunt Bea loves Lynette, the cashier at Hy-Vee.

The only thing that has changed is that people laid aside an ancient hatred in the name of fairness

Again, please do not take my opinions as a hate against gays. I just want marriage to stay what it is. I just think that once we open Pandora's Box, how will we ever close it again? The mormons can use the same arguments. And then who knows who'll want to get married.

"The mormons can use the same arguments."

Not if they understand the legal underpinnings of superseding rights.

" I just want marriage to stay what it is."

Why?

And have the legal gay marriages which have occurred affected your life at all?

"And have the legal gay marriages which have occurred affected your life at all?"

No. no they haven't. But, gay marrige is not legal in my state, and no one that I know is involved in a gay marriage. But, i don't think i have to be personally involved in a situation to have an opinion on it.

"I just want marriage to stay what it is."

At the risk of being accused of practicing therapy without a license, I think you should ask yourself why you want that. What need does it fulfill? What are you afraid of happening if things do change?

So far as Pandora's Box is concerned, I think you may have been listening to the right-wing demagogues a little too much. If you're concerned about people getting a right to marry their pets, or their sisters, or having seven wives, you should remember that one of the key points in today's ruling was that no purpose was served by the State of California forbidding same-sex marriage. Those other examples will remain prohibited because purposes are served by forbidding those unions. Animals cannot give informed consent to sex with humans, so the state does have an interest in protecting those creatures. Incest gives rise to genetic problems, so again the state has an interest and purpose in regulating that. And if more than two people marry, the questions of property rights, inheritance, divorce and child custody become extremely complex, requiring prohibitively large and expensive amounts of judicial and legislative time to unravel, with a large possibility that no satisfactorily fair result can be achieved. So the state has a purpose in regulating that.

But keeping two genetically unrelated human beings from settling down together and making payments on a three-bedroom ranch and a six-piece bedroom suite serves no purpose, and that's why Judge Walker ruled as he did.

"No. no they haven't. But, gay marrige is not legal in my state"

So? They're legal in other states, and in some cases, have been for a while. If those marriages haven't affected you, why would you believe a gay couple marrying in your state would?

"Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs' objective as "the right to same-sex marriage" would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples ...across the state enjoy -- namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."
~Judge Walker

Maybe i'm just old school. It's what I'm comfortable with.

"Maybe i'm just old school. It's what I'm comfortable with."

So, what I hear you saying is that you feel the law should be used to take happiness away from some people so as to keep you comfortable.

Pardon my use of such an old-fashioned word, but don't you think that's a bit wicked?

It's what I'm comfortable with.

Your personal comfort zone has exactly zero to do with establishing and protecting the rights of millions of your fellow Americans.

"So, what I hear you saying is that you feel the law should be used to take happiness away from some people so as to keep you comfortable"

Come on now .... "take happiness away from some people" .... don't you think that's a little dramatic? No one is "taking happiness away" from anyone.

I think I could say the same back to you - should people be made to feel uncomfortable and thus unhappy just to make some people happy?
We all have opinions, and we have a right to our opinions.

If you feel your case will hold water, get it to the supreme court, plead your case, and lets see what they decide.

But, don't say that I'm "taking happiness away" from you, or imply that somehow I am against gays.

And no, i don't think I'm being "wicked". If you were my friend, and someone tried to gay bash you, I'd have your back. If you and your significant other went on vaction, I'd get your mail and water your plants.

Shouldn't I go with what makes me the most comfortable? Isn't that why you have the opinions you have, because that's what your comfortable with?

"Your personal comfort zone has exactly zero to do with establishing and protecting the rights of millions of your fellow Americans"

That's where the disagreement comes in ... I don't see that 2 men have "a right" to marry. You do. But i guess that's what your COMFORTABLE with.

"I don't see that 2 men have "a right" to marry."

Again: "Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs' objective as "the right to same-sex marriage" would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples ...across the state enjoy -- namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."
~from today's ruling

That's where the disagreement comes in ... I don't see that 2 men have "a right" to marry. You do. But i guess that's what your COMFORTABLE with.

Posted by HLAY2009 at 2010-08-05 03:17 AM | Reply

Isn't that the same shitty assed comment made when Whites were against blacks getting married??? Then the same fucked up comments by people against interracial couples from marrying???

Larry

"Shouldn't I go with what makes me the most comfortable?"

Um, I think following that line of reasoning is how Charles Manson got where he is today.

It's clear to me that you have no respect for the rights of others, and that your "some of my best friends are" protestations are just window-dressing for some pretty deeply-held prejudice.

Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."

California to recognize - Didn't California already state what they thought marriage was? Isn't that what the vote was all about? Seems everybody was cool with the vote - until it didn't turn out the way they wanted. The gays would have been perfectly happy if the voters would have said yes to gay marriage, then the voting process would be just fine. But since it didn't turn out the way they wanted, now they have to go another route. And when that route doesn't go the way they want, then what?

no respect for the rights of others - Just because i don't see things the way you think I should??

some of my best friends are - Uhh ... sorry bud, never did i use the word "best" in regards to my gay friends.

pretty deeply-held prejudice - Yep, just because i have a different opinion than you, I'm predjudiced. How open minded of you. People don't see things your way, "They're bigots".... whatever people ... live in your "everybody pickin on me" bubble.