By now I expect you’ve already heard the big news that federal district Judge Vaughn Walker today ruled California’s Prop 8 unconstitutional:
“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.”
Yippee, and all that, but of course the fight for marriage equality doesn’t end there. The ruling is already being appealed to the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is, you know, our circuit… which raises the question: if the Ninth Circuit upholds Judge Walker’s ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, wouldn’t that make WA’s Defense Of Marriage Act unconstitutional too? And considering the absolutely compelling logic in Judge Walker’s decision, why didn’t WA’s marriage equality proponents file suit in federal court too?
I’m sure there’s a good reason, but I just thought I’d ask.
I’ll defer to the actual lawyers, but my understanding is that if the 9th Circuit upholds this decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, then the WA DOMA would be overturned.
As to why nobody has sued in federal court over the WA DOMA: until May 2009, the marriage equality movement was almost universally against taking this to federal court for fear of losing at the SCOTUS. Only when Chad Griffin and others stepped up to found the American Foundation for Equal Rights and brought on Ted Olson and David Boies did the federal route look like anything other than a sure loser. Even then, their decision to sue in federal court last year was quite controversial.
My understanding is that, aside from the case against the federal DOMA initiated in Massachusetts, the rest of the movement is holding back to see what happens with the Perry case at the SCOTUS.
Thankfully, Serial Monogomist Newt Gingrich has come out to criticize this decision, in defense of his right to “true” marriage…or at least in defense of his right to as many “true” marriages as he wants. Couldn’t he just share a few?
Proposition 8 Unconstitutional? You mean to tell me that Leviticus, was just the original fundamental Republican (emphasis on mental) who had not made it out of the closet (kinda like Ted Haggard)? Lets face it was not in the Ten Commandments or even addressed by Jesus the son of God, so are we surprised with this ruling, its about time.
Should the 9th Circuit affirm this decision, Washington’s DOMA would not be rendered stricken. It would surely be wounded in a practical sense, but it’s not a statute at issue in the California case. To be overturned, the statute must be specifically targeted in a Washington case. Of course, a federal district judge here in Washington might come to a different conclusion about our law than did the California judge.
Interesting point. The case for Prop 8 was apparently hilariously flimsy, hard to imagine an appeal going anywhere.
Yep,
Voters who vote for a Proposition don’t count when it goes against the widly moronic libtardo progressive position. In Progressive land, the people don’t matter.
Doesn’t matter what the people vote on, if it’s unconstitutional, it cannot become law.
Funny, now we have righties arguing for activist judges.
Puddy
Actually it’s more complicated.
When Bush narrowly won an election it was obviously stolen. It was a coup that threatened the very fabric of democracy! When we were fighting in Iraq under Bush every overpass had a protester standing there waving a desecrated flag. (Anarchy symbols instead of stars and stripes etc.) He was the Chimp, a nazi and so on.
When Obama won by a few percentage points it was a landslide and elections have consequences. We who don’t like the way the country is going should sit down and shut up. The protesters are gone. If anyone criticises him they are patently racist.
It’s all on where the voter stands. If they agree with the progressive position their vote is monumental. If they disagree they are racist thugs whose opinions don’t matter.
#’s 6 & 8 using micrometers to measure their dicks.
The Supremes will eventually get this to rule on (and they will definitely take it), so nothing big will happen until then. Appeals stay everything.
So Pud, when large majorities of voters favored limiting the rights of minorities were the “libtardo progressives” wrong for advocating change?
Just wondering.
Once again K frames the “discussion” in moronic terms. How are they minorities K?
As Puddy wrote to you over a week ago elections have consequences. In this case the voters voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman. 67% of illegal and US hispanic minorities voted for heterosexual marriage. 70% of black minorities voted for heterosexual marriage. So are you saying that these normally stiff necked marching in lock step with white progressives are wrong? When they venture off the reservation they are wrong K?
How really progressive of you. Last week we learned if you don’t say words acceptable to K K wants you to be shut up Now we see if you don’t think like K he wants your votes erased!
Yep K you are one interesting “progressive”!
Om my the dumb brick rujax does another hit and run. As always when rujax shits in the forest does anyone smell it? Does anyone care?
Nope you DOPE!
@8
Bush lost. Obama won, big.
I can’t decide if the whiny tone of this post is more annoying or less than your usual polite sanctimony and condescension.
WHAT?
This isn’t the Lost Puddy knows and liked until today. Bush didn’t steal any election. Neither did his lawyers. Gore admitted his choosing of the 4 most liberal counties was his downfall. The SCOTUS ruled this decision disenfranchised the other 63 counties and therefore the election was closed. It was Gore’s own doing.
Puddy
Is this nation a constitutional democracy or just majority rules? You know better than the rot you’ve posted above. I mean, at least I think you have a basic notion of civics, don’t you?
lost
If two guys or two gals get hitched, could you tell me how you are harmed?
Lost, You wrote it wrong. You needed to frame it by saying Libtardos claimed Bush stole the election. Also, when the networks claimed Gore won Florida, this disenfranchised the pan handle voters and out west voters. These people admitted they went home. That was a big mistake.
Rot?
Apparently the libtardo glasses have you blinded. This is a constitutional repulbic fool! Elections have consequences. Otherwise when someone loses an election they can go to court and have it overturned.
Ohhhh… wait a minute AlGorebasm did that one and LOST!
My goodness! Why does Puddy hate black people so much?? Hmm, I bet it has something to do with all the self-loathing he displays with his every post.
“Elections have consequences.”
Yeah, like when we win and you self-described “Real Americans” immediately start calling for revolution and secession.
Wait a minute Steve Steve Steve… you really hate black people. You support the judge’s decision. 70% of blacks voted for heterosexual marriage. The judge disagreed with blacks.
So tell us Steve Steve Steve why do you hate blacks?
I can’t believe the “activist” judges think gay people should be able to get married too! Next thing you know they’ll be letting Jews and Catholics get married, and then hell, they’ll probably let colored folks in the Army! It’s the end of our white way of life!
(If that didn’t come across as sarcasm you’re f**ked up)
Like marijuana legalization…WHY is that an argument? It’s facts vs superstition. Reality vs magic. How are we even HAVING this conversation in the year 2010? This is silly all the way around. Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t get do it. Don’t like vodka? Don’t drink it. Don’t like gambling? Don’t gamble.
America is great NOT because we’re all forced to live the same life (like the Christian right would like) but BECAUSE we have freedom. We can live the live of the Amish, or spend every weekend in Vegas drinking and gambling. Most of us live somewhere in between those extremes, and we always will. But I don’t want to be told music is illegal and bright colored clothes outlawed, or that I can’t drink, or that I HAVE to drink or gamble.
Gay marriage is about FREEDOM. You know, that thing our troops are being killed for overseas to protect…freedom, that thing that means I can choose to live how I want, and YOU can choose to live how you want. Just because something I do is “magically bad” and makes your particular god angry (not mine) that’s your problem. SOME gods don’t like people drinking alcohol, working on Sundays, having sex before marriage, having dairy and meat in the same area, and even eating bacon. That’s great! And if any of those are YOUR gods issues, YOU live with it. But don’t you DARE tell me I don’t have the freedom to eat bacon ONLY because your religion doesn’t like it. I don’t care. Freedom. Unless I’m stealing from you or hitting you, you don’t get to tell me what I can do in my house.
Yeah, like when we win and you self-described “progressives” claim the election was stolen when the evidence from your own candidate admitted he screwed the pooch!
Re 17
Me? I’m not. My marriage is or isn’t strong based on what my wife and I do, not what other couples do.
I assume you’re referring to my concern in the other blog on this issue. That is, that as we devalue institutions and reduce their meaning we weaken those institutions. And I stand by that.
Think of the word ‘gentleman,’ as an analogy. 100 years ago this word had a specific meaning everyone understood. A gentleman was one who did not rely on work to live, he had a private income. No connotations of manners, or chivalry or anything else. The word meant something. It was a useful descriptor. Now it means nothing, because the word was expanded to amorphous and vague nonsense.
I do not and never have advocated ill treatment legally or otherwise of gays. ALL that I said or wrote is that equal protection for homosexual and heterosexual citizens is possible without dilution of the institution of marriage. What is being asked is that the personal choices of a minority be considered more important than the values and traditions of the majority. This is irrational. It is undemocratic. It is wrong.
