Prop 8 struck down.

[Peregrinator]

Federal court of appeals ruled it unconstitutional.


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest...-same-sex-marriage-ban-ruled-unconstitutional

"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted," the ruling states.

 

[Sean]

Vettebigot is going to be conflicted. On one hand, his hatred of gays, on the other, it means he can marry his lover.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Might wanna hold off on the celebrations until the Supreme has it's way with it.

 

[cjh]

fuck.

i hope the ninth circuit's affirming the trial court's decision does not jinx its chances before scotus.

 

[Peregrinator]

Vettebigot is going to be conflicted. On one hand, his hatred of gays, on the other, it means he can marry his lover.

He'll be in here crying about activist judges and studiously avoiding recognizing that he preaches tyranny of the majority in the process.

 

[Wrong Element]

fuck.

i hope the ninth circuit's affirming the trial court's decision does not jinx its chances before scotus.

Is Ted Olson involved in the actual case, or is he just offering his support for the anti-Prop 8 side? If there's an argument to be made that will gain the sympathy of conservatives, he should be able to find it.

My thinking all along is that Kennedy will come down on the pro-gay marriage side of 5-4. He specifically said in Lawrence v. Texas that the pro-buttsex decision didn't mean that the government had to legally recognize gay relationships, but that's not the same thing as saying how he would rule if such a case came before the Court.

 

[busybody..]

excellent news

the GAZE can now marry

and

be as miserable

as

all marrieds are

they then will no longer be

GAY

but will be

MELLON COLLIE

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

Might wanna hold off on the celebrations until the Supreme has it's way with it.

Even if the Supremes overturn it, support for Prop 8 has plummeted since it passed. There was a poll the other day that showed support went from 54% to like 28%. It's just a matter of time before this thing is overturned by another ballot measure.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SCOTUS will likely rule that marriage is a state decision, states already codify every facet of marriage.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[richard_daily]

Vettebigot is going to be conflicted. On one hand, his hatred of gays, on the other, it means he can marry his lover.

koalabear is out of state... one of them will have to move.

 

[mercury14]

Sure thing, enough government meddling, judicial supremacy over the electorate, brow beating, coercion, a catch all 14th Amendment, and sufficient brainwashing, can accomplish much in the way forming opinions.

You must be referring to the tens of millions of out-of-state money that came in to brow-beat Californians into (barely) supporting Prop 8 in the first place. With such messages as "your kids are going to have gay teachers that are going to make your kids gay too!" and "your marriage will be meaningless if gay people you don't know get married".

Have you seen the polls in your state? Every year support for gay marriage in Cali increases by about 3%-4%. So like I said, even if the Supremes overturn this ruling Cali is going to have gay marriage before long anyway.

That bring the question, why are you opposed to it? It's what most people in Cali want and it's not harming you in the least bit. Not to mention you're for small government that stays out of our personal lives. You should be pro-gay marriage from the start, hypocrite.

 

[koalabear]

All I know is how much I miss Ken, I may kill myself.

Please do.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You must be referring to the tens of millions of out-of-state money that came in to brow-beat Californians into (barely) supporting Prop 8 in the first place. With such messages as "your kids are going to have gay teachers that are going to make your kids gay too!" and "your marriage will be meaningless if gay people you don't know get married".

Have you seen the polls in your state? Every year support for gay marriage in Cali increases by about 3%-4%. So like I said, even if the Supremes overturn this ruling Cali is going to have gay marriage before long anyway.

That bring the question, why are you opposed to it? It's what most people in Cali want and it's not harming you in the least bit. Not to mention you're for small government that stays out of our personal lives. You should be pro-gay marriage from the start, hypocrite.

You must mean teachers who spoon feed kids semen. Aint gonna happen in California cuz their Gay teachers are nice.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You must mean teachers who spoon feed kids semen. Aint gonna happen in California cuz their Gay teachers are nice.

That's right, coz all gays are child molesters.
Derp!

 

[hobbit.]

That's right, coz all gays are child molesters.
Derp!

I thought the suggestion was that child molesters should be executed? so why not teachers also due to them being a mere tool by which the state achieves oppression of the masses? two perverts, one rope.

 

[cjh]

Is Ted Olson involved in the actual case, or is he just offering his support for the anti-Prop 8 side? If there's an argument to be made that will gain the sympathy of conservatives, he should be able to find it.

