PDA

View Full Version : Perry v. Schwarzenegger



the_phoenix612
06-16-2010, 11:47 PM
Closing arguments were heard today, and all signs point to a positive result for the petitioners (repeal Prop 8 side), but there is no official word as to when we will hear a ruling.

Liveblog here if you're interested: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/06/16/prop8-liveblog-the-proponents-make-their-case/

GoOwls
06-16-2010, 11:56 PM
Closing arguments were heard today, and all signs point to a positive result for the petitioners (repeal Prop 8 side), but there is no official word as to when we will hear a ruling.

Liveblog here if you're interested: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/06/16/prop8-liveblog-the-proponents-make-their-case/

Sounds like Cooper and Walker are knuckleheads, whoever they are. We have better discussions here than they are having.

BTW, what does Perry v. Schwarzenegger have to do with this?

the_phoenix612
06-17-2010, 12:10 AM
Sounds like Cooper and Walker are knuckleheads, whoever they are. We have better discussions here than they are having.

BTW, what does Perry v. Schwarzenegger have to do with this?
Perry is the last name of one of the individuals on whose behalf the case was filed. Schwarzenegger is the representative of the State of California, as the AG refused to take the case as HE thought it was unconstitutional and Ahnold thought it was important that the case go to court.

Cooper is the lead attorney for ProtectMarriage.org, the main participant in the Yes on 8 campaign who organized and bankrolled the defense because nobody in the California government support Proposition 8. Walker is the judge in charge of the case.

the_phoenix612
08-04-2010, 02:53 PM
Judge Walker is due to release his decision this afternoon on the constitutionality (see, it is a plus or minus thing) of Prop 8, if anybody cares.

slcdragonfan
08-04-2010, 03:00 PM
Judge Walker is due to release his decision this afternoon on the constitutionality (see, it is a plus or minus thing) of Prop 8, if anybody cares.

pls post when you get it...

the_phoenix612
08-04-2010, 03:01 PM
pls post when you get it...
I have to go to work.

http://prop8trialtracker.com/ will have it up as soon as its announced.

RedRage00
08-04-2010, 04:11 PM
pls post when you get it...

Prop 8 was overturned.

the_phoenix612
08-04-2010, 04:21 PM
http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/04/breaking-prop-8-ruled-unconstitutional/

Violates due process AND equal protection. Total victory today for equality supporters.

SWMHebron
08-04-2010, 04:26 PM
Prop 8 was overturned.

Good. :yes:

I'm sure the Mormons will come up with another plan :mad:but this is at least something.

mad_fan
08-04-2010, 05:29 PM
Is this a golf thread???

slcdragonfan
08-04-2010, 08:00 PM
Is this a golf thread???

...passing through....

yankee
08-04-2010, 10:18 PM
Is this a golf thread???

we could make this about sticks and balls if you want...oh wai...

mad_fan
08-04-2010, 10:28 PM
we could make this about sticks and balls if you want...oh wai...

and then???

yankee
08-04-2010, 10:29 PM
and then???

post pictures of tiger woods' mistresses...

mad_fan
08-04-2010, 10:31 PM
post pictures of tiger woods' mistresses...

boring...still...
this thread sucks....

the_phoenix612
08-05-2010, 12:32 AM
Given that the motion to appeal was filed before the ruling was even announced, the decision is not the important part. What is important are the facts Judge Walker found, as later appeals will defer to his findings of the facts, and will not change any unless they're clearly erroneous. That said, the facts Judge Walker found as as follows:


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

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

3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.

4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.

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

6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.

7. Prop 8 proponents' "assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."

8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed.

9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.

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

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

12. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages."

Legally, this is a "boom, headshot" to the anti-equality folks. Have fun trying to get this overturned with THIS set of legal facts.

BDB
08-05-2010, 01:09 AM
Legally, this is a "boom, headshot" to the anti-equality folks. Have fun trying to get this overturned with THIS set of legal facts.

>>implying anyone opposed to same-sex marriage at this point really cares about legal facts.

the_phoenix612
08-05-2010, 01:28 AM
>>implying anyone opposed to same-sex marriage at this point really cares about legal facts.
>>just wants them to know how screwed their case is.

RedRage00
08-05-2010, 09:03 AM
[QUOTE=the_phoenix612;1564749]13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages." QUOTE]

Mother 'effin this!

I don't understand why so many people get up in arms over something that has no affect on their lives. Well, I do, but I think it's a stupid reason. There are people on here that have been married and divorced multiple times, yet they think my lifestyle is going to ruin marriage LOL! It's okay to go on "The Bachelor" and find a wife through a TV game show, but all hell breaks loose when 2 people of the same sex (who might actually love each other!) who have been together for years want to get married.

How is this honestly going to affect people who oppose it? Will you be unable to sleep at a night? Will it cause you to lose your job? Will you be unable to perform in bed? Is little Johnny gonna get a C in Algebra instead of an A? :rolleyes:

drgnbkr
08-05-2010, 09:23 AM
[QUOTE=the_phoenix612;1564749]13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages." QUOTE]

Mother 'effin this!

I don't understand why so many people get up in arms over something that has no affect on their lives. Well, I do, but I think it's a stupid reason. There are people on here that have been married and divorced multiple times, yet they think my lifestyle is going to ruin marriage LOL! It's okay to go on "The Bachelor" and find a wife through a TV game show, but all hell breaks loose when 2 people of the same sex (who might actually love each other!) who have been together for years want to get married.

How is this honestly going to affect people who oppose it? Will you be unable to sleep at a night? Will it cause you to lose your job? Will you be unable to perform in bed? Is little Johnny gonna get a C in Algebra instead of an A? :rolleyes:

I understand and respect what you are saying, but does one judge have the right to overturn the will of the voters of California? 52% voted in support of prop 8. The supremes will have to weigh in on whether judges can ignore the will of the citizens of states and impose their own opinions. Same situation in Az with the judge there going against the will of the voters.

slcdragonfan
08-05-2010, 09:28 AM
I understand and respect what you are saying, but does one judge have the right to overturn the will of the voters of California? 52% voted in support of prop 8. The supremes will have to weigh in on whether judges can ignore the will of the citizens of states and impose their own opinions. Same situation in Az with the judge there going against the will of the voters.

The short answer is 'yes' if it violates the Constitution. The SC role will be to decide whether it violates Constitutional principles. What the majority wants should have no bearing on their decision. You know all that. :)

The will of the voters don't mean diddly if it violates the Constitution. We are all about the Constitution, remember? :D

SWMHebron
08-05-2010, 09:30 AM
[QUOTE=the_phoenix612;1564749]13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages." QUOTE]

Mother 'effin this!

I don't understand why so many people get up in arms over something that has no affect on their lives. Well, I do, but I think it's a stupid reason. There are people on here that have been married and divorced multiple times, yet they think my lifestyle is going to ruin marriage LOL! It's okay to go on "The Bachelor" and find a wife through a TV game show, but all hell breaks loose when 2 people of the same sex (who might actually love each other!) who have been together for years want to get married.

How is this honestly going to affect people who oppose it? Will you be unable to sleep at a night? Will it cause you to lose your job? Will you be unable to perform in bed? Is little Johnny gonna get a C in Algebra instead of an A? :rolleyes:

This has been my belief all along. I will use pseudonyms but we know a couple I will call Ben and Jerry. They have been a couple for 13 years (or as they 52 in gay years). They own a business, a home, cars. Both families consider the other a member of the family.

IF they were allowed to marry what impact, positive or negative would that have on the marriage of anyone else, gay or straight?


Would my marriage suddenly collapse because Ben and Jerry were legally allowed to marry? No.

Would anybody's marriage suddenly collapse? No.

cougmantx
08-05-2010, 09:36 AM
The short answer is 'yes' if it violates the Constitution. The SC role will be to decide whether it violates Constitutional principles. What the majority wants should have no bearing on their decision. You know all that. :)

The will of the voters don't mean diddly if it violates the Constitution. We are all about the Constitution, remember? :D

In many respects the way the Constitution was written is to protect the minority from the majority...I think this is a very good example of that. I am always in awe of the founding fathers and writers of the Constitution for their fore sight.

slcdragonfan
08-05-2010, 09:47 AM
In many respects the way the Constitution was written is to protect the minority from the majority...I think this is a very good example of that. I am always in awe of the founding fathers and writers of the Constitution for their fore sight.

Tocqueville called it the "tyranny of the majority".

The tyranny of factions was also discussed somewhere in the Federalist papers I believe.

drgnbkr
08-05-2010, 12:24 PM
The short answer is 'yes' if it violates the Constitution. The SC role will be to decide whether it violates Constitutional principles. What the majority wants should have no bearing on their decision. You know all that. :)

The will of the voters don't mean diddly if it violates the Constitution. We are all about the Constitution, remember? :D

I'm sorry my friend, but that is the most unbelievable reply of yours yet. States rights and citizens will are being trampled daily by this crowd and that is your defense?

slcdragonfan
08-05-2010, 12:34 PM
I'm sorry my friend, but that is the most unbelievable reply of yours yet. States rights and citizens will are being trampled daily by this crowd and that is your defense?

Perhaps I didn't express myself well.

What I am saying is that this country is NOT a majority rule, pure democracy. If it were, then we would really be in trouble. Think of it in negative terms. What if 52% of the country were on welfare and passed a bill requiring the other 48% to pay a 50% tax rate and contribute to their cable TV bill and Cadillac? That would be majority rule, correct?

We don't want majority rule per se. We want to be ruled by the Constitution and what it dictates. The Founders were very concerned about the "tyranny of the majority" and about the "tyranny of factions". We should be too.

States rights to self-determination stop when they violate the Constitution. We agree on that do we not? Otherwise, we would have never had the Civil Rights movement, the right for white/black to marry, and so on. There is a body of law and precedent for that going back to decisions regarding who can print money and so on.

So what I am saying is, this is a Constitutional argument and not a majority argument. The SC will ultimately have the final say.

States Rights and the will of the citizens must be tempered by Constitutional boundaries. I do believe you would agree with that. I cannot see how we really differ in our opinion here, unless you believe that majority opinion trumps the the Constitution. The only way that works is if a Constitutional Amendment is passed.

the_phoenix612
08-05-2010, 12:50 PM
I understand and respect what you are saying, but does one judge have the right to overturn the will of the voters of California? 52% voted in support of prop 8. The supremes will have to weigh in on whether judges can ignore the will of the citizens of states and impose their own opinions. Same situation in Az with the judge there going against the will of the voters.
Yes. America is not a democracy. America is a democratic republic with several branches of government that each have the power to cancel each other out. This is America at Her best.

drgnbkr
08-05-2010, 01:55 PM
Yes. America is not a democracy. America is a democratic republic with several branches of government that each have the power to cancel each other out. This is America at Her best.

A public vote is not one of the branches of government. A solitary judge thwarting the will of 7,000,000 Californians is far from America at her best. It is scary and should be corrected at the supreme level. The 9th circus of appeal is worse than this guy.

the_phoenix612
08-05-2010, 02:08 PM
A public vote is not one of the branches of government. A solitary judge thwarting the will of 7,000,000 Californians is far from America at her best. It is scary and should be corrected at the supreme level. The 9th circus of appeal is worse than this guy.
lulz.

The Justice system was put in place by the Founders to avoid such "tyranny of the masses." It is precisely this sort of action that is the reason we don't have direct democracy, because when the majority is free to vote away rights of the minority, soon we have oligarchy by those who can muster the most votes. This was chief among the fears of those who designed our nation when then put into place an unprecedented system of divided government. If the people so vote, and so vote wrongly, the courts so correct.

cougmantx
08-05-2010, 02:15 PM
lulz.

The Justice system was put in place by the Founders to avoid such "tyranny of the masses." It is precisely this sort of action that is the reason we don't have direct democracy, because when the majority is free to vote away rights of the minority, soon we have oligarchy by those who can muster the most votes. This was chief among the fears of those who designed our nation when then put into place an unprecedented system of divided government. If the people so vote, and so vote wrongly, the courts so correct.

:notworthy

that's why some of the more stupid in the Congress want a constitutional amendment declaring what "marriage" is...

drgnbkr
08-05-2010, 02:22 PM
lulz.

The Justice system was put in place by the Founders to avoid such "tyranny of the masses." It is precisely this sort of action that is the reason we don't have direct democracy, because when the majority is free to vote away rights of the minority, soon we have oligarchy by those who can muster the most votes. This was chief among the fears of those who designed our nation when then put into place an unprecedented system of divided government. If the people so vote, and so vote wrongly, the courts so correct.

I'm sure as soon as you crawl out of your way back machine with which you commune with our founders, you'll reflect and realize they certainly didn't intend one whacked out judge with an agenda to thwart the will of the citizens. We'll see how this unfolds but a correction is coming it would appear.

chhspantherfan
08-05-2010, 02:23 PM
So when legislative, executive, or judicial segments make decisions based on special interests, and a majority of the citizens want the decision repealed or them removed or replaced, can you make that happen?

DragonWatcher
08-05-2010, 02:33 PM
I'm sure as soon as you crawl out of your way back machine with which you commune with our founders, you'll reflect and realize they certainly didn't intend one whacked out judge with an agenda to thwart the will of the citizens. We'll see how this unfolds but a correction is coming it would appear.

If you don't think the purpose of the courts is to rule on the constitutionality of an issue, what is there purpose in your opinion? This has been pretty well established since 1803 that a court determines whether something is constitutional. Numbers have nothing to do with it.

"Government should be formed to secure and enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government which has not this in view as its principal object is not a government of the legitimate kind." James Wilson

"A sound spirit of legislation banishing all arbitrary and unnecessary restraint on individual action, shall leave us free to do whatever does not violate the equal rights of another." Jefferson

[W]ithout liberty and equality [under the law], there cannot exist that tranquility of mind, which results from the assurance of this to every citizen, that his own personal safety and rights are secure it is the end and design of all free and lawful Governments."Adams

The courts were established to make sure the government didn't trample any rights, exactly what this judge just did here.

DragonWatcher
08-05-2010, 02:37 PM
So when legislative, executive, or judicial segments make decisions based on special interests, and a majority of the citizens want the decision repealed or them removed or replaced, can you make that happen?


Yep they're called amendments.

drgnbkr
08-05-2010, 03:09 PM
So when legislative, executive, or judicial segments make decisions based on special interests, and a majority of the citizens want the decision repealed or them removed or replaced, can you make that happen?

There is not much to do other than sit and shake our heads at the incredible naivete...

BDB
08-05-2010, 04:31 PM
Yep they're called amendments.


There is not much to do other than sit and shake our heads at the incredible naivete...

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

slcdragonfan
08-05-2010, 04:34 PM
There is not much to do other than sit and shake our heads at the incredible naivete...

panther and bkr, what am I missing? There are plenty of things I do not like that are around because of Constitutional rulings, including F-bomb in movies all over the place, extreme pornography (not Playboy-type stuff), Howard Stern nonsense, ad nauseum. We can try to exercise "local standards" to eliminate sex shops and that has been successful, but we still have to accept the TV/movie/ etc pieces.

I want to understand how I am being naive. I am not saying people have to like the ruling, I am saying we have to abide by the process. This ruling has already been challenged. If it had been decided the other way, it would STILL have been challenged. It will drift its way up to the SC where they will decide whether to review it or let the lower courts rulings stand.

IF the SC decides that the lower court ruling stands, OR they find in similar favor to the lower court, the only route open for citizens to change it is via Constitutional Amendment, or a modification of the law that eliminates the Constitutional abridgment (not likely). In fact, if the Court rules AGAINST the lower court and finds the law is legal, the only real recourse for those who support gay marriage is....Constitutional Amendment (again, not likely).

I am open to any ideas comments, etc which expound upon an alternative view, but that is how I understand the process.

Mong Hu
08-05-2010, 11:56 PM
Perhaps I didn't express myself well.

What I am saying is that this country is NOT a majority rule, pure democracy. If it were, then we would really be in trouble. Think of it in negative terms. What if 52% of the country were on welfare and passed a bill requiring the other 48% to pay a 50% tax rate and contribute to their cable TV bill and Cadillac? That would be majority rule, correct?

We don't want majority rule per se. We want to be ruled by the Constitution and what it dictates. The Founders were very concerned about the "tyranny of the majority" and about the "tyranny of factions". We should be too.

States rights to self-determination stop when they violate the Constitution. We agree on that do we not? Otherwise, we would have never had the Civil Rights movement, the right for white/black to marry, and so on. There is a body of law and precedent for that going back to decisions regarding who can print money and so on.

So what I am saying is, this is a Constitutional argument and not a majority argument. The SC will ultimately have the final say.

States Rights and the will of the citizens must be tempered by Constitutional boundaries. I do believe you would agree with that. I cannot see how we really differ in our opinion here, unless you believe that majority opinion trumps the the Constitution. The only way that works is if a Constitutional Amendment is passed.
We are a majority rule. If a rule is found to be unconstitutional by the judiciary and the majority really want it then there is a remedy provided. It is the amendment process.

the_phoenix612
08-06-2010, 12:12 AM
We are a majority rule. If a rule is found to be unconstitutional by the judiciary and the majority really want it then there is a remedy provided. It is the amendment process.
We are not majority rule. We are supermajority rule, to overrule the ordinary political process (legislature/executive/judiciary, or people/judiciary/people). Stop trying to make this democracy vs. non-democracy. We are not a democracy. Direct democracy does not work for sample size larger than a few thousand.

DragonWatcher
08-06-2010, 02:22 AM
We are not majority rule. We are supermajority rule, to overrule the ordinary political process (legislature/executive/judiciary, or people/judiciary/people). Stop trying to make this democracy vs. non-democracy. We are not a democracy. Direct democracy does not work for sample size larger than a few thousand.

Not sure numbers have anything to do with it. It didn't work for the Athenians either.

chhspantherfan
08-06-2010, 07:02 AM
panther and bkr, what am I missing? There are plenty of things I do not like that are around because of Constitutional rulings, including F-bomb in movies all over the place, extreme pornography (not Playboy-type stuff), Howard Stern nonsense, ad nauseum. We can try to exercise "local standards" to eliminate sex shops and that has been successful, but we still have to accept the TV/movie/ etc pieces.

I want to understand how I am being naive. I am not saying people have to like the ruling, I am saying we have to abide by the process. This ruling has already been challenged. If it had been decided the other way, it would STILL have been challenged. It will drift its way up to the SC where they will decide whether to review it or let the lower courts rulings stand.

IF the SC decides that the lower court ruling stands, OR they find in similar favor to the lower court, the only route open for citizens to change it is via Constitutional Amendment, or a modification of the law that eliminates the Constitutional abridgment (not likely). In fact, if the Court rules AGAINST the lower court and finds the law is legal, the only real recourse for those who support gay marriage is....Constitutional Amendment (again, not likely).

I am open to any ideas comments, etc which expound upon an alternative view, but that is how I understand the process.

i forgot my rhethorical icon, but DWatcher has my back. :D TGIF

Mong Hu
08-06-2010, 07:34 AM
[/SIZE]
We are not majority rule. We are supermajority rule, to overrule the ordinary political process (legislature/executive/judiciary, or people/judiciary/people). Stop trying to make this democracy vs. non-democracy. We are not a democracy. Direct democracy does not work for sample size larger than a few thousand.
We are majority rule, a superMAJORITY, is still a majority. I never in my post or anywhere else on this board claimed we are now or ever were a democracy. In short feenix there is really only one appropriate response to your post:

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Slideshows/_production/ss-100721-whale/ss-100721-whale-02.grid-10x2.jpg

keep trying kiddo you may get it someday.

slcdragonfan
08-06-2010, 09:08 AM
We are a majority rule. If a rule is found to be unconstitutional by the judiciary and the majority really want it then there is a remedy provided. It is the amendment process.

IT was the whole phrase, "majority rule, pure democracy" that applies, in particular the underlined part.

the_phoenix612
08-06-2010, 04:45 PM
[/SIZE]
We are majority rule, a superMAJORITY, is still a majority. I never in my post or anywhere else on this board claimed we are now or ever were a democracy. In short feenix there is really only one appropriate response to your post:

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Slideshows/_production/ss-100721-whale/ss-100721-whale-02.grid-10x2.jpg

keep trying kiddo you may get it someday.
You cannot imagine the sense of satisfaction I feel at having finally dragged you down to the knuckle-dragging level of discourse that so commonly populates the Yard. Do you feel dirty?

