Prop 8

[Aristes]

Yeah, some were pretty stupid on both sides. A lot of money went into the campaign on both sides also, and out of state money at that.

[Hurlshort]

The only anti-prop 8 ads I saw were Diane Fienstein and the State School Superintendent pointing out that it is discrimination and the pro-8 ads were outright lies.

[Aristes]

Well, if you opposed prop 8 and you didn't see any more than a couple of ads put out by the prop 8 opposition, I'd wonder what they did with all that money.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-money...98220.htmlstory

[Walsingham]

Someobdy once told me it costs about 20 million pounds to set up a good medium sized hospital. Instead this money gets spent on an issue that should be bleeding obvious. *sigh*

[Hurlshort]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100804/ap_on_..._marriage_trial

 

Thank you Judge Walker, for protecting the individuals and minorities against the tyranny of the majority.

 

I know we still have two more courts to go through, but this is a great start and I have a hard time believing the Supreme Court will side with religious groups over civil rights activists and fellow judges.

[Calax]

I wonder what leg the pro-ban will stand on to get the appeal.

[Hurlshort]

I wonder what leg the pro-ban will stand on to get the appeal.

 

I'm sure they've already got it written up.

[Gromnir]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100804/ap_on_..._marriage_trial

 

Thank you Judge Walker, for protecting the individuals and minorities against the tyranny of the majority.

 

I know we still have two more courts to go through, but this is a great start and I have a hard time believing the Supreme Court will side with religious groups over civil rights activists and fellow judges.

 

IF the plaintiffs gets to SCOTUS, you is looking at a battle that appears forgone lost... from a legal precedent pov. do not break out the champagne yet. the district court judge didn't afford homosexuals suspect class status; he used the rational basis test to strike down prop 8. right now there is a considerable number o' second year law school students who is mighty confused 'cause they thought they understood the rational basis test.

 

am not invested in this. so while we is opposed to judicial activism on principal, we do not feel enraged by injustice... or whatever. honestly, we hope the plaintiffs gets to SCOTUS and win, 'cause we can already imagine the Scalia dissenting opinion and that kinda entertainment is golden.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

I have not read all of the ruling yet (138 verbose pages of it) but it seems to me that the broad language Walker used ( I did read a detailed summary) coupled with the fact that he relied soley on the weight of trial testimony rather than legal precedent an appeal all the way to the SC is certain. He is a federal judge using the supremcy clause, full faith and credit clause and equal protections clause to over ride a state law decided on by a huge majority of voters. With the political climate in the country what it is... that gets a little sticky. Another sticky issue here is that the rulling essentially calls out the 70%+ of voters who approved this. On top of that, this ruling confers the title "fundamental right" to the institution of marriage. That is planting words in the law that did not exist. Also in the ruling established that homosexuality is a biological condition not a lifestyle choice. That is granting legal status to a scientific theory that has not been proven one way or the other.

 

The SC s trending more towards strong federalisim under Roberts (a trend really begun under Renquist before him) and I think Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts will be unwilling to have a federal court overturn a state law no matter what they think of Gay marriage one way or the other. Ginsburg, Kagan (not seated yet), Sottimayor, and Breyer believe that the government is supreme and can do no wrong so they will vote in favor of upholding the ruling. It comes down to Kennedy to decide how this will go. I believe this ruling will be upheld.

 

My $.02 is that this is a bad ruling and a bad precedent that by accident arrives at the right outcome, for now at least. I don't know if being gay is a choice or a codition and it really does not matter either way. The root of this issue to me is freedom. If marrying a gay lover makes someone hapy and it certainly does not hurt anyone else, there is no reason they should not be allowed to live their lives their way and be happy.

 

Like I always say, if you oppose gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. What other people do is none of your business!

[Calax]

I have not read all of the ruling yet (138 verbose pages of it) but it seems to me that the broad language Walker used ( I did read a detailed summary) coupled with the fact that he relied soley on the weight of trial testimony rather than legal precedent an appeal all the way to the SC is certain. He is a federal judge using the supremcy clause, full faith and credit clause and equal protections clause to over ride a state law decided on by a huge majority of voters. With the political climate in the country what it is... that gets a little sticky. Another sticky issue here is that the rulling essentially calls out the 70%+ of voters who approved this. On top of that, this ruling confers the title "fundamental right" to the institution of marriage. That is planting words in the law that did not exist. Also in the ruling established that homosexuality is a biological condition not a lifestyle choice. That is granting legal status to a scientific theory that has not been proven one way or the other.

 

The SC s trending more towards strong federalisim under Roberts (a trend really begun under Renquist before him) and I think Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts will be unwilling to have a federal court overturn a state law no matter what they think of Gay marriage one way or the other. Ginsburg, Kagan (not seated yet), Sottimayor, and Breyer believe that the government is supreme and can do no wrong so they will vote in favor of upholding the ruling. It comes down to Kennedy to decide how this will go. I believe this ruling will be upheld.

 

My $.02 is that this is a bad ruling and a bad precedent that by accident arrives at the right outcome, for now at least. I don't know if being gay is a choice or a codition and it really does not matter either way. The root of this issue to me is freedom. If marrying a gay lover makes someone hapy and it certainly does not hurt anyone else, there is no reason they should not be allowed to live their lives their way and be happy.

 

Like I always say, if you oppose gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. What other people do is none of your business!

So you think it's effects will be similar to those where "corporations speech is money" was entered into a line by the court clerk?

[Hurlshort]

He is a federal judge using the supremcy clause, full faith and credit clause and equal protections clause to over ride a state law decided on by a huge majority of voters. With the political climate in the country what it is... that gets a little sticky. Another sticky issue here is that the rulling essentially calls out the 70%+ of voters who approved this.

 

I'm confused what you mean by the 70%. Prop 8 passed with 52% of the vote. While 7 million people voted for it, and I agree that is a huge number, there were also 6.4 million votes against it. That is a very large minority.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I'm confused what you mean by the 70%.

 

Maybe he's thinking about the voter turn-out. That seems to have been about 79-80%.

[Guard Dog]

Was it 52%? I did not look it up and remembered 70%. Just looked it up Hurlie, you were right, it was 52%. I stand corrected.

 

@Calax, that is apples and oranges. Political Action Comittees, Union Advocacy groups and non-profits already enjoyed free speech protection. There is no reason corporations should not if theyose entities did. More freedom is never the wrong choice. Less almost always is.

 

I apologize for my spelling an grammar everyone, my computer is shot and I've been typing all this on my blackbeery

Edited August 5, 2010 by Guard Dog

[~Di]

I'm glad to see it was overturned, because I honestly believe it's passage (after a pro-gay marriage bill had already been passed by these same voters and upheld on appeal earlier) was because of a completely disingenuous, fear-based campaign of misinformation by the pro-Prop 8 side.

 

I honestly feel that homosexuals are the final group allowed to be legally discriminated against in this country. A SCOTUS ruling that banning gay marriage violates the US constitution would go a long way toward rectifying that discrimination... although given the conservative majority on the supreme court, it doesn't seem likely that will happen.

Edited August 6, 2010 by ~Di

[Gromnir]

I'm glad to see it was overturned, because I honestly believe it's passage (after a pro-gay marriage bill had already been passed by these same voters and upheld on appeal earlier) was because of a completely disingenuous, fear-based campaign of misinformation by the pro-Prop 8 side.

 

I honestly feel that homosexuals are the final group allowed to be legally discriminated against in this country.

 

this is untrue. stoopid people are discriminated against every day when they attempts to get jobs or university admission. poor people is discriminated against when they attempt to buy cars or houses. athletically-challenged people is discriminated 'gainst at every school campus in America. ugly people is suffering discrimination and so is drug users.

 

...

 

the Constitution does not view homosexuals as special; they don't get the benefits of heightened scrutiny. perhaps homosexuals deserve special protection, but please do not fool yourself into believing that homosexuals is the last remaining identifiable group that suffers discrimination, and keep in mind that discrimination ain't necessarily a bad thing. lord knows that Gromnir would rather not have a fat, stupid, and uncoordinated person trying to save us from a burning building or operating on our heart.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hurlshort]

Fat and stupid people get married all the time, the Lifetime Network has a reality show about it.

[Calax]

I'm glad to see it was overturned, because I honestly believe it's passage (after a pro-gay marriage bill had already been passed by these same voters and upheld on appeal earlier) was because of a completely disingenuous, fear-based campaign of misinformation by the pro-Prop 8 side.

 

I honestly feel that homosexuals are the final group allowed to be legally discriminated against in this country.

 

this is untrue. stoopid people are discriminated against every day when they attempts to get jobs or university admission. poor people is discriminated against when they attempt to buy cars or houses. athletically-challenged people is discriminated 'gainst at every school campus in America. ugly people is suffering discrimination and so is drug users.

 

...

 

the Constitution does not view homosexuals as special; they don't get the benefits of heightened scrutiny. perhaps homosexuals deserve special protection, but please do not fool yourself into believing that homosexuals is the last remaining identifiable group that suffers discrimination, and keep in mind that discrimination ain't necessarily a bad thing. lord knows that Gromnir would rather not have a fat, stupid, and uncoordinated person trying to save us from a burning building or operating on our heart.

 

HA! Good Fun!

But you see people get up in arms if it is suggested that fat, ugly, or stupid people shouldn't be allowed to marry or have kids due to eugenics.

[Gromnir]

Fat and stupid people get married all the time, the Lifetime Network has a reality show about it.

 

so? homosexuals can become fireman and surgeons... we has seen 'em in tv shows.

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am certain you can come up with some good reasons why "marriage" has been narrowly defined by the courts... and please note that homosexuals is currently permitted to marry in all 50 states + American territories.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Gromnir

[Deadly_Nightshade]

In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant

Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus

18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

 

The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, written by a US man,

and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

 

Dear Dr. Laura:

 

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I

have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that

knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend

the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that

Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of

debate.

 

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other

elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

 

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and

female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine

claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you

clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

 

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in

Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair

price for her?

 

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her

period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how

do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

 

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a

pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.

They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

 

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus

35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated

to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

 

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an

abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than

homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there

'degrees' of abomination?

 

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I

have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading

glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room

here?

 

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair

around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.

19:27. How should they die?

 

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes

me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

 

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two

different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments

made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also

tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go

to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?

Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family

affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy

considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

 

Your adoring fan.

 

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,

Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education

University of Virginia PS (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a

Canadian)

[Orogun01]

It would be a damn shame if you couldn't own a Canadian. Dibs on Bioware

[Gromnir]

we frequently own canadians.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Walsingham]

That open letter has been one of my favourites for a long time.

[Guard Dog]

I'd buy a Canadian! How much for Volo? On second thought he'd probably sit around playing NWN all day and never get anything done. But at least somone could finally expliain the appeal of Curling.

[Malcador]

Canadians are worthless though.

[Wrath of Dagon]

A lot of the stuff quoted from Liviticus is the stuff you can do, not stuff you have to do (bearing in mind those things were allowed 3500 years ago) Most of the stuff you have to do only applies to Jews. The stuff about the altar doesn't apply to anyone right now as there's no altar.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon