Prop 8 ruled Unconstitutional!

[Boxlicker101]

Have you read the transcripts of the trial? The defense was absolutely pitiful.

And I say that as someone who was pretty damn nervous about the money and firepower they could have had at their disposal

The defense threatened to have hundreds of expert witnesses, but managed to come up with three, one of whom admitted that marriage is highly beneficial to same-sex couples and their children,and that the worst problems children face is the stigma and insecurity that comes from knowing their parents are not allowed to be married.

He couldn't really put a finger on any social benefits to denying marriage rights to gays and lesbians.

Seriously, the defense won this case for us.

I would give you a link to the transcripts, but the only one I can find is from one of those hateful liberal newspapers. I'm not surprised, frankly. I don't think the anti crowd want to publicise the truth about this case very much.

There might be some unforeseen negatives, but I don't know of any (Duh, if we knew of them, they wouldn't be unforeseen.) But the known benefits, stable, two-parent families, in particular, are agreed to by just about anybody.

I wonder how many current relationships will break up because one member wants to get married and the other doesn't. I've known straight relationships where this happened, and I suppose the same thing will happen to some gays now.

One of the warnings that were being put forth was that gay and lesbians with the hots for children will marry those of their own gender to get at the children of their spouses - sort of a reverse Humbert Humbert situation. This probably will happen a few times, but nowhere near as often as it does in straight marriages.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yeah, Box, all the usual homophobic excuses were presented. But excuses are not facts of law...

 

[bronzeage]

Yeah, Box, all the usual homophobic excuses were presented. But excuses are not facts of law...

There is a very simple reason for the weak defense.

There is little to no credible scientific evidence to present in court. The real basis for their objections are religious. If they present scripture as evidence, they are asking the government to enforce religious law.

This draws the inescapable comparison to the Islamic world and Sharia law. This is something the religious right knows it must avoid at all costs. Their real political force comes from the middle moderates, who are content to align with them on most social issues. If they paint themselves with the same brush used on Islamics who intend to stone an adulterous woman, they lose that support.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Idiots.

The issue isnt fairness or cosmic justice. The issue is WHO GETS TO DECIDE whazzup! Does the mob decide? Do the criminals decide? Or does a philosopher-coroner-judge decide?

When I'm king all you fairies are going to a concentration camp where you'll play house with your life partner and make I HEART Sarah Palin car tags.

 

[bronzeage]

Idiots.

The issue isnt fairness or cosmic justice. The issue is WHO GETS TO DECIDE whazzup! Does the mob decide? Do the criminals decide? Or does a philosopher-coroner-judge decide?

When I'm king all you fairies are going to a concentration camp where you'll play house with your life partner and make I HEART Sarah Palin car tags.

When you die, the first person in the room is going to find you in black fishnet stockings and a Dale Evens swimsuit.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

When you die, the first person in the room is going to find you in black fishnet stockings and a Dale Evens swimsuit.

I only wear Esther Williams aquatic fashions.

 

[bronzeage]

I only wear Esther Williams aquatic fashions.

Don't wear it in the sun. You are about to burst into flames, as it is.

 

[3113]

More good news for JBJ!

California Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a motion Friday calling for resumption of same-sex weddings in the state. Brown filed the motion after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker previously overturned Proposition 8, California's voter-approved gay marriage ban.

If the judge goes for it, we'll be marryin' gays by the boatload again!

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I fear that's highly unlikely. Same-sex marriage will remain in stasis until the SCOTUS either makes a decision or refuses to hear the case. The latter would be what I'd like to see. I don't think anyone wants to put that kind of pressure on poor Justice Kennedy, though he might get a surprise additional vote from Scalia, of all people.

Of course if Judge Walker goes for it, think of the boost to the California economy!

 

[statsultan]

Have you read the transcripts of the trial? The defense was absolutely pitiful.

And I say that as someone who was pretty damn nervous about the money and firepower they could have had at their disposal

The defense threatened to have hundreds of expert witnesses, but managed to come up with three, one of whom admitted that marriage is highly beneficial to same-sex couples and their children,and that the worst problems children face is the stigma and insecurity that comes from knowing their parents are not allowed to be married.

He couldn't really put a finger on any social benefits to denying marriage rights to gays and lesbians.

Seriously, the defense won this case for us.

I would give you a link to the transcripts, but the only one I can find is from one of those hateful liberal newspapers. I'm not surprised, frankly. I don't think the anti crowd want to publicise the truth about this case very much.

Exactly right.

The defense's sole argument was : "Homosexuals aren't a suspect class and should not get heightened scrutiny. Therefore, all the government has to have is a legitimate governmental interest that is rationally related to a gay marriage ban."

The only problem was, they couldn't come up with a legitimate governmental interest. All they said was "preserving the historical definition of marriage." Where is the governmental interest in that? There is none. That's why they lost.

Every other argument they attempted to make was either destroyed by the plaintiffs, or fell apart in a spectacularly impressive example of self-implosion. Really. It was almost as if the defense was paid off by the plaintiffs. They were that bad.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I think Judge Walker was really canny in his decision. From what I read in the media, appeals judges are reluctant to void decisions based on facts and Judge Walker used page after page of factual evidence in his ruling.. Decisions based on legal interpretation are fair game but facts are hard to overrule. This will be interesting . . .

Wouldn't it be a hoot if the Ninth Circuit refused to even consider . . . and the SCOTUS did the same?

 

[amicus]

I am going to repeat this, regardless of the outcry, but, the people in 30 States, including California, went to the Ballot Box and cast their votes for one man, one woman marriage.

California has become a political and social joke. The Ninth Circuit is known by their actions to be the most left wing in the entire Nation, the Judge in this case is openly Gay.

What your are acomplishing by all this ruckus is the diminution of the political process in which the people have the final word. You are alienating even sympathetic onlookers to the homosexual community by flaunting it in a nation's face.

Don't whine when the people put you in your place.

Amicus

 

[theravenfox]

Here's the long and short of it in my opinion.

No one had to vote on whether it was legal or politically acceptable for HETEROSEXUALS to marry, so why would we need a vote on HOMOSEXUAL marriage? American adults should be able to enter into any contractual agreement they desire. I've never understood how it could be ILLEGAL when the only basis for the argument against same-sex marriage is RELIGIOUS.

If you are personally against same-sex marriage then I strongly suggest you don't enter into one. Otherwise, let's keep that whole seperation of church and state thing going...I kinda like it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Ami:

"The people" cannot pass laws that are unconstitutional. Siddown and shuddup, you pitiful old eunuch. Quit your falsetto hysteria.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Ami, you seem to have a gap in your undergraduate education. This country is a government of law, not of 'the people'. The entire point to a constitution, as any freshman political science student learns, is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. That's why we don't have a parliament. Did that once, didn't like it. Parliamentary systems can easily turn into elected dictatorships. Our system of checks and balances is deliberately set up to prevent passions of any sort from running wild and hurting people . . . of any kind! As has been said repeatedly in this thread, marriage by law is a contract. Any consenting adult can enter into any other sort of contract so there is no legal basis for preventing any consenting adults from entering into contractual marriage. My church understands this perfectly in a manner you seen to have missed. All our clergy do is bless a legal union. They know that they have no say in determining the legality. The theologically ignorant who have driven those thirty states vote are in violation of the First Amendment and by insisting that somehow those votes are legitimate . . . so are you!

 

[amicus]

Gay Priests who molest children are finally being sought out and punished.

Now you want two male homosexuals to adopt a child or two lesbian women to adopt a child?

Even youse guys can see the implications.

Maybe.

Amicus

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[Belegon]

Ami:

"The people" cannot pass laws that are unconstitutional. Siddown and shuddup, you pitiful old eunuch. Quit your falsetto hysteria.

it goes farther than that...


"the people" is usually read as "the majority of the people."

One thing that was of major concern to many of our founding fathers was the idea that a simple majority could run rampant. And rightfully so.

Simple majority rule does nothing to protect minorities.

In the latter part of the 18th century, a simple majority of British subjects felt it was entirely proper for certain foreign colonies to pay extra taxes in order to recoup for the crown expenditures made on their behalf during a recent war with France. How did that turn out?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

it goes farther than that...


"the people" is usually read as "the majority of the people."

One thing that was of major concern to many of our founding fathers was the idea that a simple majority could run rampant. And rightfully so.

Simple majority rule does nothing to protect minorities.

