Moderators: richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
mbmbos
Posts: 2923
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 4:16 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:41 am

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 99):
For a gay to bash someone for believing its wrong is NO LESS ignorant and arrogant than the person bashing the gay.

I'm not sure what you mean by "bash" and I'd like to see you present some examples of what you believe the word to mean. But I will say that not all arguments are equal. A gay, a card-carrying member of the NRA, a redhead, anybody - can in good conscience dismiss arguments that are irrational, dishonest, unsupported or stupid. I'm all for respecting someone with whom you disagree. But nobody should suffer a fool.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 99):
There is little reason to vote, even when it is a legislative issue as opposed to a judicial one.

I'm sorry, but this is a terribly misinformed conclusion. Take a civics class and study up on the system of checks and balances our forefathers established. Our form of government is far from perfect, but the interplay between branches of government in reaching decisions is far more nuanced and fair than you acknowledge here.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 99):
Not a fair, unbiased, ruling. I for one will say that.

Then it also follows that a heterosexual judge could not come to a fair and unbiased ruling.

Do you have any concept of how cynical you sound? Is it not possible for a person to make a fair and reasonable decision despite their personal concerns?
"If I don't manage to fly, someone else will. The spirit wants only for there to be flying. As for who happens to do it, in that he has only a passing interest."
- R.M. Rilke
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:47 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):
For starters the judge is gay, so no surprise.

If that is true then why did he not recuse himself?

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 2):
That was the purpose of bringing this trial. It is very difficult to prevail in court against an equal protection claim when there is so little evidence to support an effort to violate it other than "that's how people feel".

It's pretty easy if the Judge deciding is biased towards one side by the fact he is gay, if that is true.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 12):
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 11):
Personally I think its time now States pursue a formal Constitutional Amendment.

That would have to get by the USSC as well, and with the equal protection challenge that has been brought, would be impossible to implement.

??? An amendment to the Constitution does not get reviewed by the Supreme Court for Constitutionality.

Quoting D L X (Reply 17):
I don't think he's gay.

Oh man...I've got to hear this.....exactly how did you come to that conclusion?

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 22):
All of those things can be reasonably shown by scientific and testimonial means to have a deleterious effect on the people involved - and that's why they wouldn't hold up in court

Polygamy is practiced in many parts of the world so I don't see that as holding up in court.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 26):
Bingo. Their opinions on this issue don't matter.

If that is the case then anyone who wants to open a strip club next to a school shouldn't face any opposition. Nor should anyone that wants to open a gun store with no waiting period. Peoples opinion do matter on things that affect the fabric of society.

[Edited 2010-08-04 20:48:16]
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
ATCtower
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:46 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:54 am

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 100):
I'm sorry, but this is a terribly misinformed conclusion. Take a civics class and study up on the system of checks and balances our forefathers established. Our form of government is far from perfect, but the interplay between branches of government in reaching decisions is far more nuanced and fair than you acknowledge here.

Sir, with all due respect, I have taken many civics classes as a requirement for my law degree. I hold my stated belief based on personal experiences (see below).

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 100):
Then it also follows that a heterosexual judge could not come to a fair and unbiased ruling.

Do you have any concept of how cynical you sound? Is it not possible for a person to make a fair and reasonable decision despite their personal concerns?

Yes, I am very aware of how cynical I sound as by nature and teachings, I am a true pessimist. Presenting the argument a heterosexual judge is inherently partial is absurd. Now if you wanted to make the distinction a heterosexual Protestant judge is biased, I would buy that. Anyone can make a fair and reasonable decision based on their beliefs, but expecting someone predetermined to interpret the laws of controversial issues who has publicly taken a stance in one direction or another will typically side with their interpretations. If you think I am incorrect, I challenge you to view the top court of the United States and expect them to vary in monumental cases from their political beliefs/orientation.

My $.02
By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
 
ScarletHarlot
Posts: 4251
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:15 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:54 am

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 99):
Not a fair, unbiased, ruling. I for one will say that. Arguing cases is rarely based on sole evidence or facts, but also pertains to the particular tendencies of the particular judge.

But then what if the judge is straight? Would he not be biased toward a "straight" agenda, then?
But that was when I ruled the world
 
User avatar
mbmbos
Posts: 2923
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 4:16 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:01 am

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 102):
My $.02

You have based your entire defense of my post on your personal credibility instead of presenting a logical and reasoned argument. And you've valued it at $.02.

Okay.
"If I don't manage to fly, someone else will. The spirit wants only for there to be flying. As for who happens to do it, in that he has only a passing interest."
- R.M. Rilke
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:03 am

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 99):
To bash one for their beliefs on the issue is absurd and I do not agree with. For a gay to bash someone for believing its wrong is NO LESS ignorant and arrogant than the person bashing the gay. State your facts if you wish, but flaming is wrong on both sides of the aisle.

No. When gay people are told by religious nuts that homosexuality is responsible for the evil in the world, gays have every right to think those people are morons, and if you're going to suggest that those claims have any validity and that those people and positions deserve any respect, it's not worth responding to anymore of your posts which excuse such ignorance.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 99):
I also believe being gay is a choice, no matter the flaming liberal science (no pun intended) trying to convince everyone otherwise. I have had a great many gay friends who openly admit it is a choice of theirs

Well I have gay friends who tell me it isn't a choice. There are plenty of gays on this forum who will tell you it's NOT a choice. And how do you explain that roughly 5% of the animal kingdom is gay if it's "a choice"?