Re 14
The numerical winner of the presidential election has lost before. And did so legally. We don’t go by popular vote but by the electoral college. In 1824, 1876 and 1888 the man who won the popular votes lost the presidency. It’s rare, but it happens.
Obama won handily, but hardly by the landslide progressives often claim if expressed as a percentage of the vote totals.
@23
As long as we can keep our semi-auto fire arms the American (white suburban) Way Of Life is safe. They take away our guns and the blacks will be all over our good (the non-good are another matter) white women!
The above is parody, too bad there are quite a few people who can’t figure that out.
Still waiting for proud leftist to explain to Puddy why John Adams defined America as a constitutional republic while the leftist monkees call it a constitutional democracy.
Leftists like the goatman want a constitutional democracy because it’s a rule by omnipotent majority – just what Odumba and his gang are doing now! he just wants it codified!
RE 23
“America is great NOT because we’re all forced to live the same life (like the Christian right would like) but BECAUSE we have freedom…”
Precisely. Any man has the freedom to marry any woman willing to accept him. Any gay man has the freedom to marry any woman. Any gay man has the freedom to a lifelong commitment to his male partner.
Where does this freedom become the freedom to diminish the value of institutions cherished by others?
Lost asks
Because anything not accepted by progressives is heinous and needs to be eradicated from American society!
The hatred Puddy spewed towards Shirley Sherrod last week was about the ugliest thing I’ve ever read. And you say, “What about the hate Puddy spewed towards the NAACP a couple weeks ago?” Well, yeah, that was pretty bad. But the hatred he spewed towards the wonderful and courageous Mrs. Sherrod was way over the top, even for a whackjob nutcase like Puddy.
So Michael calls this a parody.
Tell Puddy why you hate black people Michael?
Puddy asked Steve Steve Steve to post the hatred. Everyone is still waiting!
HE COULDN’T FiND ANYTHING. Even when confronted by FireDogLake and Mediaite Steve Steve Steve continued with his losing mantra. Steve Steve Steve feels if he continues to say it someday it will be true!
Now confronted with his black people hatred he returns to that tired crapola.
Steve Steve Steve still hasn’t answered why he hates black people. And guessing how Steve Steve Steve tap dances around here, Steve Steve Steve never will.
“Where does this freedom become the freedom to diminish the value of institutions cherished by others?”
It strikes me that you and your valued institutions are just too easily diminished. Frankly, Lost, denying freedom to others won’t help you much with this problem of yours.
Ohhh my… It’s kind of funny that Bush’s solicitor general and documented Clinton hater Ted Olson argued before the California judge AGAINST Prop 8…
Argentina of all places legalized gay marriage.
The Argentina that V.S. Naipaul wrote about in his classic essay from the early 70’s is obviously very much changed and more progressive on human rights than THIS COUNTRY!
Taking the arugument out of the homo-hetero marriage realm…
From a civil standpoint, marriage is a contract between two people that the state attaches certain “automatic” benefits. (survivorship, power of attorney, altered tax rates, etc.) That’s it. Want to belong to a church that says no same-sex marriage. Go for it. Government is NOT a private institution.
But the court in this case determined that the 14th ammendment provides equal protection. And that includes that the state cannot disallow a class of people from entering into a legal contract that another class of people can enter into.
The state is not allowed to uphold traditions for the sake of traditions. Either “all men are created equal” (different founding document) and have “equal protection” in the civil realm or the constitution doesn’t mean what it plainly states. Deal with that strict constructionists.
The arguement for upholding Prop 6 is analagous to claiming that the state is allowed to deny articles of incorporation to individuals on the basis that they prefer (loaded word used on purpose) traditional European dress over Ethiopean dress.
I learned in civics class that this was a country of majority rule and minority rights..
This case is about minority rights.
If you don’t like same-sex marriage don’t marry someone of the same sex.. Live and let live..
Lighten up right wingers.
@33 Are you still in denial over your hatred of black people, Puddy? Really, I thought you had gotten over that when I saw that you were eagerly spreading your filthy lies about that dear Mrs. Sherrod last week.
@32
Yes, it’s parody. It’s making fun of and showing what out of touch ass hats the very people who I’ve heard make such statements are. It’s not the kind of statement I would make. We’ve both been on here for years and you know that.
Puddy @ 19: “This is a constitutional repulbic fool! Elections have consequences.”
I gave you more credit than you deserve, Pud. Look at that post. Spelling. Something about elections having consequences. Being full of shit is no way to go through life, Puddy. We actually have a constitutional democracy. There is a difference, Pud. Look it up. Don’t look it up on one of your loopy wingnut sites.
Who has the thicker skull, Pudge or Puddy?
Discuss-
Who hates black people more, the racist KLOWN or Puddy?
Discuss-
RE 36
“And that includes that the state cannot disallow a class of people from entering into a legal contract that another class of people can enter into.”
With all due respect homosexuals can marry. They just can’t marry the same sex.
“The state is not allowed to uphold traditions for the sake of traditions. Either “all men are created equal” (different founding document) and have “equal protection” in the civil realm or the constitution doesn’t mean what it plainly states. Deal with that strict constructionists. ”
The constitution is itself a codification of values and traditions held by the society which wrote it. It establishes a government run by the principles informed by those values and traditions. Government and law aren’t abstract things separated from the culture governed.
“the culture governed”
And who decided that gays will be left out? Who is next on the hit list of those with undesirable values? That is, besides blacks and latinos.
RE 37
“I learned in civics class that this was a country of majority rule and minority rights..”
Yes it is. And if the argument was to get the government out of marriage altogether, I wouldn’t care. If the argument is to alter a fundamental societal building block for the convenience of a tiny minority, I do.
All the rights of marriage can be obtained with a little planning by any couple, gay straight or other. This isn’t an issue of discrimination. It is an issue of tyranny of the minority.
Does Lost have a more severe case of narcissism than the KLOWN?
Discuss-
Re 44
Who said anything about left out? We are gauranteed equal protection expressly to protect minority rights.
This doesn’t mean the minority gets to set the rules for everyone else.
How about this as a solution:
You want to get married before your god and your community, in a church that has rules about marriage only being between a man and a woman? Go ahead and do that. However, given that this is a religious ceremony it carries no legal standing whatsoever.
If you want the civil/legal benefits of the contract that is marriage, you have to that before a judge or justice. Moreover, this sort of union is open to any two adults who choose to make this commitment.
If you want, you can have the civil marriage, and then go to church and to the religious one, or vice versa – but only the civil marriage has any sort of legal standing. And the civil procedure is called “marriage”, nothing more, nothing less.
Deal?
“If the argument is to alter a fundamental societal building block for the convenience of a tiny minority, I do.”
I bet you felt the same way about blacks and civil rights. Such an inconvenience that was, giving that “tiny minority” equal rights. Your valued institutions were no doubt diminished when it came to pass.
“Who said anything about left out?”
You, with statements like this,
“If the argument is to alter a fundamental societal building block for the convenience of a tiny minority, I do.”
and this,
“homosexuals can marry. They just can’t marry the same sex.”
Interesting are some of the findings of fact by Judge Walker:
…and these are good ones, too:
Ooh, these are good too!
LS @ 48
That is, of course, an easy compromise, the way it should be. There is a separation between church and state that makes truckloads of sense. I am a Christian, the son of a preacher man. (Ah, Dusty Springfield.) I believe in accommodation. Wingies don’t like that concept.
Steve @ 49
Just when lost starts sounding like he could be one of those old Evans Republicans we used to love in this state, he darts toward the wingnuts. Not much we can do about that, I guess.
Re 46
Well then, if indididuals don’t choose sexual expression let’s lift the criminal sanctions against pedophilia. Let’s remove the laws against bestiality from the books. After all, these are expressions of sexuality the person is helpless against, right?
Behavior may have a genetic component. But no society could run itself on the notion that choice about that behavior isn’t in the realm of the individual.
This is for Lost most especially…more of Judge Walker’s decision, this regarding equal protection issues:
@55
Oh noes!
Lost is heading straight, or, um, directly, for box turtle territory!
Re 48
How about this as a compromise? You want a lifelong commitment with your partner? The state will recognize your civil union gay or straight.
If you want marriage with all that it means and has meant for thousands of years go to your preacher or guru or Elvis impersonator in Vegas and get married. The state will have no role in this.
BTW those ‘statements of fact’ from this activist judges ruling sound awfully like opinions to me.
Oh, this one is really good as well:
(emphasis mine)
HA!
“The evidence shows that the tradition of restricting an individual’s choice of spouse based on gender does not rationally further a state interest…”
So the stability of the family, a basic unit in society, isn’t a compelling state interest? I guess the only compelling state interest for Judge Walker is to do whatever his opinion says he ought, regardless of the law and the traditions which formed it.
Well, I have work to do tomorrow, so will bid you all a pleasant evening.
Activist judge, my ass, you bozo:
@60
You seem to allege that same-sex unions are inherently less stable than opposite-sex unions.
Proof? Evidence? Data?
@43
“With all due respect homosexuals can marry. They just can’t marry the same sex.”
You’re overlooking the contract law issue. To say that a man can’t marry a man, strictly from a civil issue not religious or moral, is the same as saying an Armenian can’t enter into a contract with a Turk be they both men or opposite sex.
“The constitution is itself a codification of values and traditions held by the society which wrote it.”
No, the Constitution is a codification of how the government can interact with its citizens. It describes the relationship between the government and the governed. And in this realm the equal protection clause of the 14th Ammendment is either clear as written (“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.“) or it isn’t.
There lies the problem for the “strict constructionist” side. Either the words are clear or it can be interpreted as within the federal government’s power to exempt certain segments of the populace from law in clear conflict with the 14th Ammendment.
lost,
I believe you’ve claimed to have done a year of law school. You have also claimed as follows: “So the stability of the family, a basic unit in society, isn’t a compelling state interest?”
Please tell me where in the Constitution that the “family” is declared a “compelling state interest.” You folks on the right are “literalists” when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. So, please tell me where “family” is referenced in the Constitution.
@54 “Just when lost starts sounding like he could be one of those old Evans Republicans we used to love in this state, he darts toward the wingnuts.”
Every damned time! That’s one reason why I have little patience with him. Another reason is that he writes as though he has a stick up his ass. If he talks like he writes, it’d be an insufferably long lunch conversation with the guy. I can imagine long-winded blather all too frequently interrupted by slaps to the noggin when he gets all wingnutty. Eh, I think I’ll pass.
Lost doesn’t come up with any really great one-liners that alone would get him the Golden Goat. But I bet we could put together a string of comments that just might earn the kid a goat.
@58 “If you want marriage with all that it means and has meant for thousands of years go to your preacher or guru or Elvis impersonator in Vegas and get married. The state will have no role in this.”
Neon Jesus, gurus and Elvis. This from the fellow who frets about diminishing the cherished institution of marriage? Don’t you think it’d be a little easier and one heck of a lot more dignified, Lost, to just grant that gays shall have equal rights? This is not change to be feared. This is the type of change, equality for a minority of Americans who have never known equality, that should be gladly welcomed. I believe it is only an irrational fear that keeps you from seeing that the time for this change has indeed come.
I’ve been wondering – Is Pudge dumber than a duck? Or is he a blockhead, an ignoramous, or perhaps dumber than a stump? Has he a skull as dense as a black hole’s singularity, or is he maybe just dumber than a box of rocks? Or is he all of these things and much, much more?
Discuss-
This is another step towards religious persecution. The judge used the 14th adm. So if the Supreme Court says that this Judge was right. Then a gay couple goes to a church and ask to get married. They say no. The couple sues saying they have a right to marry. All they need is the court to say is the couples right to marry under the 14 adm is more important than the churches 1st adm right.
@55 “Let’s remove the laws against bestiality from the books. After all, these are expressions of sexuality the person is helpless against, right?”
heh- You’re obviously directing that question to Mr. Klynical.
I don’t know why I still sometimes find myself astonished by the level of bigotry and idiocy in comments here.
A judge ruled that gays have the same rights as heterosexuals. Good for him. It isn’t religious persecution. Nobody is going to be forced to perform wedding ceremonies against their will. It isn’t a slippery slope to legalizing child rape or bestiality.
The ruling in no way harms anyone.
What is the matter with you people?
Why do some of you have nothing better to be outraged about than the prospect of gays being able to marry? It doesn’t concern you in any way. And if you think it does, you should see a licensed mental therapist to help you work through your hostility, irrational fears, and bigotry.
Or just grow up, for God’s sake.
This is another step towards religious persecution. The judge used the 14th adm. So if the Supreme Court says that this Judge was right. Then a gay couple goes to a church and ask to get married. They say no. The couple sues saying they have a right to marry. All they need is the court to say is the couples right to marry under the 14 adm is more important than the churches 1st adm right.
Funny. This comment is (mostly) in English, but it’s simultaneously gibberish. Perhaps before commenting, people should educate themselves on the issues at hand…
Naaaah. This is the internet. Why start now?
Did Jesus believe in accommodation? If so then display the Biblical verse spawn of a preacher man. Puddy remembers reading Jesus kicking out the money changers in the Temple. Jesus remembers the 8 Woes of Matthew 23. Peter remembers Jesus’ admonition of the rich young ruler. Puddy doesn’t remember any accommodation by Jesus. Of course you’ll try to use the verses where Jesus at with sinners. Ummm… He ate with them because He said they were sick and He was the Great Physician.
Puddy sees you describe your Christianity like Nancy Stretch Pelosi did recently when confronted over her “use” of the Word last week. Pelosi was finally asked a great follow-up question to her “comments” at the Catholic Community Conferences: “When did Jesus get the right to life?” Her answer like yours above is P R I C E L E S S!
Why is Steve Steve Steve a racist?
Discuss –
Why did it take Steve Steve Steve two weeks to denounce headless lucy and his 53 sock puppets?
Discuss –
Why does Steve Steve Steve cheer on the judge who invalidated the legal votes of California minorities?
Discuss –
Puddy loves how you heterosexual marriage haters use the Fourteen Amendment as your latest crutch. Before it was a civil right and it was compared to the black civil rights struggle until Jesse Hi-Jackson told y’all you can’t hijack the Civil Rights movement. Now that was
Toooooooooooooooooooooo
Damnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Funnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnny
So now Puddy is still waiting for someone to demonstrate in the Fourteenth Amendment that sexual orientation is a protected class. Well… Puddy been waiting for years for someone to demonstrate the Constitution allows abortions of unborn babies!
In your libtardo minds it’s a “do the right thing” argument. To us who hold heterosexual marriage sacred it’s just another jam this down our throats and damn the consequences or feelings of heteros!
proud leftist yep Puddy’s typing is off. Butt, we are a constitutional republic, not what you hope we are. Goldy’s blog clock is off by 6 minutes. Since Puddy uses the atomic clock of Colorado to set his server time, Puddy can’t edit comments once posted.
So where in the constitution does it discuss gays getting married is a “minority right”? This is another worthless argument thrown up by leftists on the 14th Amendment.
@55. lostinaseaofblue spews:
Well then, if individuals don’t choose sexual expression let’s lift the criminal sanctions against pedophilia. Let’s remove the laws against bestiality from the books. After all, these are expressions of sexuality the person is helpless against, right?
As as been pointed out about a million times before. It’s between consenting adults.
Kids are not adults and cannot consent.
Animals are not people and cannot consent.
For that matter, women who say NO, did not give consent.
@74
I’ll assume that you’re partly addressing me.
“So now Puddy is still waiting for someone to demonstrate in the Fourteenth Amendment that sexual orientation is a protected class.”
The 14h makes no mention of a protected class. In a straightforward way it describes who can be a citizen and clearly says “any person” is subject to all laws. So make your arguement Puddy. How is it that homosexuals aren’t “persons?” Tell me how, rather than a “protected class,” homosexuals aren’t simply an included miniority?
I see the standard pedophila/bestiality/assault on religion has surfaced. There are a bunch of rulings that children are seperate from adult laws. Children can’t enter into contracts, don’t have full freedom of speech rights in school, etc. So, can a child consent to sex/marriage under this ruling? No. Stupid argument. Can an animal sign a contract or explicitly give consent? No. Stupid argument. Is a church the government? Are churches specifically free from adhering to certain civil laws? (hint, see U.S. v. Boyll) Yes. Stupid argument.
@74. Some people hold cows sacred. Should you be denied your right to eat beef because it might hurt their feelings?
Should we outlaw divorce, so you don’t get your feelings hurt? How about adultery? Doesn’t adultery hurt your feelings ?
As I said. Grow up.
@76
What’s to damn funny Puddy is that your reading of the 14th Ammendment leads you to believe that the Governemnt can pass a civil law (or right) that ONLY applies to the majority and specifically excludes the minority.
Why do you hate the Constitution, Puddy? Why do you hate your country?
The right to be treated equally before the law instead of at the whim of whatever passion the majority feels at the moment.
Lets stop bashing gays and start bashing rich people. God hates the rich & greedy a lot more than he hates gays. We know that because he admonishes the rich a hundred times in the bible for every mention of homosexuality.
You see, I believe being wealthy is a sin. So I think we should deny rights to rich people. What message are we sending our children when we allow the sin of greed? Won’t anyone think of the children?
Don’t you know that families are destroyed by wealth all the time? We must protect the family. It is the foundation of civilized society.
Come on, who’s with me?
@82: LOL. Nice snark, but using the bible verse and appeal to religious “reasoning”…?
This is the essential victory in the prop 8 ruling.
When you peel away the bullshit and wild verbal gesticulations of the “opposite marriage only” crowd, what’s left is their superstitioous nonsense.
That’s what “no rational basis” means.
82. sarge. Great points. I’ll have to use that in arguments.
Is it wealth or lack of wealth that’s the problem?
@6 “In Progressive land, the people don’t matter.”
I don’t know what your idea of “democracy” is, putz, but I don’t think “the people” should have a say in who I marry.
@45 “All the rights of marriage can be obtained with a little planning by any couple, gay straight or other. This isn’t an issue of discrimination. It is an issue of tyranny of the minority.”
That is factually wrong.
86
Plus, “tyranny of the minority”? Personally, I don’t feel terribly threatened by gays. Not a bit. I think that “tyranny” is a word that might be reserved for Pol Pot or Iran, but not for a situation in which two adults who love each other and want to make a public commitment to each other are permitted to do so.
No one has explained how sexual orientation makes one a minority. Now on has explained how sexual orientation violates the 14th amendment equal protection statutes. Puddy understands how race, gender, or national origin qualify; butt these weak gay marriage arguments are
WEAK!
It’s your side that is coercive, fierce, name calling and truly intolerant. Yet there are many churches who will “marry” y’all. As Puddy sees it these institutions either explicitly allow the consecration or blessing of same-sex “marriages” or look the other way when individual congregations perform such ceremonies. There are NO LAWS that prohibit or prevent these churches outlined above in WikiPedia from conducting marriage ceremonies. Go run to them. Since y’all love to screm about the separation of church and state, nearly all Americans would agree that it is right for the government to stay out of a church’s decision on the issue. So go and get married in one of those churches.
Oops… most of you are atheists so going to a curch is out of the question. So let’s force a law down disagreeing Americans.
Why do y’all hate America?
But noooooooo, you need to ram this down people whoi don’t agree with you throats because it the progressive tyrannical way of the intolerant. So who are the Talibangelist again? You are!
Did you all forget Romer vs Evans? Puddy didn’t. Have ylb check the vaulted database archive. From te first paragraph in WikiPedia (leftist too) it seems none of the SCOTUS expressed any willingness to deem sexual orientation to be a protected class. Hmmm…? So mow you are trying the minority report argument? Now we remember Lawrence vs. Texas cornholing (sodomy for idiots like Steve Steve Steve) law where again 8 out of 9 SCOTUS viewed saw no 14th amendment equal protection violation.
Why do y’all hate America?
@87 It’s all about fear. If it isn’t one fear, it’s another. There’s just no end to it with these people. The question in regards to the Klown would be, does he feel the fear, or is he just spreading it like the despical and disgusting piece of shit I believe him to be?
Has anybody seen Darryl’s Puddy De-coder goggles?
What’s so damn funny is checksz thinks like that. Ask ylb where Puddy has said this?
Go on… grow soe balls and ask him. He can easily scan his vaulted database!
Darn, my remote keyboard batteries must be getting weak. Time to change them.
@88: That was some rambling, incoherent shit, Pudpuller.
You have your sack cloth and ashes on, right?
You’re obviously mentally ill, Pudpuller. I’m not fucking with you now, this is serious: if there’s any bit of clarity left in there somewhere, please consider getting help as soon as possible, OK? Seriously.
“When you peel away the bullshit and wild verbal gesticulations of the “opposite marriage only” crowd, what’s left is their superstitioous nonsense.”
In that way, it’s quite similar to the Dover Intelligent Design trial, over which another Republican judge presided. That’s gotta suck.
Anyways, what the hell is the fucking holdup on the FEMA camps and the Big Troll Roundup*?? I’m getting sick and tired of responding to those goddamned Rasmussen robo-calls and having to tell those bastards that Obama sucks.
* Grown a goddamned sense of humor, you wingnut fucktards.
One of two things is true. Sexuality is a choice. Or sexuality is something over which a person has no control.
If the former the decision by Walker is gibberish. He bases most of his assumptions (NOT findings of fact, but interpretations he chooses based on his own sexuality) on the this belief, that no-one chooses sexuality.
If this is true no expression of sexuality can be sanctioned under law. After all the agressor in a rape is in fact the victim of his sexuality. The pedophile is not a mentally disturbed violator of children, he is the helpless slave to his given sexuality. Surely all of you can see how damaging this notion is?
Or it’s a choice. Maybe not an easy one. I choose to eat well and exercise frequently because my family is prone to diabetes and heart disease. Maybe I’ll die of a heart attack or lose a leg to diabetes (stop daydreaming, Steve, I said ‘maybe’) but it won’t be for lack of choice to try to avert it.
The notion that behavior is genetic, outside of the individuals control, that really does frighten me.
RE 87
“Personally, I don’t feel terribly threatened by gays.”
Nor do I. As I’ve frequently written I believe that discrimination based on sexuality is morally wrong. It is legally wrong.
But refusing to allow men to marry men or women to marry women isn’t discrimination. It is the way society has conducted itself for millenia. And somehow gays have stumbled along, often doing quite well compared to the population generally.
Turning the question back on the questioner, why is it so important for liberals that gays marry? What essential social purpose is served thereby?
“One of two things is true. Sexuality is a choice. Or sexuality is something over which a person has no control.”
Since that’s pure horseshit, all that followed was nothing but bullshit.
Re 97
No, that is a statement of fact. One of those options is true, the other not. Simple as that.
“And somehow gays have stumbled along”
Stumble? I imagine it’s quite difficult to walk after being dragged behind a pickup truck.
“often doing quite well”
What, after a stay in Intensive Care?
In case you haven’t noticed, a lot of people hate gays.
Zitz, everyone can tell you never possessed a working brain cell. How did you get into the Navy?
Puddy noticed Zitz couldn’t:
1) Explain how sexual orientation makes one a minority.
2) Explain how sexual orientation violates the 14th amendment equal protection statutes.
3) Explain how come the libtardo class of SCOTUS never expressed any willingness to deem sexual orientation to be a protected class.
Of course being as stupid as he is Zitz only has ad hominem attacks in his bag of “tricks”. Asking Zitz to create a cogent argument is like a libtardo asking ylb to search his vaulted database for previous posts. Not happening.
That’s because Zitz is an empty suit with an empty neanderthal cranial orifice!
You do like to keep things simple, don’t you, Lost?
@98 And you have exactly what to back up your statement of fact?
Um, would somebody give Puddy a pill, please?
James Byrd was gay Steve Steve Steve? Got proof?
Why do you hate black people Steve Steve Steve?
This is another laughable statement from Steve Steve Steve. Still waiting for proof on his Shirley Sherod screed! We’ll be waiting F O R E V E R!
Notice how Steve Steve Steve can’t answer the questions either? Keep taking the blue pill Steve Steve Steve so you can go back to sleep and be reconnected to the Obamnamatrix.
Re 102
If I said it’s either raining or not, what study would you have me back this up with.
If I said when the sky is blue during the day the sun is shining, how would you suggest I support this statement?
Between sexuality as a choice and sexuality as a genetic precondition there really isn’t a middle ground.
Good God man, you can’t be that dense.