In the latter part of the 18th century, a simple majority of British subjects felt it was entirely proper for certain foreign colonies to pay extra taxes in order to recoup for the crown expenditures made on their behalf during a recent war with France. How did that turn out?

Well it's good to see that someone read his assignments in U.S. Government!

 

[Miss_Pixie]

If Homosexuals want to get married let them. They have just as much right as anyone else.


Has it EVER really been the Government's place to tell you who you can marry so long as they're of age?

 

[ishtat]

it goes farther than that...

In the latter part of the 18th century, a simple majority of British subjects felt it was entirely proper for certain foreign colonies to pay extra taxes in order to recoup for the crown expenditures made on their behalf during a recent war with France. How did that turn out?

Actually no. In 1776 only a tiny minority of British subjects could vote at all, the franchise remained extremely narrow until 1832 and even after that less than 15% of male adults could vote.

Britains aristocratic governing class in 1776 was tiny and prejudiced the interests of ordinary Englishmen almost as much as that of Americans, the difference being that the latter did something about it.

 

[3113]

It's nice to know that Ami respects the majority whatever they rule. So. If a majority of us vote for him to leave this forum forever...will he respect that vote? It is the will of the people.

 

[statsultan]

the Judge in this case is openly Gay.

I guess Reagan and Bush I shouldn't have tried so hard to put him on the federal bench, then, huh?

Also, if being gay was such a bias, then the defendants should have filed a motion for the judge to recuse himself. They didn't. 'Cause they knew they'd look like a bunch of prejudiced assholes if they did that and it wouldn't help their case. You don't have that problem, though, do you?

Don't whine when the people put you in your place.

Amicus

Don't flail about when people put you in your place.

 

[Athalia]

Walker sided with every gay plaintiff who ever came before his court for any reason. Check his record.

According to the Sacramento Bee, August 6, 2010, page A9:

"After Vaughn Walker was nominated for he federal court in 1987, gay activists took issue with his role for the U.S. Olympic Committee who successfully sued to bar a San Francisco sports festival from calling itself the "Gay Olympics."

Granted, this was before his appointment to the bench, but it demonstrates that he doesn't automatically take the pro-gay position.

If it is true that he has taken the pro-gay view on every case that went before him since then, based on bias rather than the merits of the case,, then I would expect every one of those rulings to be overturned by higher courts. But if they were, don't you think that Fox News would have told us?

The article, by Peter Hecht, goes on to say:

Larry Levine, a professor at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento, said judges of all races and creeds are legally bound to render impartial verdicts. He said Walker's only reverence was to the law.

"I think it's profoundly offensive to suggest that a judge who is not of the sexual orientation of the majority or the race of the majority or the religion of the majority is unfit to hear cases," he said.

"Are they saying that an African American judge can never rule on an affirmative action case and a Muslim can never rule on a case dealing with religious expression? If you follow their logic, that's exactly what they're saying."

 

[statsultan]

According to the Sacramento Bee, August 6, 2010, page A9:

"After Vaughn Walker was nominated for he federal court in 1987, gay activists took issue with his role for the U.S. Olympic Committee who successfully sued to bar a San Francisco sports festival from calling itself the "Gay Olympics."

Granted, this was before his appointment to the bench, but it demonstrates that he doesn't automatically take the pro-gay position.

If it is true that he has taken the pro-gay view on every case that went before him since then, based on bias rather than the merits of the case,, then I would expect every one of those rulings to be overturned by higher courts. But if they were, don't you think that Fox News would have told us?

The article, by Peter Hecht, goes on to say:
Larry Levine, a professor at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento, said judges of all races and creeds are legally bound to render impartial verdicts. He said Walker's only reverence was to the law.

"I think it's profoundly offensive to suggest that a judge who is not of the sexual orientation of the majority or the race of the majority or the religion of the majority is unfit to hear cases," he said.

"Are they saying that an African American judge can never rule on an affirmative action case and a Muslim can never rule on a case dealing with religious expression? If you follow their logic, that's exactly what they're saying."

Also, another reason why you can't make that argument is because the converse also applies. If a gay judge is more likely to overturn a gay marriage ban due to bias, then isn't a straight judge more likely to uphold a gay marriage ban due to bias?

Likewise with African Americans / Caucasians in affirmative action cases or Muslims / Christians in religious expression cases?