Gaylords Rising |OT| Prop 8 Nixed | Prole's cismarriage saved by God's own stay

[Mandark]

liberal activist judges


celebratory gay buttsex


tyranny of the majority


bigots and their enablers

[Cormacaroni]

ok, who wants to get hitched. PM me.

[Mandark]

Hey.  This was in federal court.  And the judge ruled that the law violates the US constitution.

So...

[Joe Molotov]

So...

[Cormacaroni]

It means 2010-15 will be the War of the Homos. Some will live. Some will die. Many will get rear-hugged.

[Mr. Gundam]

ok, who wants to get hitched. PM me.

Check your PMs, you sexy stud.

[Dickie Dee]

Hey.  This was in federal court.  And the judge ruled that the law violates the US constitution.

So...

That'd require the rather despicable SCOTUS though, no? Though if these are the clowns that will be arguing it, who knows what will happen.

[Mandark]

Yeah, SCOTUS leaves stuff up in the air, if it gets that far.  I just hadn't been following this suit closely, and didn't realize it would affect the whole country.  IIRC, the Hawaii ruling back in the 90's was based on their state constitution, so didn't apply to other states (at least not after DOMA and didn't that just get knocked down too?).

[chronovore]

The judge was gay?

Well, that explains that!

Yeah, next they'll be letting black and Latino judges make calls on equal rights?!

[Phoenix Dark]

Yea the logic is quite impressive. Maybe Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from civil rights cases.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

that's actually a good idea

[close]

[AdmiralViscen]

Any predictions on how this goes in the Supreme Court? I think not well

[Mupepe]

I seriously can't see how they can get by legally with arguments and rebuttals like this.  I'm arguing on the corvetteforum and holy shit i'm astounded by the ignorance there.

"BECAUSE GOD CREATED MARRIAGE, NOT THE GOVERNMENT"
"GET RID OF THAT PESKY 14TH AMENDMENT TOO THEN"
"WHAT ABOUT POLYGAMY?  SHOULD THAT BE LEGAL TOO?"
"WHAT ABOUT THE DISCRIMINATION OF THAT CHURCHES THAT DON'T WANT TO MARRY GAYS?"

argh!

[Robo]

*counts users browsing this thread*  Hopefully at least four.

[Mandark]

Any predictions on how this goes in the Supreme Court? I think not well

Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts are locks to vote against.  So it probably all comes down to Anthony Kennedy.  Interestingly, the ruling cited Kennedy's opinions in gay rights rulings 15 times.

It would be pretty terrible to have the supremes overturn it, since that would set a precedent which would set back national gay marriage by years.  That's a big part of why GLAAD, the ACLU and a bunch of similar groups initially opposed the lawsuit.

[Dickie Dee]

The SCOTUS is pretty free to rule more than what's presented by the parties involved I thought. I'd like to think that even Scalito couldn't defend the Prop-8 "our claims don't require evidence", but they're alot more free to broaden the ruling however they wish aren't they. I haven't seen any analysis on this at all surprisingly - just remembering past cases where they took up cases and greatly broadened the scope of the ruling well beyond the initial appeal.

Basically, they can dress up their rulings as they wish and not be hamstrung by the absurdity of the Prop8 groups legal arguments as some lower courts might. That's my limited understanding, just wish I could read something, anything that might address this.

Edit: Found this, which makes some of the points you did Mandark. I guess my question is due to my lack of familiarity with SCOTUS procedings, but does the quality of NOM's arguments ultimately matter a lick before the court?

[Tristam]

Yeah, this is pretty much the best thread title in the history of Internet forums.

[Dickie Dee]

Agreed

Also, as to my previous, ramblin', this was a pretty good read:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/8/4/gay-marriage-and-the-constitution/judge-walkers-factual-findings

[Howard Alan Treesong]

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/343140/august-05-2010/how-to-ruin-same-sex-marriages

[Oblivion]

Finally, some GOOD arguments to discriminate against the gays:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#38583339

[Phoenix Dark]

[youtube=560,345]EJwSprkiInE[/youtube]

Complete and utter annihilation. I want to see this guy go head to head with the chick in the Chris Matthews clip

[Phoenix Dark]

also, Glenn Beck supports gay marriage
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/glenn-beck-to-bill-oreilly-gay-marriage-is-not-a-threat-to-the-country-video.php?ref=fpb

religious right getting smacked with ether left and right

[Saint Cornelius]

I just finished reading the meat of the decision.