Re 99
BTW, we have laws on the books for inflicting intentional physical harm on others. Whether the victim is gay or straight, if a person acts as you described they are going to jail. The real discrimination is in assigning extra emphasis to crimes perpetrated on the basis of ‘hate.’ This creates a class of people on whom assaults are treated as more important than on others. Go 14th Amendment!
@95
If this is true no expression of sexuality can be sanctioned under law.
Why do you keep repeating this as if no one has ever responded to it? Consent is relevant to the issue, and please stop arguing as if no one has ever pointed this out. Your repeated assertion of this claim has reached the level of complete disingenuousness.
Don’t sell Steve Steve Steve short or count Steve Steve Steve out. He really is that D E N S E.
“Puddy understands how race, gender, or national origin qualify…(followed by much ranting bullshit)”
Puddy still doesn’t grasp the situation. It is perfectly legal for private organizations, i.e. churces to marry or not marry whomever they choose. They aren’t the government.
I ask you again Puddy, what about the phrase “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Are homosexuals not persons? Does not the state make marriage laws? So under what non “it’s tradition damnit” argument can the state say we allow this group of people to marry but deny that law’s protection to this other group without and that is perfectly equal protection?
You have no answer obviously. One more time, it’s not a new protected class. It’s a minority group that is constitutionally guaranteed equal treatment afforded to the majority. C’mon Puddy, you’re one step away from “white guys can’t marry asian girls” in your arbitrary logic.
Now if the state and federal governments want to get out of the way and say, “Hey heteros, you can get married in your church but were going to stop issuing licenses and you’ll also need a lawyer (paid) to draw up civil contracts for right of survivorship, medical power of attorney, next of kin, etc becuase we’re not going to automatically provide you with any of that,” THEN you’d be back to equal protection of straight and gay people that decide they want to get married.
“Show me where Puddy made the claim that straight people can’t get married! I never said that. Prove it. Ask someone to look it up.” -Puddy, circa sometime in the next hour.
No, under the assumption of a person as the helpless victim of their sexuality consent isn’t. After all, they are as much the victim as the distraught woman or permanently damaged child. No victims exist where no choice exists.
Of course I differentiate between the consentual sexual acts of adults and the violent and psychologically disturbed acts of criminals. It’s the doctrine of sexuality as inevitable that doesn’t, if it’s proponents accept the inescapable logic of their position.
Sorry, 110 referred to 107.
lostinhisownasshole is an even dumber fuck than I thought.
I take it back. Even the crackpiper is smarter than this idiot.
Ah Rujax, you’re back?
I hope you had a pleasant weekend smoking dope and watching Donny Darko over and over.
“Explain how sexual orientation violates the 14th amendment equal protection statutes.”
Arguing a negative, eh Puddy.
Show me the state or federal ruling that overturns sexual orientation as a protected class in any of the states that have enacted such measures? It doesn’t exist ’cause there isn’t a right-nutter lawyer who thinks they could win and losing means all the states that haven’t enacted might have to.
“Uhhhh…I wasn’t saying that sexual orientation isn’t a protected class in 100% of state cases. I didn’t, I didn’t, I didn’t, I didn’t. I was saying it’s not a protected class in all circumstances that I choose not to ignore! I know my God doesn’t like gays so the Government and all you Libtardos must agree with me too!” Puddy, circa 45 minutes from now.
@ 110
No, under the assumption of a person as the helpless victim of their sexuality consent isn’t.
That’s not an assumption that’s made by anyone in this argument. It’s neither an assumption nor a conclusion of fact in Judge Walker’s ruling either. In other words, that assumption is a straw man entirely of your own construction, which is why your persistent invocation of it is so disingenuous.
Re 109
Puddy and many others would likely argue that protected classes are those for whom their status isn’t a choice. A black man didn’t choose his ethnicity so treating him differently on account of it is insane. A woman didn’t choose her feminity so saying she ought to work for less money than her male counterpart is manifestly unjust.
It all turns on whether one views sexuality as choice or inescapble fact of a persons nature.
Re 115,
“That’s not an assumption that’s made by anyone in this argument. It’s neither an assumption nor a conclusion of fact in Judge Walker’s ruling either.”
Yes, it is. In both the arguments here and explicitly in Walkers ruling the belief that homosexuality is a fact of ones existence or not independent of that individuals choice is stated implicitly or explicitly.
I know it’s an iffy proposition to present a point of fact to someone who clearly lacks the capacity for critical thinking…but here goes:
Hey…lostinyourownasshole…sexual preference is (in almost every case) NOT a choice. Your anaology to skin color is apt. Both are genetic predispositions.
@ 117
In both the arguments here and explicitly in Walkers ruling the belief that homosexuality is a fact of ones existence
Yes. On the other hand, your statement regarding “a person as the helpless victim of their sexuality,” does not imply the same meaning, and the precise difference between the two has to do with consent.
Your argument attempts to elide the distinction between predisposition and the choice to act on that predisposition. Yours is the only argument that attempts to elide this distinction, and that is why your argument is completely disingenuous.
Black people can choose not to mary white people. No? So, marriage is really a matter of choice, no?
@116
I don’t see where it makes a difference. If America is about individual freedom (I’m pretty sure I hear lots of right-nutters bleating about that daily) then you’re also free to choose to be homosexual. The contradictions the conservative mind must go through to deal with these paradoxi must be exhausting.
Scientific evidence notwithstanding.
“Good God man, you can’t be that dense”
In other words, you have absolutely fucking nothing to back you up on what you state is fact. I say it’s only your fucking opinion and a really stupid one at that.
I put the call out for more meds for you, Puddy. You’ll be feeling better in no time.
“Yes. On the other hand, your statement regarding “a person as the helpless victim of their sexuality,” does not imply the same meaning, and the precise difference between the two has to do with consent.”
Exactly. The homosexual, under this assumption, is unable to choose otherwise. And if you accept this, the pedophile or rapist can’t either. Really, you can’t assume one persons sexuality is choice driven and anothers not on the basis of one being objectionable. Not logically anyway.
“Your argument attempts to elide the distinction between predisposition and the choice to act on that predisposition. Yours is the only argument that attempts to elide this distinction, and that is why your argument is completely disingenuous.”
First, I want to thank you. It isn’t often I have recourse to a dictionary, and ‘elide’ was marvelously new to me. Thanks.
Second, I’m the person who isn’t leaving the distinction between predisposition and choice out. I seem to recall being pretty direct about it. Homosexuality may be a predisposition, the choice to act upon it is the individuals.
And in that choice lies the difference between minority status and living a lifestyle of your free will. Black people can’t. Women can’t. Homosexuals can.
“you’re also free to choose to be homosexual”
Indeed. But I not believe everybody is free. Lost is not free and he does not seek freedom. Like Lost, too many people are chained to crippling neuroses that distorts their perception of reality and leaves them with no free will left whatsofuckingever. I believe people like Lost helplessly act out their mental illness each minute of every day in a dream world daze, including when they’re fucking somebody or, as in Klynical’s case, fucking some “thing”. Such people are not free and, as with mental health, there’s nothing gay, straight, black, white, left or right about it.
“The homosexual, under this assumption, is unable to choose otherwise. And if you accept this, the pedophile or rapist can’t either. Really, you can’t assume one persons sexuality is choice driven and anothers not on the basis of one being objectionable. Not logically anyway.”
Not really sure the point you’re trying to make. In cases where both parties are not consenting then a crime can be attached. When two people wander into a courthouse, fill out a form, and sign it in front of witnesses it would be nearly impossible to claim that either party is non-consensual.
@ 123
The homosexual, under this assumption, is unable to choose otherwise.
With respect to which choices? How they feel, or how they act?
Second, I’m the person who isn’t leaving the distinction between predisposition and choice out.
Then how do you explain your persistent effort to press an argument that can only be legitimate if we ignore this distinction?
Homosexuality may be a predisposition, the choice to act upon it is the individuals.
You’ve ignored the questions I asked at the end of my last comment. Blacks can choose not to marry whites, therefore, despite the fact that one’s skin color “may be a predisposition, the choice to act upon it is the individuals[sic].”
Proposition 8 demands that homosexuals not act on their predisposition with respect to marriage, but does so without advancing any legitimate state interest. This is the argument that you’ve persistently refused to address.
Frankly, if your argument is the most coherent argument in favor of Proposition 8, then there’s a rather strong likelihood that both the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court will uphold Judge Walker’s ruling.
Rant!
There is no point in arguing any more about gay marriage being fair. No logic will change their minds. They enjoy being bigots. They like knowing that in some small way, they are keeping people down. It makes them feel powerful.
These are the same kind of people who would have fought civil rights in the 50 and 60.
These are the same kind of people who would have fought women being able to vote.
These are the kind of people who encouraged Jim Crow and fought for slavery before that.
They know it’s wrong, and they don’t care. They have God and the love of money on their side and that keeps them content.
Rant done.
@ 127
There is no point in arguing any more about gay marriage being fair. No logic will change their minds.
On the other hand, showing the illogic behind their arguments will expose their bigotry for what it is.
Re 124
I have, humbly, to acknowledge that you’re right. “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free” is a hope for me, and a too partially realized one at that.
As for the psycho-babble, I’d be a bit more cautious about diagnosing mental illness in a patient you don’t know. But that’s just me.
Re 125 and 126
I thought the logical construct was fairly clear, but was apparently wrong.
Sexuality is a choice or it isn’t.
If it is a choice culpability for acts against non-consenting others applies. Additionally, as with all choices society is not responsible for the consequences, the chooser is. Nor does society or the law owe protected status to those who choose their status.
If it isn’t a choice such culpability can’t apply, as the actor is as victimized in thralldom to his or her sexuality as the victim of his or her acts.
These are the horns of the dilemna with which you and Judge Walker must deal.
Please understand, I am not equating consentual acts of homosexuality with either rape or pedophilia. I understand that this expression of sexuality is a choice between consenting adults, and not my business. It is those who would class homosexuality as genetically inevitable that equate any expression of sexuality, no matter how depraved, with homosexuality by the inescapable consequences of their own logic.
@125 “Not really sure the point you’re trying to make.”
No point. He just likes putting homosexuals, pedophiles and rapists in the same sentence.
Proud leftist…
Puddy needs your checksez decoder ring@114…
Don Joe,
You can call me a bigot until the cows come home. Since it isn’t true, in the words of the Bard, “It touches me not.”
Re 128
“On the other hand, showing the illogic behind their arguments will expose their bigotry for what it is.”
So when are you going to start?
“Please understand, I am not equating consentual acts of homosexuality with either rape or pedophilia. I understand that this expression of sexuality is a choice between consenting adults, and not my business. It is those who would class homosexuality as genetically inevitable that equate any expression of sexuality, no matter how depraved, with homosexuality by the inescapable consequences of their own logic.”
Can you discuss homsexuality without the incessant references to pedophiles, rapists and depravity?
From his VERY OWN ASSHOLE, lostinhisownasshole conflates the “choice” homosexual man or woman of a to act on their inherent sexuality which is neither harmful nor illegal…to rapists and pedophiles, whose sexual activities ARE harmful to the extreme AND illegal as well.
Good show bigot.
@ 129
I thought the logical construct was fairly clear, but was apparently wrong.
The logical construct is clear. It’s also flawed in ways that have been repeatedly pointed out.
Sexuality is a choice or it isn’t.
If we acknowledge the existence of a distinction between predisposition and behavior, then it can be both depending on what we mean by “sexuality”. As I said, by forcing this logical dichotomy, you are eliding the distinction.
You can call me a bigot until the cows come home.
If your argument is flawed, then bigotry is the only thing that’s left. You can choose to ignore this inescapable conclusion, but doing so is simply a case of self-deception.
Steve @ 130…
true that
But it’s us Lib-ruls what’s got the problem.
Re 127
God and the love of money? Odd, don’t recall invoking either God or money..
Rant inane.
Probably not… Them and strawmen are all they got.
We’ve got the law and the facts and Anthony Kennedy. We win.
RE 136
“If we acknowledge the existence of a distinction between predisposition and behavior, then it can be both depending on what we mean by “sexuality”. As I said, by forcing this logical dichotomy, you are eliding the distinction.”
So as long a homosexual man or woman doesn’t act on their sexuality, they can marry a person of the same sex. But they can’t, because we already said that they can’t act on their predisposition.
But if they act on the predisposition they’ve chosen a status, which choice invalidates protected minority status.
Hmm. Seems a bit of a problem.
BTW, thanks again for ‘elide.’ I love new words.
@ 141…
Make sense will ya ferchrissakes…
Re 142
I can’t. I’m giving the liberal position in that post, which is inherently senseless.
@ 141
But if they act on the predisposition they’ve chosen a status, which choice invalidates protected minority status.
In other words, we grant them the freedom to choose just so long as they do not exercise their right to choose.
Seems a bit of a problem.
I’ll say. Incoherent arguments, such as yours, are always problematic.
Re 144
“I’ll say. Incoherent arguments, such as yours, are always problematic.”
Precisely, but this should concern you more than me. It is after all the twisted logic of the Walker decision.
And te black/white marriage issue weighs into the gay marriage issue how Don Joe?
Stupid straw man argument. Straw man fell down!
Don Joe,
Whatever it may seem to you, condescending, arrogant or bigoted, I enjoy exchanges with you. Even if I don’t agree with some of your positions you at least approach them intelligently and with clear thinking.
@ 145
It is after all the twisted logic of the Walker decision.
No. That’s your caricature of the Walker decision. The Walker decision has no such line of reasoning in it. If you disagree, perhaps you can quote it for us?
@ 146
And te black/white marriage issue weighs into the gay marriage issue how Don Joe?
The following items cited in Judge Walker’s findings of fact should suffice:
And
Pace v Alabama, 106 US 583, 585 (1883) (holding that anti-miscegenation laws did not violate the Constitution because they treated African-Americans and whites the same);
Stupid straw man argument.
Thank you, Puddy, for, again, demonstrating that you do not understand even basic rhetorical terminology.
you’re also free to choose to be homosexual.
Sexuality is a choice or it isn’t.
I’m always going to be gay. I can chose NOT to have sex, but I will always be gay and like guys, not girls. Me personally that’s how I’m hard wired. Your situation may vary. You are confusing the orientation with the act.
Now to muddy the waters, Desire is on a continuum. Most people are 100% straight or 100% gay. They don’t change, they don’t choose. It’s the 30% gays, and there are some, that are the ones that can go through Ex Gay programs and tamp down their desire for men and choose to live a straight life. They are also the ones most bothered by gayness.
You go on about protecting a minority. It doesn’t make a difference if it’s inborn or chosen. We protect for aspects that are inborn, like color of skin. We protect some aspects that are choice, like religion or interracial marriages. There is no Baptist Race, but baptists have the right to marry anyway.
RE 150
Out of curiousity and with no desire to offend-
If the state recognized your right to equality with heterosexual married couples in a civil union, but reserved marriage as a term for male/female lifetime committments is this insufficient? If so, and again with no desire to offend, why not?
If you mean to call it a “civil union” where gay and lesbian couples get all the rights and and responsibilities and consequences exactly like being married, without having to go to court and fight for every last contract and benefit’s plan to recognize that “Civil Union” is the exact same thing as “marriage” but with a different name, then I’m all for it.
I really have to wonder about this case.
While I’ll freely admit to laboring under the opinion that most of the people who support outlawing gay marriage are unsophisticated rubes, the ones who lead this movement are anything but. They’re sophisticated, worldly people.
They also know how courts and trials work. Repeating like sheep that this is the will of the majority doesn’t sway judges. Never has, never will.
The star witness for the Prop 8 team, David Blankenhorn, was not up to the job. In addition to not having an academic record to his name, he simply couldn’t close the deal. His argument as an expert in family structures was based on other people’s research. This research held that stable nuclear families produced better outcomes than single-parent households or “cohabiting” households (i.e. where an unmarried boyfriend and girlfriend with children from other parents share a house together). I would agree with Blankenhorn’s assertion here by the way. The problem is, what it has to do with gay couples is beyond me.
There was, in fact, a bit of circular logic to the whole argument. “Unmarried couples in households produce worse family outcomes than married couples. We are forbidding gays to marry, therefore, we guarantee that their outcomes will be worse over time!” Cool, huh?
This would be like me asserting the following argument:
Black men are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system and are a threat to public safety.
Puddybud is a black man.
Therefore, Puddybud is a threat to my personal safety.
That argument wouldn’t even fly here on HA, let alone in a court with grownups.
Here’s the question I’d be asking. Real trials with real lawyers don’t work like Perry Mason. There are no surprises in the last 10 minutes. All this stuff is worked through outside of open court. All the questions are asked, all the witnesses are cross-examined. All the material the opposition intends to bring are presented to the opposing counsel.
Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage, in lawyer-land, this one wasn’t even close. This was the New York Yankees versus a pick-up team with a bunch of your buddies.
One part of me is wondering if the pro Prop-8 crowd deliberately threw the case with the expectation that a ruling striking Prop 8 down would anger their supporters enough to force a more favorable outcome outside of court.
One part of me is wondering if the pro Prop-8 crowd deliberately threw the case with the expectation that a ruling striking Prop 8 down would anger their supporters enough to force a more favorable outcome outside of court.
Are you referring to the “countermobilization” effect, in which a court decision causes the losers to fight harder in other venues, often in the form of higher voter turnout and things like that? If so, it should be noted that there’s very little evidence to support it, and a growing body of evidence to suggest it’s more myth than reality.
Just out of curiousity, how many of the people commenting in this thread have actually read the decision they’re discussing?
Curiosity, of course. Lousy broken edit function…
@Another TJ:
I have read the decision, thanks.
The idea that countermobilization is a myth makes sense to me. Gays get married. Normal people find that the world goes on unchanged and God doesn’t plague the state with locusts for its wickedness. People yawn and life goes on. It largely happened with segregation, and it will happen with gay marriage.
The reason I ask the question is based on my read of the decision. Again, I’m working from the premise that the organizers of Prop 8 are not as dumb as their legions of fans. They hired lawyers, paid good money for them, and even if the organizers themselves aren’t that bright, their legal staff has a responsibility to brief their clients as to the potential outcome of a trial.
The majority of their witnesses refused to testify, fearing persecution after the trial. If they were not willing to testify in the first place, they should not have been added to the list of witnesses. The witnesses who did testify were simply bad. I’ve already given my opinion of Blankenhorn. Kenneth Miller tried to argue that because of gay influence in California politics beyond their fairly small numbers in the population, gays do not constitute a “protected class”, whatever that means. 14th Amendment cases do not focus on protected classes. They focus on the concept that there can only be one set of laws for all people in that jurisdiction.
As a politically motivated defense, designed to hit the hot buttons of people outside the courtroom opposing gay marriage, I’d give their effort a B or a B+. As a legally-oriented defense designed to sway a judge (who is, you know, the person deciding this case), they get a D.
Another reason I wonder if the case was thrown. Remember how the appeals process works. When you go to a higher court, you get to re-argue the legal findings that derived from the findings of fact. You do not (as a rule) get to re-argue the facts of the case.
To use a baseball metaphor, you don’t get a new game. You get 2 extra innings to try to redeem yourself.
Prop 8’s supporters knew from day 1 that this case was going to go to the Supreme Court. If your facts are weak, your ability to survive appeal after appeal get progressively worse.
So I ask again, what happened here?
Anyone who thinks Loving v. Virginia was properly decided really shouldn’t find much fault with Judge Walker’s decision.
While the current court might find a way to do some fancy legal backflips and uphold Prop 8, I suspect it is only a matter of time before a new court reverses that ruling. Even then, all indications are that Justice Kennedy is likely to follow a similar line of reasoning to Judge Walker in which case the SCOTUS is likely to uphold this ruling.
I have read the decision, thanks.
I didn’t have you in mind when asking. That’s why I separated it from my question/comment directed to you, which was just an FYI, not a criticism.
There have been so many questions and comments in this thread about things that are clearly articulated in the decision that I wanted to not-so-subtly suggest where the source of their confusion may lie.
Again, I’m working from the premise that the organizers of Prop 8 are not as dumb as their legions of fans. They hired lawyers, paid good money for them, and even if the organizers themselves aren’t that bright, their legal staff has a responsibility to brief their clients as to the potential outcome of a trial.
I agree it’s generally a good idea to start from the position that your opponents aren’t idiots and are behaving more or less rationally. At the same time, remember that everyone makes mistakes, so we can’t eliminate simple miscalculation as a factor. It’s entirely possible that their attorneys told them their chances of successfully defending the law in federal court against challenges a, b, and c were 90% and against x, y, and z were 20%, and the pro-h8ers decided to go for it.
All of this is a long way of saying that I think you’ve downplayed the possibility that I think is most likely: they had a crappy case on the facts and the law with respect to the U.S. constitution. A few things to consider:
1. Prop h8 had already survived state court challenge so it’s clear the supporters weren’t total fools. They likely wrote the law with California law and precedent in mind.
2. In the state court, they didn’t have to defend it on its merits to the degree they had to in federal court. The state trial was heavy on procedural issues (was it a revision? did it violate separation of powers? etc.). This was about substance, and no matter how well they dotted their “i”s and crossed their “t”s, at the end of the day, “gays are icky” really was the motivation behind the ban, and it just isn’t a very useful justification for discrimination. But it was all the defense attorneys had.
3. Boies and Olsen really are tremendous attorneys. When two of the best constitutional lawyers in the country team up, and you’ve got a sketchy case to begin with, even good lawyers are going to get their asses handed to them.
Anyway, I’m not as sanguine as many others about the SCOTUS chances for this case, so I’m not as happy as I would be otherwise, but I think you’re giving the pro-h8 crowd too much credit. They’re not super-villains; they’re just assholes. ;-)
But I could be wrong. They could be both super-villains AND assholes.
Another TJ,
I’ve read the decision. The attorneys for the defense did very poorly, and allowed an activist judge to insert his opinions as facts in a highly charged area of law on account of that poor performance.
In point of fact Walker should have recused himself based on his own sexual orientation. Were he a man of integrity with an actual understanding of his role as a judge he would have done. But he isn’t.
I’ve read Walkers twisted reasoning and statements of ‘fact’ which are no more or less than self justifying opinions on his part. Because I don’t happen to agree with this profanation of justice makes me in your mind an asshole. Fine. Your opinion, and one which I care very little about, so no harm done.
I am a realist. At some point the de-evolution of our culture will bring about gay marriage, and the further demeaning of what marriage is and does societally. But I and other people of conscience will continue to fight it, losing battle or not.
Blue John,
I did mean that all rights given to heterosexual couples would be recognized as pertaining also to gay men or women seeking a lifelong affirmation of their love for each other in a civil union. Not given, as those rights are enshrined in our Constitution and have been given already, but recognized.
I just sincerely believe that the word marriage has a valuable and specific role in society. And that that role involves a man and a woman.
JSA, briefly, here’s Scott at LGM’s take on Kennedy, in the likely event this ends up at the SCOTUS.
In point of fact Walker should have recused himself based on his own sexual orientation.
What do you mean?
@160
The attorneys for the defense did very poorly,
Looks to me like they did the best they could have done given what they had.
and allowed an activist judge to insert his opinions as facts in a highly charged area of law on account of that poor performance.
There are two differences between Judge Walker’s opinions and yours:
1) He accurately labels his opinions as conclusions of fact, while you present your opinions as if they were established facts; and
2) Judge Walker actually cited evidence from the trial record in support of his conclusions of fact, while a person can search the world in vain for any instance where you actually cite even an iota of evidence in support of your conclusions of fact.
Re 163
http://www.associatedcontent.c.....tml?cat=17
This article even has a li
Sorry, no edit function-
The article has a liberal bias, so don’t bother trying to say this an attempt to smear Walker.
So what? Even if he’s gay, why should he have to recuse himself?
Not because being gay disqualifies him from serving on the bench. Of course it doesn’t.
Not for any religious reason. We separate church and state in this country. A bit too paranoicly, but that’s a discussion for a different day.
How about because even if he brought no bias to the case the appearance of bias is unavoidable. Seems to me the left was screaming about a judge in the South who had no business judging the cessation of drilling for oil in the gulf. Why? Because the judge had a few stocks in BP. This case has a possibility of affecting Walker much more deeply than that, yet I hear a deafening silence on the left about him. Hypocrites.
What characteristics would a judge have to possess in order to preside over this case to avoid the appearance of bias?
Re 169
Not having a great deal to gain by making your findings one way or the other would be a good start.
Recusing himself would have been a good finish.