A supermajority is a majority, but a majority is not a supermajority. By referring to the amendment system as "majority rule" you make the implication that the 52% of CA voters that voted for Proposition 8 are enough to overrule the judicial decision. This is misleading, and false, and why I posted to make the distinction.

BDB
08-06-2010, 04:52 PM
You cannot imagine the sense of satisfaction I feel at having finally dragged you down to the knuckle-dragging level of discourse that so commonly populates the Yard. Do you feel dirty?

A supermajority is a majority, but a majority is not a supermajority. By referring to the amendment system as "majority rule" you make the implication that the 52% of CA voters that voted for Proposition 8 are enough to overrule the judicial decision. This is misleading, and false, and why I posted to make the distinction.

i feel dirty....

Mong Hu
08-06-2010, 08:01 PM
QUOTE=the_phoenix612;1565694]You cannot imagine the sense of satisfaction I feel at having finally dragged you down to the knuckle-dragging level of discourse that so commonly populates the Yard. Do you feel dirty?

A supermajority is a majority, but a majority is not a supermajority. By referring to the amendment system as "majority rule" you make the implication that the 52% of CA voters that voted for Proposition 8 are enough to overrule the judicial decision. This is misleading, and false, and why I posted to make the distinction.[/QUOTE]

Once again:

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Slideshows/_production/ss-100721-whale/ss-100721-whale-02.grid-10x2.jpg

As this was struck down by a federal court you are correct that 52% of the CA voters could not overturn it. But let me just ask, how many votes does it take to elect a congressman in a typical election? It takes a supermajority of congressman but not a supermajority of the public. 52% is more than adequate. In our country it is majority rule. if 52% of the country would like to elect Congressmen who wanted repeal the bill of rights we could elect those Congressmen and a President that could propose such an amendment to the Constitution. If enough of the states had state houses that reflected a similar disposition then bingo you have it.

Mong Hu
08-06-2010, 08:04 PM
IT was the whole phrase, "majority rule, pure democracy" that applies, in particular the underlined part.

I was only referring to and only referenced your use of majority. I know that in your original quote you referenced pure democracy but I did not choose to address that portion of your post. I know that we are not a democracy in the purest form of the word but rather are a democratic for of government, a republic. We are however majority rule. It is this point which I was addressing.

Mong Hu
08-06-2010, 08:08 PM
i feel dirty....
Then you need to take a bath. Just sayin'

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/2008/12/16-22/pigpen.jpg

mad_fan
08-06-2010, 08:11 PM
lol...

the_phoenix612
02-07-2012, 12:28 PM
Today, the Ninth Circuit joined Judge Walker in ruling Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57372620/court-calif-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/

Just to piss you off, the accompanying picture:
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/02/07/gay_marriage_same_sex_marriage_103359807_fullwidth _620x350.jpg

slcdragonfan
02-07-2012, 01:55 PM
Today, the Ninth Circuit joined Judge Walker in ruling Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57372620/court-calif-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/

Just to piss you off, the accompanying picture:
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/02/07/gay_marriage_same_sex_marriage_103359807_fullwidth _620x350.jpg

Isn't one of them supposed to have cans? :)

cyfallsbooster2
02-07-2012, 04:13 PM
Isn't one of them supposed to have cans? :)

I don't think blue ties should be worn with green shirts. They're not really gay.

BDB
02-07-2012, 04:30 PM
I don't think blue ties should be worn with green shirts. They're not really gay.

i think that's seafoam... which makes for a great color palette.... stylistically speaking.

Austin109
02-07-2012, 06:23 PM
i think that's seafoam... which makes for a great color palette.... stylistically speaking.

gaysian.

OldFartfan
02-07-2012, 07:22 PM
[QUOTE=RedRage00;1564845]

This has been my belief all along. I will use pseudonyms but we know a couple I will call Ben and Jerry. They have been a couple for 13 years (or as they 52 in gay years). They own a business, a home, cars. Both families consider the other a member of the family.