 

Who gives a shit about queers getting married and then divorce in less than a year? I want mah legal pot

In Cali you can have it all!

[Saint Cornelius]

Oh, nevermind. I was confused. Will edit.

[Saint Cornelius]

Also, what the hell at the thread title change.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Also, what the hell at the thread title change.

it's the fifth title change, the thread title is continually updated to reflect the current status of our New Gay Overlords

[chronovore]

Your ex-spouse from your former straight life gets automatically registered as your new het-pet.

[Van Cruncheon]

HET-PET! so awesome. i am totally calling my wife that 4-EVER

[Howard Alan Treesong]

And with that Prole's sex life slides lower than an Android users.

into the sexless hole where Windows Phone 7 is buried

[Van Cruncheon]

oh my god i hate you both

spoiler (click to show/hide)

:'( :'( :'(

[close]

[Akala]

 

[chronovore]

HET-PET! so awesome. i am totally calling my wife that 4-EVER

I used to hang with a bunch of NoCal lesbians with whom I shared comics and Xena fetishes. They were fond of calling me that. It was either that or "cigarillo hag," but I was pretty sure my XY status prevented that from being applicable.

[Yeti]

I believe the preferred nomenclature for a male cigarillo hag is cigarillo stag

[Howard Alan Treesong]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/08/california-marriages-delayed.html

    First, and drastically most importantly, the Court granted the stay. Consequently the thousands of couples who were waiting for the day of equality will have to wait at least a few more months until December.

    Second, the Court wants this case to be resolved quickly. Appellants’ opening brief is due in just a month and the hearing will happen on December 6th. This is lightning quick for a Federal Court of Appeals, and it’s a very good sign. The Court understands that this case is important, and it doesn’t want it to linger.

    Third, the Court specifically orders the Prop 8 proponents to show why this case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. Here’s a discussion of the standing issue. This is very good news for us. It shows that the Court has serious doubts about whether the Appellants have standing. Even better, the Court is expressing an opinion that its inclination is that the case should be dismissed. That being said, the panel that issued this Order (the motions panel) is not the same panel that will hear that case on the merits. The merits panel will be selected shortly before December 6th and we don’t know the three judges who will be on the merits panel. But this is a very good sign that the appeal could be dismissed on the ground of standing alone.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

On the phone trying to cancel my flight.

we can always just "kill time" until December

[Joe Molotov]

On the phone trying to cancel my flight.

we can always just "kill time" until December

Nature will always find a way. 

[Mandark]

Okay, who wants to bet that a whole lot of the political-legal punditry who have been in favor of setting a high bar to establish standing (if you don't know the government's been wiretapping you, you don't have the standing as a harmed party to sue them and figure out whether they've been wiretapping you) suddenly make a principled conversion in this case?

I know this is a blanket accusation of future hypocrisy and totally unfair on my part, but whatevs.

[Phoenix Dark]

that just went over my head like i dodged a money shot 

[Howard Alan Treesong]

yeah, Mandark, I read a ton of political blogs and even I have no idea what particular sub-conflict you're on about this time

[Mandark]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9874526-7.html

ACLU files lawsuit on behalf of people against the government for warrantless wiretapping.  Judge rules that because the ACLU can't name a particular person who was tapped, they don't have standing and throws out the lawsuit.  Which basically creates a catch 22 where no secret surveillance program could ever be legally challenged, cause they won't tell you who's being watched.

The reactions were predictably pro on the right and con on the left, and I'm guessing it'll be reversed here.



Anyways, is it kosher for the CA government not to appeal this?  I know there's some official responsibility for governments to try to fight off legal challenges, to prevent politicians from just dumping the previous administrations' legislation without a vote, they probably get some leeway.  I mean, I like when it's working for the right causes (the Obama administration's been accused of sandbagging its legal defense of DOMA), but I wouldn't want to see President Romney's Justice Department let a bunch of regulatory legislation get struck down without a fight.