If the points at law are so compelling as you and Don Joe and the rest think, what harm would come from having a judge without the appearance of bias adjudicate the case?
Think of like Bush v Gore. Had the judges made their decision more temperately the false appearance of an invalid president would have been avoided. A little time spent to gain that end would have been time well spent. As it is, that case is grist for the mill of left wing conspiracy theorists for the next decade.
And I apologize for the name calling in 168. Every person subordinates reason to personal inclination to some degree. Some do it more than others, left or right.
You’re missing my point. How does anything you’ve written about Walker not apply equally to a married, heterosexual judge? Or an unmarried, heterosexual judge?
I suppsse I am.
Walker, Judge Walker to give him the title he earned through years of hard work, had much to gain or lose from deciding this case one way or the other.
How does a heterosexual judge find himself or herself in the same position with respect to this particular case?
Both married and unmarried heterosexual judges have obvious and, by your logic, insurmountable interests in the definition and restriction/expansion of marriage.
Apply the same logic to other areas of law: For instance, would you also require female judges to recuse themselves from abortion cases? All female judges or only pre-menopausal female judges?
How about fathers with teenaged daughters if the question is parental consent for abortion? Are they gone too? How about male judges who have not had vasectomies?
That’s not a slippery slope; it’s a cliff.
@lostinaseaofblue
OK. Humor me. Where’s an error in Judge Walker’s line of reasoning from the testimony?
Remember that the Prop 8 people have a fairly limited line of argument which is admissible in court. You can’t argue religion, because we have an establishment clause. You can’t argue that sex between men is gross. It’s irrelevant, and most sex looks pretty doggone funny truth be told.
Certainly there must be a point in Walker’s writing (before the bit at the end where he said gays can marry) where there was an error. Could you point it out to me please?
“A bit too paranoicly, but that’s a discussion for a different day.”
Fuck off, Lost. If you suffer from paranoia about church and state, you can blame right-wing Christian Dominionists and Reconstructionists. Oh, that’s right, I recall that you claimed ignorance about right-wing extremist Christianity, not that your ignorance on any subject would ever cause you to shut the fuck up.
Judge Walker, by the direct affect of his ruling, may now marry his partner, if such a partner exists. He has a direct and personal benefit gained by the decision he made.
A heterosexual judge, married or not has no direct benefit in this case. His or her marriage isn’t threatened by this ruling, or by gay couples living lives devoted to each other.
What is threatened is the social role and benefits of marriage for the children or grandchildren of the heterosexual judge, but that isn’t the direct conflict of interest Walker faced, and chose to ignore, to make an ideological point. He failed in his duty as a judge, pure and simple.
Slippery slope? Cliff? No, just a poor decision by a sitting judge to replace his duties as a judge with personal interest and bias.
Walkers facts aren’t. They are the opinions of liberal leaning soft science advocates unquestioningly bou by Walker for his own self justification. They are sociologists and psychologists theorizing and thinking without any reference to the real world. His ‘facts’ are ephemeral opinions with the weight and import of a soap bubble. And on the basis of the ramblings of a lot of PC navel gazers we have decided to demean a cherished institution for everyone to make a tiny minority feel bet. Bravo!
On the basis of Walkers opinions deceitfully called facts he builds his legal reasoning, such as it is. When these facts are recognized as the idiocy they are the rest of the sandcastle washes away.
And you know what Steve, for once I’m going to indulge myself. Either argue a point coherently or you fuck off.
You seem a little slow on the uptake, Lost. I don’t argue with you dumbfuck trolls. I confront your lying asses. If you don’t like it, then take your smug, hypocritical bullshit to some other goddamned blog.
“On the basis of Walkers opinions deceitfully called facts he builds his legal reasoning, such as it is. When these facts are recognized as the idiocy they are the rest of the sandcastle washes away.”
Could you possibly be more vacuous? Who the fuck taught you that insipid blathering makes for a cogent argument?
@177
Judge Walker, by the direct affect of his ruling, may now marry his partner
You’re assuming that marriage carries benefits that cannot be achieved by simply declaring marriage and domestic partnerships to be legally equivalent. This might actually be progress.
@ 178
On the basis of Walkers opinions deceitfully called facts
I already dealt with this canard of yours in my comment @164. You could at least acknowledge that before wandering off into yet another of your attempts at proof by repeated assertion.
You are not so stupid as to fail to comprehend the difference between facts and conclusions of fact. That you would so deliberately elide that distinction tells the rest of us that you are thinking with something other than your brain.
The only difference between your conclusions of fact and Judge Walker’s conclusions of fact is that Judge Walkers actually cites evidence in support of his conclusions of fact. You simply do not. This is why Judge Walkers’ conclusions of fact carry the day, while yours get dropped into the rhetorical dust bin never to be given serious consideration outside the vast wasteland that is your own mind.
Judge Walker, by the direct affect of his ruling, may now marry his partner, if such a partner exists. He has a direct and personal benefit gained by the decision he made.
That’s it? That’s the direct benefit? IF he has a partner and IF he wants to get married and IF he wants to wait until the SCOTUS rules on the case, THEN he gets a direct benefit? What a curious definition of “direct.”
If he was as biased as you claim, why did he stay his ruling?
And, specifically, what finding of fact or conclusion of law was not based on evidence presented at trial? Where is the specific manifestation of alleged his bias?
Can lost refute even one of the findings of fact enumerated in the decision?
Not the conclusions. But the findings of fact taken directly from the trial evidence.
Anyone can disagree with Walker’s conclusions. Many do. And if they manage to do so in a way that lays out the reasoning behind their own contrary conclusions as well as Walker it might be worth noting.
But proclamations of personal opinion devoid of supporting evidence and carefully illuminated reasoning is not what good law is made of (our own Justice Madsen notwithstanding).
If there are those who disagree with this decision because they dispute the findings of fact that it was based upon, they ought to be willing to take on those facts directly, rather than merely characterizing them. And if they accept the findings of fact but instead reject the reasoning that led to the conclusion they ought to be able to articulate to their audience precisely how they believe Walker’s reasoning fails. Again, not to merely characterize the reasoning as failed, but instead to describe in detail where and how the reasoning fails.
@181, Steve:
Right wing religious / political brainwashing.
The 1st order of businsess in organized religion and right wing politics is to abandon rational thought, to question info contrary to the blather as the prompting of the evil one, etc. Adherents glory in their ignorance and irrationality as evidence of their faith.
I have concluded that lost — is a lost cause for now. He’s intelligent enough to figure out he’s been had at some point. But it won’t happen here. Some boys only learn one way.
@ 160. lostinaseaofblue spews:
I am a realist. At some point the de-evolution of our culture will bring about gay marriage…
Oh REALLY? So when in our history is the high point? the perfect point in America culture? What is the ideal time you think we should aspire to? the 1960s with the civil unrest? The 1950s and segregation? The socialist and/or desperately poor 1930s? The class est society of the 1910s? The 1800s before and after slavery? Before that?
YOu cannot put out a comment like that and not expect someone to want clarification!
Since he is gay, he should recuse himself?
By that logic, since a case is about a white guy, all white judges should recuse theselves.
If a case is about divorce, all married judges should recuse themselves. If a case is about taxes, any judge that pays taxes should recuse himself.
The way I see it, when a conservative rulling is made, that’s just good law, you all don’t care, it’s only when the judgment doesn’t go your way, then you scream that he’s an activist judge. Why are you not in the streets screaming that corporations are not people! Why are you not joining with progressives to fight that?
When the judge in South lifted the drilling ban and it was found he was heavily invested in oil. there were all those calls for him to recuse himself.
I don’t recall a peep out of the conservatives then? I don’t recall a peep out of you all here on this board.
Eighty findings of fact and the only thing Lost could come up with was that the judge was gay. Hmm, I see that we all understand where he’s coming from with that one. I like this doozy he dropped @29 where he gives us his notions of equality,
“Any man has the freedom to marry any woman willing to accept him. Any gay man has the freedom to marry any woman.”
At least Mark the Redneck is upfront about where he’s coming from,
The only difference between these two wingnut bigots is that one has a redneck directness about him, while the other is a vacuous, sanctimonious twit who is more than just a little too full of himself. I don’t believe in treating one of these bigots any better than the other, although I can appreciate Mark’s directness more so than Lost’s diarrhea of the keypad.