IF they were allowed to marry what impact, positive or negative would that have on the marriage of anyone else, gay or straight?


Would my marriage suddenly collapse because Ben and Jerry were legally allowed to marry? No.

Would anybody's marriage suddenly collapse? No.

Agreed don't we have way more important things to worry about. I could give a rats arse if same sex couples want to get married, does not affect my life. I would like to think that our court system and most importantly our government has more important things to worry about than same sex marriages. Hell if nothing else is creates commerce, more marriages more money is spent, gay guys are going to throw some crazy a$$ expensive weddings. :rofl:
What is next banning same sex relationships?
Does the Constitution say that marriage has to be between a man and a woman? I do not know and certainly not going to research it.
If it does not specifically say it then isn't it unconstitutional to deny same sex marriages, I am no legal scholar and I know I am being overly simple?
Let's get back to creating jobs and lowering taxes.
Oh and Dragonpants agrees with me.:D

ktCarl
02-07-2012, 07:37 PM
The short answer is 'yes' if it violates the Constitution. The SC role will be to decide whether it violates Constitutional principles. What the majority wants should have no bearing on their decision. You know all that. :)

The will of the voters don't mean diddly if it violates the Constitution. We are all about the Constitution, remember? :D

Oh, that's right. We're a Constitutional Republic. Not a Democracy. ;)

BDB
02-07-2012, 07:58 PM
gaysian.

http://chzjustcapshunz.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/funny-captions-fabulous.jpg

mad_fan
02-07-2012, 09:17 PM
Today, the Ninth Circuit joined Judge Walker in ruling Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57372620/court-calif-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/

Just to piss you off, the accompanying picture:
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/02/07/gay_marriage_same_sex_marriage_103359807_fullwidth _620x350.jpg

On the bright side...they'll pay into social security...die of AIDS...and not put kids on the support roles...
:rolleyes:

Super B
02-07-2012, 09:29 PM
Oh, that's right. We're a Constitutional Republic. Not a Democracy. ;)
Ding ding ding!

Super B
02-07-2012, 09:32 PM
I believe if the Heavenly Father says it's a sin and that only one man and one woman should be joined, that is what the law should say too.

I really don't care what some gay Judge in SFO says.

Super B
02-07-2012, 09:39 PM
Today, the Ninth Circuit joined Judge Walker in ruling Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57372620/court-calif-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/

Just to piss you off, the accompanying picture:
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/02/07/gay_marriage_sme_sex_marriage_103359807_fullwidth_ 620x350.jpg
It would have been better if it were two hot women. In fact, socially accepted.
http://img2.visualizeus.com/thumbs/10/03/04/girl,kissing,lesbians,nude,woman-989da311092eb929c59033c9332fd4a1_h.jpg

OldFartfan
02-07-2012, 09:40 PM
Oh, that's right. We're a Constitutional Republic. Not a Democracy. ;)

Actually the correct term is representative republic. We vote and the electoral college casts our votes for us. Unfortunately a vote in Delaware is not as valuable as a vote in Texas.

OldFartfan
02-07-2012, 09:42 PM
I believe if the Heavenly Father says it's a sin and that only one man and one woman should be joined, that is what the law should say too.

I really don't care what some gay Judge in SFO says.

While this may be true, there is separation of church and state, if it is constitutional then they should be allowed to be married, in terms of religion if what you believe is true then they will face that decision at a later time.

BDB
02-07-2012, 09:43 PM
I believe if the Heavenly Father says it's a sin and that only one man and one woman should be joined, that is what the law should say too.

I really don't care what some gay Judge in SFO says.

whose heavenly father? you talkin bout the great Buddha? Muhammad? flying spagetti monster? why should those books have ANY effect over the people who don't believe in them?

we're supposed to be free from religious persecution. our government is supposed to not care what religion thinks outside of a case involving a church.

you don't want gay people married at YOUR church? fine. they can go to the courthouse and make it official. but don't think for a second ANYONE should care about what your 30 times translated book of stories written down by people who thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe should dictate ANYONE else's life.