• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proposition 8 Struck Down!!!

Elypsis44 said:
Not me.

I hope Robert Prey and his ilk are so pissed off they are on the verge of a stroke.

But then I love me some schadenfreude.

;)
Click to expand...
I smell me another successful prediction:
Brown said:
14. There is a person who has been discussed often on this Forum. That person will suffer a serious misfortune, and some members of the Forum will demonstrate Schadenfreude.
Click to expand...
 
I recently heard some discussion (notably commentary by Dahlia Lithwick) to the effect that the parties might try to avoid review by the full bench of the Ninth Circuit, or the Ninth Circuit might refuse to reconsider the panel's decision, for various reasons. Speaking colloquially, one of those reasons is the concerns that the full bench might mess the case up, and thereby make it too easy for the Supreme Court to reverse. In its current state, the decision is perceived as being, for lack of a better term, "Kennedy-friendly"; the assumption is that Justice Kennedy would be the decisive vote on the Supreme Court, and the current ruling relies upon much of his analysis from other opinions, therefore the decision ought to be harder to reverse.

A full bench, the argument goes, might make the ruling more vulnerable to reversal, and be less Kennedy-friendly.
 
psionl0 said:
Just saying that if it were something the public were voting on that was unconstitutional then the question should have been dealt with before polling day.

Allowing the question to go ahead and then overriding the popular vote is at best incompetent.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge, there is no mechanism in place for such a review. Maybe California should get their **** together and make it not so ludicrously easy to amend their Constitution.
 
As presented by NPR, this decision does not advance the cause of equality before the law as much as it might seem. According to the report (yesterday afternoon during my commute), the logic for the decision is that because Gays previously had the right to marry in California, the referendum stripped them of a right. Had there been no right for Gays to marry, then the constitutional amendment would not have violated the US Constitution. It is for this reason that the court's decision will not immediately impact the most of the rest of the country. Cold and disappointing, but I understand the logic.
 
Puppycow said:
Santorum dribbling on Twitter
7M Californians had their rights stripped away today by activist 9th Circuit judges. As president I will work to protect marriage.
Click to expand...
No, sorry Rick. There is no right to deny rights to others. Keep your santorum to yourself.
Click to expand...
Reminding everyone of my dictum that reaction to news is not, in itself, news, I observe that several politicians have reacted to the story. Curiously, those that offer bases for their disagreement affrimatively demonstrate that they have not read the actual decision.

Does this sort of ignorance EVER get tiring. Is it too much to ask that a politician do some goddamned homework before taking a goddamned position on a goddamned issue?
 
psionl0 said:
I don't like the idea that a judge can overrule a referendum either.

Of course, mention something like that in this thread and you are likely to end up being branded "homophobic" or something.
Click to expand...
Well, you wouldn't have had a Prop 8 if it weren't for people trying to force the issue in courts.

Spend 50 years on persuasion, get a critical mass and start changing laws in states and at the federal level, then some get an itchy trigger finger and try the non-political, AKA ccompletely political route of getting a sympathetic judge to pretend that this critical mass of opinion has been there in the Constitution all along.

A. That's nonsense.
B. It causes reaction that continued persuasion does not, slowing the cause.
 
Beerina said:
Well, you wouldn't have had a Prop 8 if it weren't for people trying to force the issue in courts.

Spend 50 years on persuasion, get a critical mass and start changing laws in states and at the federal level, then some get an itchy trigger finger and try the non-political, AKA ccompletely political route of getting a sympathetic judge to pretend that this critical mass of opinion has been there in the Constitution all along.

A. That's nonsense.
B. It causes reaction that continued persuasion does not, slowing the cause.
Click to expand...

Its a lot easier to patient with inequality when you are part of the group that is more equal than others. Not so much for the rest of us.
 
Robert Prey said:
Homosexual "marriage" is not a "right" but a perversion.
Click to expand...


It totally agree Robert! Look at what homosexuals did to Newt's first two marriages! They perverted them beyond belief!

And don't even get me started on what they did to Donald Trump's hair!
 
Upchurch said:
Back to the OP, the point is that the good guys are finally starting to show some wins on this. It doesn't matter how much money bigots throw at elections, ultimately the US Constitution is the law of the land and it should win out.
Click to expand...

The Constitution does not empower any court to repeal the Laws of Nature nor the rights, privileges and immunities bestowed upon married couples, male and female, and their progeny as defined by thousands of years of custom and usage and the Laws of Nature as well.
 
sarge said:
As presented by NPR, this decision does not advance the cause of equality before the law as much as it might seem. According to the report (yesterday afternoon during my commute), the logic for the decision is that because Gays previously had the right to marry in California, the referendum stripped them of a right. Had there been no right for Gays to marry, then the constitutional amendment would not have violated the US Constitution. It is for this reason that the court's decision will not immediately impact the most of the rest of the country. Cold and disappointing, but I understand the logic.
Click to expand...
If you are referring to the Nina Totenberg segmant, she summed it up nicely.

The judges ruled on what was handed them.
 
Robert Prey said:
The Constitution does not empower any court to repeal the Laws of Nature
Click to expand...
What "Laws of Nature" were repealed?


Robert Prey said:
nor the rights, privileges and immunities bestowed upon married couples, male and female, and their progeny
Click to expand...
What "rights, privileges, and immunities bestowed upon married couples, male and female" have been repealed? This law was concerning same-sex marriages, not different-sex marriages.


Robert Prey said:
as defined by thousands of years of custom and usage and the Laws of Nature as well.
Click to expand...
You are apparently familiar with neither history nor nature.
 
Robert Prey said:
Homosexual "marriage" is not a "right" but a perversion.
Click to expand...
Bigotry and hatred are perversions, but like homosexuality, they have been ingrained into humanity for as long as it has existed, and they will still be here no matter what laws you make to prevent them. The difference is: one of them does no harm to others. Guess which one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom