Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional..

[overthebow]

August 4th was a great day. I celebrated with rainbow sherbet ice cream and a trip to all the gay bars in West Hollywood. Awesome night

Wish I could have been there with you to make the trip.

 

[overthebow]

Money, baby!

Plaintiffs are two couples. Kristin Perry and Sandra
Stier reside in Berkeley, California and raise four children
together. Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami reside in Burbank,
California. Plaintiffs seek to marry their partners and have been
denied marriage licenses by their respective county authorities on
the basis of Proposition 8. No party contended, and no evidence at
trial suggested, that the county authorities had any ground to deny
marriage licenses to plaintiffs other than Proposition 8.
Having considered the trial evidence and the arguments of
counsel, the court pursuant to FRCP 52(a) finds that Proposition 8
is unconstitutional and that its enforcement must be enjoined.

My bolding.

 

[overthebow]

That would be Jerry Brown.

With the
exception of the Attorney General, who concedes that Proposition 8
is unconstitutional, Doc #39, the government defendants refused to
take a position on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims and declined to
defend Proposition 8.

 

[HB1965]

Then tell me dear why is this federal judge the very first judge in history to take this stance?

You are wrong about me. If the people in California voted in such massive numbers in favor of gay marriage I would abide by their decision. I would feel exactly the same about a single federal judge, without any legal precedent, without any historical support, coming in and over throwing the wishes of 7 million people engaged in a constitutionally protected amendment process.

Notwithstanding your misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment, the judge made a political decision. The 14th Amendment doesn't have a damn thing to do with sex, marriage, or gay rights.

Vette the 14th amendment protects against descrimination and denying someone their liberties. Your law descriminates. Plan and simple. And your argument about him being the first judge to use the federal constitution to trump this type of law doesn't hold water. Judges have cited the constitution to trump state laws numerous times. This is no different.

BTW the Population of California is listed as 33 million plus. I'm certain that a good 60% of those are illegable to vote. 7 million is hardly a clear majority.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RoryN]

What we are seeing is the dis-assembly of state sovereignty, a democratic majority dispossessed by a single federal judge, and the complete centralization of power in the hands of the federal judiciary.

If that federal judge had ruled in favor of beating minorities and elevating old morons to the status of demigods, you would be singing his praises. So, shut up.

 

[overthebow]

I know the history. I did read the case. The judge made a political decision. This is the frist time a judge has ever made this argument in regard to gay marriage. Maybe he should have disclosed his gayness and recused himself, but that is another subject.

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with sex, gay rights, gay marriage. This judge, like none other before him, has decided there is a penumbra there for gay marriage. he's decided the federal government is going to manage marriage.

I say he's wrong. Is there a penumbra in the 14th Amendment equal protection clause that protects rich people from being treated differently than everyone else, from higher taxes for example? If not why not? Is there one protecting incest? If not why not? Is there one in there protecting polygamy? How about bestiality?

What we are seeing is the dis-assembly of state sovereignty, a democratic majority dispossessed by a single federal judge, and the complete centralization of power in the hands of the federal judiciary.

Good for you. Say he is wrong all you want, but I'm willing to bet that his ruling is tight enough (I haven't finished reading all 138 pages, day job and all of that) but the appeals court will not be able to overturn it and there won't be much for the US Supreme Court to rule on. The only hope you have is for another state, say Alabama or some other red neck hive, to get a case on the Federal docket and create an opening for this activist Court.

But good luck with that.

Marriages in California must be recognized in all states.

Your second American revolution is happening, you just don't see it and you are not a part of it.

Hen.

 

[unregistered]

 

[overthebow]

And of course, there is this:

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=722477

 

[RobDownSouth]

I had a great essay bookmarked to counter the Vettebigot's "gay marriage leads to polygamy! and bestiality! and polygamous bestiality!" rants. I suppose I better re-check the link while waiting for the General Board's most notorious homophobe's inevitable commentary.