My thinking all along is that Kennedy will come down on the pro-gay marriage side of 5-4. He specifically said in Lawrence v. Texas that the pro-buttsex decision didn't mean that the government had to legally recognize gay relationships, but that's not the same thing as saying how he would rule if such a case came before the Court.

he certainly was at the trial level. surely he will before scotus given his term as solicitor general during the bush administration.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

While I have no trouble recognizing and defending the state's "legitimate interest" in preserving life or even the potential for life as articulated in Roe v. Wade, I'm having a far more difficult time recognizing the legitimacy of the state in prohibiting same sex marriage on the arguable grounds and alleged statistical advantage of a stable, nurturing relationship that protects and best fosters optimum child development through the traditional two-parent, opposite-gendered family.

If the need for family stability and protection of child development is of such importance as to justify restricting the actions of individuals seeking to marry, then logic forces us to admit that restricting the actions of individuals seeking to terminate a marriage where a child has been created and nurtured to some point of incomplete development is of equal or even greater importance. It would seem, therefore, to be in the state's interest to generally impede rather than facilitate the legal pathway to divorce. Is that where we wish to take the momentum of domestic law?

On the other hand, if the state's establishment of "civil unions" afford the equal protection of the laws to same sexed couples as those laws relate to inheritance, taxation, health decisions and other matters of kinship, then what is the material distinction of the institution of "marriage" designed to protect or reserve to opposite gendered partners, and, again, what is the state's legitimate interest in affecting that distinction as a matter of law.

It seems to me that protecting individual liberties, even those that we might find unseemly or repugnant, is a cause that conservatives and libertarians would naturally advocate -- especially if it does not inhibit our right to condemn homosexuality generally and within our own social and religious circles. There is all manner of legal depravity that people of a given moral persuasion forego.

The battle for the hearts and minds of the morally reprobate at best presents the illusion of victory by the mere binding of their hands and feet.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Same sex marriage opens the door to every combination and permutation of human coupling.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Same sex marriage opens the door to every combination and permutation of human coupling.

So does regular marriage. What's your point?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

While I have no trouble recognizing and defending the state's "legitimate interest" in preserving life or even the potential for life as articulated in Roe v. Wade, I'm having a far more difficult time recognizing the legitimacy of the state in prohibiting same sex marriage on the arguable grounds and alleged statistical advantage of a stable, nurturing relationship that protects and best fosters optimum child development through the traditional two-parent, opposite-gendered family.

If the need for family stability and protection of child development is of such importance as to justify restricting the actions of individuals seeking to marry, then logic forces us to admit that restricting the actions of individuals seeking to terminate a marriage where a child has been created and nurtured to some point of incomplete development is of equal or even greater importance. It would seem, therefore, to be in the state's interest to generally impede rather than facilitate the legal pathway to divorce. Is that where we wish to take the momentum of domestic law?

On the other hand, if the state's establishment of "civil unions" afford the equal protection of the laws to same sexed couples as those laws relate to inheritance, taxation, health decisions and other matters of kinship, then what is the material distinction of the institution of "marriage" designed to protect or reserve to opposite gendered partners, and, again, what is the state's legitimate interest in affecting that distinction as a matter of law.

It seems to me that protecting individual liberties, even those that we might find unseemly or repugnant, is a cause that conservatives and libertarians would naturally advocate -- especially if it does not inhibit our right to condemn homosexuality generally and within our own social and religious circles. There is all manner of legal depravity that people of a given moral persuasion forego.

The battle for the hearts and minds of the morally reprobate at best presents the illusion of victory by the mere binding of their hands and feet.

You don't go far enough. Shouldn't those who plan to have a baby out of wedlock be forced to marry?

 

[mercury14]

Same sex marriage opens the door to every combination and permutation of human coupling.

Who cares? If people want to enter into a triad marriage how does it hurt you?

And of course you're not even right about that comment. In every single state where there is gay marriage there has been no additional legal basis for group marriages. The states that legalized it based on anti-discrimination don't help the group marriage people since homosexuals are an actual innate group and poly-tude is just a personal choice.

The states that legislated gay marriage, well... Every state has always been free to legislate poly marriage so nothing changed.

You're fear-mongering again.

 

[richard_daily]

I thought the suggestion was that child molesters should be executed? so why not teachers also due to them being a mere tool by which the state achieves oppression of the masses? two perverts, one rope.

I wonder if they're going to take the same stance against catholic priest... you know, real child molesters.