I know the history. I did read the case. The judge made a political decision. This is the frist time a judge has ever made this argument in regard to gay marriage. Maybe he should have disclosed his gayness and recused himself, but that is another subject.

I say he's wrong. Is there a penumbra in the 14th Amendment equal protection clause that protects rich people from being treated differently than everyone else, from higher taxes for example? If not why not? Is there one protecting incest? If not why not? Is there one in there protecting polygamy? How about bestiality?

Did I call this one correctly or what?

Vettebigot is a walkin', talkin' talking-point regurgitator.

 

[unregistered]

 

[overthebow]

Actually, I'll go you one better. The Ninth Circuit, the most liberal and reversed in the nation, will probably uphold Judge Walker, and the SCOTUS because of the history of Justice Kennedy, will probably uphold it as well, say 5-4 in support. He would have to reverse his decision in Lawrence v Texas to do any different. Read it, you may learn something. He wasn't right then, and Walker is right now, but we will all have to live with it just the same. Don't forget the SCOTUS also decided Dredd Scott didn't they?

Take off your batshit crazy filter glasses before you read these decisions, and you too might learn something.

 

[unregistered]

 

[overthebow]

If you had a brain, you would realize that Lawrence v Texas lays the ground work for gay marriage by outlawing laws against Sodomy, after all you cannot have gay marriage if the result of it is illegal can you? If you think that's batshit crazy make the most of it, but since he wrote that decision one can surmise it's the reason why we can count Kennedy, the swing vote in this matter, over onto the liberal side.

No, Lawrence v. Texas said the State had no right to criminalize sexual behavior between two consenting adults.

In short told Texas to "Get the fuck out of the bedroom!"

 

[unregistered]

 

[RoryN]

Vetteman, please complete the following questionnaire...

The highest level of education I have completed is:

*Some high school
*GED
*High school
*Some college
*BA or equivalent
*Graduate school
*I hang out in a bar with a Confederate flag hanging over the beer taps, and Chip, the non-tax-paying ex-Aryan Nation member, tells me what to think.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You are an uninformed dummy, you've always been an uninformed dummy. You see Mr. Dummy the court decided the case on federal constitutional grounds. In particular the 14th Amendment...which has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with same sex marriage, or homosexual rights.

"The ruling was the first in the country to strike down a marriage ban on federal constitutional grounds. Previous cases have cited state constitutions."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage-california-20100805,0,2696248.story

The fact is, a federal judge has decided to nullify an election, the votes of 7 million Californians engaged in a constitutionally protected amendment process, with a political decision based on politics, and possibly personal morality, instead of a legal decision based on the law, or the real meaning of the Constitution. I understand your enthusiasm, you favor the decision, but you see it matters who gets to make these decisions in a free democracy governed by the rule of law.

It obviously does.

It prevents discrimination. Banning homosexual marriage is discrimination.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[overthebow]

Tell me, did it say "Get the fuck out of the bedroom!" in the case of incest that might take place there? How about polygamy? If bestiality took place in the "bedroom" would the state have to get out too?

Hmmm, you seem to have skipped the 'consenting adults' part of my post.

This being Texas, the state has a place in the bedroom only if the sheep is ugly.

 

[unregistered]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Is banning incest discrimination? How about polygamy?

Polygamy is legal.

Regarding incest you said you don't care what 2 adults do in their own bedroom.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Is banning incest discrimination? How about polygamy?

Incest, of course, has one non-consenting party.

Polygamy?
There is a rational basis for states to ban polygamous marriages. There is plenty of historical evidence of an imbalance of power, coercion (particularly of young Mormon girls), and an enormous financial burden placed on the state. You cannot make these arguments against gay marriage.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Powertone]

On another note, seems semen really likes an ampic chick who takes it up the ass from her brothers and has them piss in her ass. But hey, that's not gay so it's cool.

you're this desperate for approval by GB fuckwads like yourself that you flat out make shit up
ask yourself why ~