Quoting caliatenza (Reply 88):
Does it really affect the Right Wing? No..it doesnt...they just want some issue to bring up time and again because they are pretty much bankrupt on everything else right now.

I am not just directing this at you but at everyone who associates this with the right wing: STOP! This issue is not solidly left or right. The fact that California, one of the most liberal states in the country, can't pass it should tell you that. Yet there are plenty of right wingers, such as myself (albeit partially libertarian), who fully support gay marriage. Are the majority of those who are against gay marriage right wingers? Yes. But it's not unanimous. So let's stop associating this as a left/right issue and painting all right wingers with one wide brush.

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 80):
I further feel that there needs to be a MAJOR change to our political system. The legislature put this law on the ballot for the people to vote on. The people voted to pass it. A federal judge - who isn't elected by the people - can decide that their vote is invalid? That's assinine.

Yea. It's called "Tyranny of the Majority".

Quoting ScarletHarlot (Reply 103):
Quoting ATCtower (Reply 99):
Not a fair, unbiased, ruling. I for one will say that. Arguing cases is rarely based on sole evidence or facts, but also pertains to the particular tendencies of the particular judge.

But then what if the judge is straight? Would he not be biased toward a "straight" agenda, then?

Shhh    That line of thinking is too logical for this thread.
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001
 
wn700driver
Posts: 1475
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 10:55 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:07 am

Finally back on the right track CA! (OK, maybe not the right track, lol...) Seriously though, It's good to see a real heavyweight like CA get on board with future here.

I'm not going to paste and show every response, but I will say this to those who are miffed that the next phase being in SF... It doesn't matter nearly as much as you might think. There is a tremendous amount of oversight involved with these precedings. We are by no means out of the woods yet. But back on track as I said above!

Quoting OA412 (Reply 79):
Although it is true that some of the biggest gay bashers are gay themselves,

I always thought that was kind of sad...
Base not your happiness on the deeds of others, for what is given can be taken away. No Hope = No Fear
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:14 am

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 80):
I further feel that there needs to be a MAJOR change to our political system. The legislature put this law on the ballot for the people to vote on. The people voted to pass it. A federal judge - who isn't elected by the people - can decide that their vote is invalid? That's assinine.

It's not asinine - the judicial system is a barrier against a tyranny of the majority.

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 90):
If the people voted for the law, then the law should be on the books.

Unless the law is unconstitutional. In which case it is the responsibility of the judicial branch to overturn it. You know, the whole "checks and balances" thing.

Quoting dxing (Reply 101):
If that is the case then anyone who wants to open a strip club next to a school shouldn't face any opposition. Nor should anyone that wants to open a gun store with no waiting period. Peoples opinion do matter on things that affect the fabric of society.

You've just brought up two public safety issues and tried to compare them to gay marriage, which is not a public safety issue. We don't keep strip clubs separate from schools because they're immoral, we do so because they attract a sort of person that could put children at risk. A gun shop with no waiting period isn't an issue of morality at all - it's just an issue of reducing crimes of passion.

So basically, you're comparing apples to oranges. Show me how gay marriage is a threat to public safety, and you might have an argument.

Again, those who are for Proposition 8 are entitled to their views, and those views carry significant weight, since they were in the majority. But not significant enough to outweigh the Constitution.

Quoting ScarletHarlot (Reply 103):
Quoting ATCtower (Reply 99):
Not a fair, unbiased, ruling. I for one will say that. Arguing cases is rarely based on sole evidence or facts, but also pertains to the particular tendencies of the particular judge.

But then what if the judge is straight? Would he not be biased toward a "straight" agenda, then?

Of course not, because straight people are superior to gay people in that they don't have flaming biases, and thus can make more reasoned decisions. Duh.  

Yes, it's sarcasm.   

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
ATCtower
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:46 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:20 am

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 104):
You have based your entire defense of my post on your personal credibility instead of presenting a logical and reasoned argument. And you've valued it at $.02.

Okay.

IM me with your email address and I will forward you the precident case law I have argued in court. If you want credibility, come get it, otherwise just shut up you look like a fool arguing law with someone published and who knows more than you.

*and FWIW, my legal assistance is worth far more than $.02 but I would bet you are unable to afford it considering I am able to choose what I argue; that only signifies the value of anyone's opinion on a public forum.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 105):
No. When gay people are told by religious nuts that homosexuality is responsible for the evil in the world, gays have every right to think those people are morons, and if you're going to suggest that those claims have any validity and that those people and positions deserve any respect, it's not worth responding to anymore of your posts which excuse such ignorance.

You are right in one regard. They have every right to feel they are morons, but not to flame their opinions as irrelevant anymore so than I have to reaffirm my beliefs on hot topic items such as capital punishment. Anyone may state their facts in an argument, and I will accept facts no matter what they are. In law school I was forced to argue the Nazi's had a claim to Europe. I stated facts, and they were very valid. For that I deserve respect, but it does not give one right to flame me for doing so, even if it were my opinion (which it is not). It only allows them the right to question my facts and argue based on that. Dismissing opinions based on your own opinions is arrogant and ignorant. I excuse any argument as the opinion of said person stating it whether I agree with it or not.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 105):
Well I have gay friends who tell me it isn't a choice. There are plenty of gays on this forum who will tell you it's NOT a choice. And how do you explain that roughly 5% of the animal kingdom is gay if it's "a choice"?

So be it. The gay friends I have will swear otherwise. We both have our opinions and unless you want to challenge my gay friends on their beliefs, or prove to me otherwise, I can only accept your statement as your opinion; which you are entitled to, just as they are.

My $.02
By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
 
TSS
Posts: 3610
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:37 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 20):
Simply looking at the physical design of the human body tells you same-sex coupling was not the intended outcome for man-kind.

I dunno... it meets 5 out of ten of the signs that bananas are evidence of "intelligent design", as proposed by Ray Comfort.  http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Ban...nas:_The_Atheist's_Worst_Nightmare
Of course the bananas one buys in the grocery store are significantly different from natural, un-hybridized bananas one might encounter in the wild.

Back to the topic at hand: Yay! I'm wondering now if this case will end in the California Supreme Court, or if it will indeed make it all the way to the SCOTUS? If so, I'd imagine this case will have national implications such as Loving v. Virginia did.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:39 am

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 34):
Quoting ATCtower (Reply 102):
Yes, I am very aware of how cynical I sound as by nature and teachings, I am a true pessimist. Presenting the argument a heterosexual judge is inherently partial is absurd. Now if you wanted to make the distinction a heterosexual Protestant judge is biased, I would buy that

Why is it absurd? Define perfect judge for this situation would you please? How would you go about choosing this perfect judge? Catholic: Out; Protestant: Out; Mormon: Out; Gay; Out; Straight: Out. That leaves who?

So, i guess if you ever need mouth to mouth ( sure hope you never do, BTW) - you better check that the paramedic is not gay first, he might secretly try to kiss you. You know, gays are so unprofessional and incapable to do their job when placed near gay issues

Instead of saying its inherently absurd and leave it at that - tell us which specific items of his decision make you feel this way..

[Edited 2010-08-04 21:43:22]
Step into my office, baby
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:43 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 107):
You've just brought up two public safety issues and tried to compare them to gay marriage

???

Quoting Mir (Reply 107):
We don't keep strip clubs separate from schools because they're immoral, we do so because they attract a sort of person that could put children at risk.

Which is a morality issue as well as a safety issue. We have laws to protect children from being sexually abused not only for safety, but because it is the moral thing to do.

Quoting Mir (Reply 107):
A gun shop with no waiting period isn't an issue of morality at all - it's just an issue of reducing crimes of passion.

Which deals with the morality of murder.

Quoting Mir (Reply 107):
So basically, you're comparing apples to oranges. Show me how gay marriage is a threat to public safety, and you might have an argument.

I think I have. But you will contest the points. Many laws and restrictions have dual purposes. The reason we don't allow strip clubs next to schools also has to do with not exposing children to the business of sex. We don't allow guns to be bought without a waiting period supposedly because it does give someone a chance to calm down and think out the situation before they committ an immoral act of murder. Californians voted for prop 8 because they somehow believe that gay marriage will affect the moral fabric of society, not in the exact same way as my examples but in its own unique way. It is apples to apples. Just red to yellow to green.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:48 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 111):
We don't allow guns to be bought without a waiting period supposedly because it does give someone a chance to calm down and think out the situation before they committ an immoral act of murder.

So we should put gun ownership to a vote? and let the "people decide"?
Step into my office, baby
 
CaliAtenza
Posts: 1686
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 1:43 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:50 am

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 105):

I am not just directing this at you but at everyone who associates this with the right wing: STOP! This issue is not solidly left or right. The fact that California, one of the most liberal states in the country, can't pass it should tell you that. Yet there are plenty of right wingers, such as myself (albeit partially libertarian), who fully support gay marriage. Are the majority of those who are against gay marriage right wingers? Yes. But it's not unanimous. So let's stop associating this as a left/right issue and painting all right wingers with one wide brush.

Well the mouthpiece of the right wing, Fox News....doesnt share the same views as you. By and large, sadly this issue HAS been hijacked by the anti-gay part of the Right. Maybe the gay rights/gay marriage supporters on the Right can get their voice heard. Im still surprised as to how Prop 8 even passed in the first place..i wasnt in the country at the time so i dont know what ads were running, what kind of activism was going on here for "For" or "Against". I know i voted "No" on Prop 8 on my absentee ballot.
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:05 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 111):
I think I have.

With a big, big, stretch. The morality issues you point out are very distant seconds to the primary purposes of the laws you cited, which is to protect the safety of the public.

Primarily, we have laws against sexual abuse and murder because they are violations of the rights of others, not because there is something immoral about them. This is because morality is very much dependent on the lens through which you view the world, whereas whether you've infringed on someone else's rights is far more cut and dry.

You (and everyone else who disagrees with this decision) still haven't pointed out the threat that gay marriage poses that would justify denying equal rights to two sets of couples who want to marry.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 11748
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:11 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 101):
If that is true then why did he not recuse himself?

Recusals are for objective considerations like stock ownership, property of financial interest, contractual obligations, and third parties and/or relatives of the judge who could be impacted by the outcome of the case.

Quoting dxing (Reply 101):
It's pretty easy if the Judge deciding is biased towards one side by the fact he is gay, if that is true.

It is well-known in the SF legal community that he is but he is quietly out and has been criticized by the community for the conservative positions that got him posted during the Reagan administration. It is entirely subjective to suggest that his decision is linked to his personal orientation and impossible to prove without objective testimonial evidence at any rate.

Quoting dxing (Reply 101):
??? An amendment to the Constitution does not get reviewed by the Supreme Court

You think the state drafts of an amendment can't be challenged in court? In any case it's an irrelevant discussion since this scale of opposition would never succeed at the levels necessary to amend the Constitution.

Quoting dxing (Reply 101):

Polygamy is practiced in many parts of the world so I don't see that as holding up in court.

And that makes the data about its deleterious effects wrong or invalid? What an absurd notion. You can bet everything in the bank that the emotional and physical abuses that come with it are propagated around the globe. In the context of US society and what our laws intend, that would never hold up.

Quoting dxing (Reply 101):
Peoples opinion do matter on things that affect the fabric of society.

Supporters of Prop 8 were asked time and again if they could establish a tangible, measurable impact of same sex marriage. Their answers were nebulous and unconvincing. As Olson said:

The (second) argument I often hear is that traditional marriage furthers the state's interest in procreation—and that opening marriage to same-sex couples would dilute, diminish, and devalue this goal. But that is plainly not the case. Preventing lesbians and gays from marrying does not cause more heterosexuals to marry and conceive more children. Likewise, allowing gays and lesbians to marry someone of the same sex will not discourage heterosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex. How, then, would allowing same-sex marriages reduce the number of children that heterosexual couples conceive?

This procreation argument cannot be taken seriously. We do not inquire whether heterosexual couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity to have children, before we allow them to marry. We permit marriage by the elderly, by prison inmates, and by persons who have no intention of having children. What's more, it is pernicious to think marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because of the state's desire to promote procreation. We would surely not accept as constitutional a ban on marriage if a state were to decide, as China has done, to discourage procreation.

Another argument, vaguer and even less persuasive, is that gay marriage somehow does harm to heterosexual marriage. I have yet to meet anyone who can explain to me what this means. In what way would allowing same-sex partners to marry diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples? Tellingly, when the judge in our case asked our opponent to identify the ways in which same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual marriage, to his credit he answered honestly: he could not think of any.


http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/08/t...rvative-case-for-gay-marriage.html

Until someone can prove what this so-called effect on the fabric of society is, they will not prevail in court. Period.

[Edited 2010-08-04 22:14:22]

[Edited 2010-08-04 22:14:53]
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:21 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 115):
Until someone can prove what this so-called effect on the fabric of society is, they will not prevail in court. Period.

You have to be direct when you ask. ATC? DX? RDU?..

hold on.. the answer from our friends is coming... I have faith that in their next post and they will be able to elegantly state how gay marriage destroys society, and how it affects hetero marriages negatively.

ATC, DX, RDU.. the forum awaits..
Step into my office, baby
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 11748
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:27 am

Quoting mt99 (Reply 116):
hold on.. the answer from our friends is coming... I have faith that in their next post and they will be able to elegantly state how gay marriage destroys society, and how it affects hetero marriages negatively.

A CNN host asked Tony Perkins of the "Family Research Council" to give a reason for it and even as the mouthpiece of one of the most vehemently anti-same sex marriage organizations in the country, all he came up with was something like "social scientists have shown us that children do better with a mother and father". Um, what??
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
CaliAtenza
Posts: 1686
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 1:43 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:37 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 117):

A CNN host asked Tony Perkins of the "Family Research Council" to give a reason for it and even as the mouthpiece of one of the most vehemently anti-same sex marriage organizations in the country, all he came up with was something like "social scientists have shown us that children do better with a mother and father". Um, what??

And there we have it folks...  . The whole gay marriage thing is mainly political and religious...like most of us have stated already.
 
elbandgeek
Posts: 438
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:26 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:01 am

I still can't believe that after all this country has been through in the past as far as civil rights that we still have to fight this battle. It's insane to think that two consenting adults can be denyed the same legal protections that another couple has purely because of gender. I'm not gay myself but I've been a pretty vocal supporter of gay rights since I have several very close friends who are. The idea that the religious right is so adament about keeping people from being happy sometimes makes me ashamed to be a christian, because as a kid I thought church taught you to love and accept others. Some guy in Washington has the nerve to say that my best friend and his partner who are in a stable, commited, monogomous relationship can't be married but he'll go ahead and marry golddigging sluts one right after the other and dump them when they turn 30 without question. It just makes me angry. The levels people will stoop to to preach hate and intolerance, like fred phelps, the man who thinks that accepting gays means that god is going punish america and so he pickets at the funeral of soldier's killed in iraq or women gunned down in a lane bryant store. If any of you remember that story a couple years ago it happened the next town over from me. One of the victims went to my high school and graduated with my sister so the whole thing hit very close for everyone in my town and that hateful man and his followers had the nerve to make the whole thing worse by deciding that god was punishing that poor girl because people in our country chose to be tolerant and caring.

The fact is, regardless of whatever legal precedent this case sets, people have a right to be who they are and to be with the ones they love. The few shreds of faith in humanity I have left is hopeful that when this eventually reaches the supreme court that they will do the right thing and rule in favor of basic human decency instead of politics. Tolerance does not mean you have to like something, it just means that you have to accept the fact they what they believe is different from what you do and live with it because if they aren't infringing on your rights who are you to do the same to them.

[Edited 2010-08-04 23:02:27]
 
User avatar
OA412
Moderator
Posts: 4759
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 6:22 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:25 am

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 99):
I have had a great many gay friends who openly admit it is a choice of theirs.

This may very well be true, and I certainly cannot prove otherwise, but I must say that those certainly are some strange gay people that you know. I have never, ever come across a single gay person who claimed that they chose to be gay. I certainly didn't choose to be gay.

Think about it, would I really choose to be something that would bring the wrath of every small-minded bigot down upon me? Would you choose that life? I can tell you right now that if I was given a choice, I would choose not to be gay. But, I am who I am, and I can't change that no matter how hard I may try to.

Think of it this way, did you choose to be straight? Could you honestly and truly choose to be gay and enter into a sexual relationship with another man? I'll obviously never be able to convince those who are themselves convinced that my being gay is a choice, but I can tell you right now that I was born this way. I have never, ever been attracted to women. As far back as I remember I've only had crushes on boys/men. I cannot tomorrow decide that I am straight and fall in love with a woman because I am in no way sexually attracted to women. I can look at naked women for hours and feel nothing.

Your friends may very well have told you otherwise, but I'm one gay person who will tell you that what I am is in way, shape, or form a choice.

Quoting ScarletHarlot (Reply 103):
But then what if the judge is straight? Would he not be biased toward a "straight" agenda, then?

  

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 97):
$5 says sometime in the future, the poster in question turns up in the MSP Airport Men's Room with Senator Larry Craig.

Oh man, you've had me in stitches throughout this whole thread.

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 106):
I always thought that was kind of sad...

Me too. It's sad that someone can loathe themselves and who they are so much, that they will act out in that way.

Quoting caliatenza (Reply 96):
Invaribly to comes down to a religious thing and how people are "scared by the gays".

Bingo. What people seem to fail to realize is that we are a secular nation. Yes, we are a majority Christian nation, but Church and State are separate entities. Many of those fighting hardest to ban gay marriage are, in essence, fighting to legally impose their narrow religious beliefs upon the rest of us.
Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4722
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:34 am

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 99):
I have had a great many gay friends who openly admit it is a choice of theirs.

Did you choose to become attracted to your last sexual partner?

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 99):
I also believe being gay is a choice

Did you choose to be straight?
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:52 am

Quoting mt99 (Reply 112):
So we should put gun ownership to a vote? and let the "people decide"?

Too late, it's written into our Constitution, unlike marriage. Waiting periods on the other hand do not invalidate ultimate ownership unless you meet certain criteria (excon, mental patient, etc.) so your thought is invalidated.

Quoting Mir (Reply 114):
With a big, big, stretch. The morality issues you point out are very distant seconds to the primary purposes of the laws you cited, which is to protect the safety of the public.

I would disagree, laws against murder and sexual abuse go back farther than our Constitution.

Quoting Mir (Reply 114):
Primarily, we have laws against sexual abuse and murder because they are violations of the rights of others, not because there is something immoral about them.

That's a good backward way of thinking about them. The immorality of murder or sexual abuse was recognized long before the rights of others as women didn't have any rights when a man would still be put to death for raping her.

Quoting Mir (Reply 114):
You (and everyone else who disagrees with this decision) still haven't pointed out the threat that gay marriage poses that would justify denying equal rights to two sets of couples who want to marry.

Yes we have but since you don't see them as valid reasons you won't recognize them. Been here and done that.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 115):
Recusals are for objective considerations like stock ownership, property of financial interest, contractual obligations, and third parties and/or relatives of the judge who could be impacted by the outcome of the case.

A Judge can recuse himself for any variety of reasons, in this case he should have done so since his judgement could most definitly affect him on a personal level.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 115):
It is well-known

Then whomever is assigning cases out there did a poor job in this instance. There is definitely a conflict of interest.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 115):
You think the state drafts of an amendment can't be challenged in court? In any case it's an irrelevant discussion since this scale of opposition would never succeed at the levels necessary to amend the Constitution.

Are we talking a national amendment? I thought so. If so, if the required votes are garnered, it's an amendment and the Supreme Court has no say. That's exactly why the amendment process was put there.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 115):
And that makes the data about its deleterious effects wrong or invalid?

Yep.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 115):
What an absurd notion. You can bet everything in the bank that the emotional and physical abuses that come with it are propagated around the globe. In the context of US society and what our laws intend, that would never hold up.

Then what you are effectively saying is that two or more consenting adults have no right to marry even if all those involved are gay. Then what right does just two gays have to marry? No matter how you slice it you are changing a definition and if you do that, then you have to respect the rights of 3 or more of the same sex or any variables that want to marry.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 115):
Supporters of Prop 8 were asked time and again if they could establish a tangible, measurable impact of same sex marriage. Their answers were nebulous and unconvincing.

What was the old line a Judge used once.....I can't describe pornography but I know it when I see it? Just because their answers were not to your liking does not mean they didn't know what they meant.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 11748
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:06 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 122):
Too late, it's written into our Constitution, unlike marriage.

Except that Loving v. Virginia established precedent under the 14th amendment to consider marriage as a fundamental right:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

That is exactly the case Boies and Olson are making now - denying on the basis of gender is also unsupportable. If there's mountains of supporting evidence, let's see it. Why was the defense attorney in this most recent case unable to answer the questions regarding impact of same sex marriage on heterosexuals...or did you not read that part in Olson's piece? As he quoted, the defense attorney told the court he couldn't honestly come up with an answer so they misdirected to other things like impact on children.

Quoting dxing (Reply 122):
A Judge can recuse himself for any variety of reasons, in this case he should have done so since his judgement could most definitly affect him on a personal level.

Can you prove that it did? No. Is there any indication in his judicial record that it has before? It's too subjective and that's why nobody, including the defense, attacked Judge Walker on those grounds. Should Justice Scalia recuse himself in any case coming before the USSC that involved victimization of Italian-Americans because it might "definitely affect him on a personal level?" This talk of Judge Walker's objectivity is just more inane misdirection.

Quoting dxing (Reply 122):
If so, if the required votes are garnered, it's an amendment and the Supreme Court has no say.

Yeah well, as I said, they'd never get 75% anyway.

Quoting dxing (Reply 122):
Yep.

How so? It happens overseas therefore the data we have in the US on its effects is invalid? I'd love to know how that works. Apparently the same principle didn't apply in the healthcare debate, no?

Quoting dxing (Reply 122):
.I can't describe pornography but I know it when I see it? Just because their answers were not to your liking does not mean they didn't know what they meant.

It has nothing to do with the answers being to my liking or not - there simply weren't any answers. Perkins's circular reasoning about two-parent mother/father households is just as spurious and wouldn't hold up in court either - if that were really so important you'd think the FRC would be suing to ban divorces in households with children. You have to have data to prove harmful impacts on society - and it's not there - just as it wasn't in the miscegenation era. Nothing you, the FRC, or anyone else can come up with will change that.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
Crosscheck007
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:25 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:33 am

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 7):
the largest gay city in this country

Actually there are more gays per capita in Madison, WI than SFO. Lucky me!   

Cheers,

007
Je l'attends pas un homme. J'apporte le parti, j'apporte le feu d'artifice.
 
Doona
Posts: 3382
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:43 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:44 am

Quoting sv7887 (Reply 52):
Interestingly enough the EU High Court ruled against Gay Marriage as a universal right a few weeks ago:

"European nations do not have to allow same-sex marriage, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled, though gay rights groups claimed a partial victory Friday because the court acknowledged growing agreement that their relationships should be recognized in law.

The European Court of Human Rights is not an EU court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_court_of_human_rights

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 105):
No. When gay people are told by religious nuts that homosexuality is responsible for the evil in the world, gays have every right to think those people are morons, and if you're going to suggest that those claims have any validity and that those people and positions deserve any respect, it's not worth responding to anymore of your posts which excuse such ignorance.
Quoting ATCtower (Reply 108):
You are right in one regard. They have every right to feel they are morons, but not to flame their opinions as irrelevant anymore so than I have to reaffirm my beliefs on hot topic items such as capital punishment. Anyone may state their facts in an argument, and I will accept facts no matter what they are.

Facts are fine. If they are facts. LAXintl talked about the radical secular left, and called me and people like me immoral. LAXintl doesn't know me, and I'm guessing he doesn't know most other people who support same-sex marriage, and thus it cannot not qualify as a factual statement. JakeOrion was very close to comparing me and people like me to pedophiles (Dreadnought went there in the last thread on this issue, and somehow it seems to be accepted by a lot of people as legitimate). There were no facts to support that statement either. And that's the problem, those who oppose gay marriage can never seem to get proper facts on their side. And there's a reason for it.

In a free society you need a reason to make something illegal, and if that reason doesn't hold up, it should be legal. That system works. It's usually pretty obvious when something is bad for society or the people therein. Heroin is bad for people. So is murder. I've yet to hear a legitimate argument against same sex marriage, an argument which is not based of ignorance or emotion. Because love and marriage is, in essence, the same no matter what sex you and your partner are. Even the opponents do seem to get this, and thus any fact-based argument against gay marriage becomes an argument against state-sanctioned marriage across the board.

And until people on the other side of this issue stops using the "arguments" that I'm an immoral person, tantamount a child molestor and against God (and generally other lies about me as person), I won't show them the respect an opponent in a proper debate deserves.

Engaging in a debate on whether I'm alright, whether the existence of me, as I am, is good or bad, is demeaning. And yet I have to say something, every once in a while...

Cheers
Mats
Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:04 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 123):
racial

Says it all. Racial and Sexual orientation are not the same.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 123):
denying on the basis of gender is also unsupportable.


It's completely supportable when the issue has more to do with sexual orientation. But there are examples of legally recognized denial due to gender. Try walking into the womens room tommorow and see where it gets you. Now you'll have a fit but that is but one example.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 123):
Why was the defense attorney in this most recent case unable to answer the questions regarding impact of same sex marriage on heterosexuals

Maybe he is a terrible attorney, I don't know the person so I can't answer that one.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 123):
Can you prove that it did? No

Can you prove that it didn't? Does he stand to gain if he rules in favor, most certainly. That is enough proof to cause a conflict of interest.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 123):
How so?

Because as our friends who don't like Gitmo are so apt to say, this is this country. If 3 or more consenting adults want to cohabitate and call it marriage then there is no reason you can deny them if you are going to say that two people of the same sex want to marry. The same "rights" you would give them you would also have to grant to polygamists. You can't say just because it doesnt' work in another part of the world that it should be denied here. And no the same principal would not apply in health care since we are talking about a completely different subject. Talk about misdirection.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 123):
It has nothing to do with the answers being to my liking or not - there simply weren't any answers

To your liking. Again, as the Judge said.....
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 11748
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:47 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 126):
Says it all. Racial and Sexual orientation are not the same.

Nobody said they were - it's the application of equal protection that is at issue. The circumstances are the same, and that's why Olson and Boies took on this suit. An unpopular minority unable to vote in their own favor was targeted by a majority of citizens in a law that singled them out without any reasons for doing so of legal merit. Emotional merit? Sure. Religious merit? Sure. Philosophical? Perhaps. But legal? That's why they have a case.

Quoting dxing (Reply 126):
It's completely supportable when the issue has more to do with sexual orientation. But there are examples of legally recognized denial due to gender. Try walking into the womens room tommorow and see where it gets you. Now you'll have a fit but that is but one example.

No, I just don't get it where you're going with that. In law you have to use evidence to support assertions. There is no data to support the notion homosexuals in committed relationships are harming themselves or society whereas there is plenty to suggest their continued existence has not.

Quoting dxing (Reply 126):
Can you prove that it didn't? Does he stand to gain if he rules in favor, most certainly. That is enough proof to cause a conflict of interest.

To your liking, LOL. It's too subjective of a subject for recusal - no way around that. You have to have evidence by a judge's ruling history and/or objective entanglements that there is conflict of interest. If the judge were heterosexual, they'd have a potential conflict of interest just the same. Unless you're ready to give judicial appointments to robots, there's nothing more to discuss on that.

Quoting dxing (Reply 126):
If 3 or more consenting adults want to cohabitate and call it marriage then there is no reason you can deny them if you are going to say that two people of the same sex want to marry.

Testimonial evidence from others who have undergone years of treatment from the emotional damages suffered in such living arrangements might derail their attempts a bit. Quite a few stories abound on that one...

Quoting dxing (Reply 126):
To your liking. Again, as the Judge said.....

Well you can call it that if you want. Nonetheless, evidentiary support is a standard all lawyers have to contend with.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 10:02 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 127):
The circumstances are the same

They couldn't be more different. In the Loving case it was still one man and one woman.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 127):
There is no data to support the notion homosexuals in committed relationships are harming themselves or society whereas there is plenty to suggest their continued existence has not.

Nor, as you put it, is there any law to support same sex marriage.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 127):
To your liking, LOL. It's too subjective of a subject for recusal - no way around that.

I really don't understand how you can say that with any kind of straight face. IF he is actually gay, then it stands to reason that he can benefit personally by granting a favorable ruling. Contrast that with a hetrosexual Judge who will gain nothing of a personal nature by ruling either way.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 127):
Testimonial evidence from others who have undergone years of treatment from the emotional damages suffered in such living arrangements might derail their attempts a bit. Quite a few stories abound on that one...

I'm sure we could find volumes of testimonial evidence of people here in this country that have undergone years of treatement for emotional damages suffered in one on one marriages. Does that mean we should outlaw all marriages?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 11748
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 10:19 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 128):

I really don't understand how you can say that with any kind of straight face. IF he is actually gay, then it stands to reason that he can benefit personally by granting a favorable ruling. Contrast that with a hetrosexual Judge who will gain nothing of a personal nature by ruling either way.

Well, Judge Walker is gay, that is not in dispute. How would he benefit personally? Do you know something about a potential marriage partner of his that we don't? It's heresay, plain and simple. You want to talk about approaching the issue straight-faced? A heterosexual judge with the personal views of Tony Perkins or perhaps some on this forum even would absolutely gain by ruling against the plaintiffs. In either way you are dealing with the potential of impartiality - but without *evidence*, you can't point that finger.

Quoting dxing (Reply 128):
I'm sure we could find volumes of testimonial evidence of people here in this country that have undergone years of treatement for emotional damages suffered in one on one marriages.

I don't think it would bear out in a statistically significant way to suggest two person marriages are characterized by a recurrent pattern of abuse. In the experience of persons in a particular state of the union, that has not been the case with polygamous households.

[Edited 2010-08-05 03:43:21]
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
MingToo
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:07 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 10:37 am

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 15):
So, using your logic, you, nor anybody else shouldn't have a problem if somebody wants to marry their dog, parent, child, multiple spouses, etc?

Or the Eiffel Tower

http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/...rried-the-eiffel-tower-832519.html

There is a a huge difference between wanted to marry something that is 'not-human' versus wanting to marry someone that is human. Gender is in the grand scheme of things only a very tiny difference between a man and a woman. Multiple spouses is common in some cultures. There is nothing 'unnatural' about it, in fact it is programmed into the male of all species to spread their DNA as widely as they can. It is our notions of how our particular society should be that have lead us in this direction.

The argument about 'not being able to have children' is largely false too. Otherwise I guess you should ban an infertile man or woman from marrying.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 105):
And how do you explain that roughly 5% of the animal kingdom is gay if it's "a choice"?

Not a good argument to follow. Some of our closest relative in the animal kingdom kill and eat their offspring or those of others. We shouldn't follow that example.

Live and let live is a perfectly sufficient argument on its own.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:11 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 126):
Can you prove that it didn't? Dpoes he stand to gain if he rules in favor, most certainly. That is enough proof to cause a conflict of interest.

When was the last time you proved a negative?

Do you believe in the legality of the Loving Ruling?

Gay Marriage will ultimately be decided the by same process. What makes this different? This round has been decided by a gay judge. WIl the next round be also a gay judge? Is the supreme court gay?

How come the sexuality of the judge was never an issue until the ruling came down?

[Edited 2010-08-05 04:32:47]
Step into my office, baby
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15007
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:19 am

The same attitudes that led to the murder of Matthew Shepard continues in those who want to ban same-gender marriage and supported Prop. 8. The decision of the Court yesterday recognizes legisgation by the people via their elected representitives cannot be altered by a inititiative that unravels that power we allocate to elected representives. Indeed their needs to be a major change in the Proposition laws in California to prevent the many abuses it has spawened like Prop. 8 and many others that have created a massive mess in the tax laws there.

As I have been advocating for a while, we should no longer allow faith ministers to conduct marriage for both the state and their faith groups unless they have a license to do so which would require them to do marriages of legal adult same-gender couples. If a priest or minister won't get that license, then the couple will have to get a civil marriage ceremony. A number of countries only recognize marriages done by government officials or other licensed persons. A licensed person, like to become a real estate salesperson or a Notary, would require a modest test, a fee (more revenue for cash starved states and cities !) and end the too much control of marriage by faith groups and end state discrimiation as to same-gender marriage.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:39 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 122):
Too late, it's written into our Constitution, unlike marriage.

We can still vote on it. If the majority wants its. Like taking automatic citizenship from people born in the US.
Step into my office, baby
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:58 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 128):
Contrast that with a hetrosexual Judge who will gain nothing of a personal nature by ruling either way.

Well good. So if heterosexuals gain nothing by a ruling in favor of Prop 8, why be against it in the first place? Sounds like we just got an admission from you that gay marriage wouldn't affect the heterosexual crowd because there's nothing to gain from the ruling and thus heterosexuals have no reason to be against it in the first place.

Quoting dxing (Reply 111):
I think I have. But you will contest the points. Many laws and restrictions have dual purposes. The reason we don't allow strip clubs next to schools also has to do with not exposing children to the business of sex. We don't allow guns to be bought without a waiting period supposedly because it does give someone a chance to calm down and think out the situation before they committ an immoral act of murder. Californians voted for prop 8 because they somehow believe that gay marriage will affect the moral fabric of society, not in the exact same way as my examples but in its own unique way. It is apples to apples. Just red to yellow to green.

 rotfl  We're comparing gay marriage to murder now and believe they somehow belong in the same category. I love it. Please do tell, what "moral fabric" of society is going to be ripped apart by gay marriage? When one anti-gay marriage person answers that with a real, legitimate answer to show how society will fall apart if we allow gay marriage, we can close this thread.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 129):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 116):

You have to be direct when you ask. ATC? DX? RDU?..

hold on.. the answer from our friends is coming... I have faith that in their next post and they will be able to elegantly state how gay marriage destroys society, and how it affects hetero marriages negatively.

ATC, DX, RDU.. the forum awaits..

Don't bother even attempting to think you'll get a logical response from DXing on this issue. This is the same guy who tried to make arguments against same-sex couple's pricing on the grounds of "Financial reasons" in the threads about the teen lesbian who sued the school because she couldn't receive the couple's price for prom tickets. How dare gays be treated equally like straights. We just can't have that.

[Edited 2010-08-05 05:10:14]
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001
 
pnqiad
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:05 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:38 pm

Quoting TSS (Reply 109):
Back to the topic at hand: Yay! I'm wondering now if this case will end in the California Supreme Court, or if it will indeed make it all the way to the SCOTUS? If so, I'd imagine this case will have national implications such as Loving v. Virginia did.

I don't think CA Supreme Court will have anything to do here anymore. It is in the Federal judicial system now - it will make its way to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then to SCOTUS and it will definitely have national implications if SOCUTS weighs in either way.
 
D L X
Posts: 12669
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:21 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 122):
Too late, it's written into our Constitution, unlike marriage.

This is a poor argument that keeps getting repeated for some reason. "Marriage" is not in the constitution, but how the government must treat people is. It is absolutely a violation of the constitution to give a right to some people but not others.

Quoting dxing (Reply 101):
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):
For starters the judge is gay, so no surprise.

If that is true then why did he not recuse himself?
Quoting dxing (Reply 122):
A Judge can recuse himself for any variety of reasons, in this case he should have done so since his judgement could most definitly affect him on a personal level.

Well for starters, the parties have to request recusal. And then they have to show good cause. "An opinion article on a website said you're gay" is hardly reason to require recusal.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00000144----000-.html

Quoting dxing (Reply 101):
Quoting D L X (Reply 17):
I don't think he's gay.

Oh man...I've got to hear this.....exactly how did you come to that conclusion?

Because I have worked with him. Discussed issues with him, and noticed his wedding ring. Surely that means more than a rumor monger, doesn't it?  
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8241
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:02 pm

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 90):
Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 86):
Shall we elect EVERY federal office? US Attorneys? Every member of the cabinet?

Yes, absolutely. At least people would know who these people are. Most people in this country can't tell you who any of the cabinet secretaries are, and that's disgusting.

That's good. Then they can't blame anyone but themselves.

Consider a Democrat president with a Republican cabinet...whose fault will it be that the country will be at a stand still? of course, both sides will blame the other...because people never want to take the blame for the choices they make...always something/someone else.

Quoting D L X (Reply 139):
Quoting dxing (Reply 122):
Too late, it's written into our Constitution, unlike marriage.

This is a poor argument that keeps getting repeated for some reason. "Marriage" is not in the constitution, but how the government must treat people is. It is absolutely a violation of the constitution to give a right to some people but not others.

Maybe the Bill of Rights should be renamed and called "Bill of Rights for the religious, heterosexual, married, and socially aceptable whites". Not Americans because they don't want to be associated with gays who happen to be Americans too...for now. I wouldn't be surprised if a vote is held on stripping their citizenship too.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
CaliAtenza
Posts: 1686
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 1:43 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:37 pm

Quoting Crosscheck007 (Reply 124):

Actually there are more gays per capita in Madison, WI than SFO. Lucky me!

Yeah i dunno why people think SFO is this "Gay Capital of the World" and stuff...it didnt seem overtly Gay to me...seemed like a normal place.
 
ScarletHarlot
Posts: 4251
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:15 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:18 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 128):
Contrast that with a hetrosexual Judge who will gain nothing of a personal nature by ruling either way.

Wait a sec, isn't that the whole point of Prop 8, that allowing gay marriage harms heterosexual marriage? If so, then a heterosexual judge DOES have the potential of a gain of a personal nature.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 134):
Well good. So if heterosexuals gain nothing by a ruling in favor of Prop 8, why be against it in the first place? Sounds like we just got an admission from you that gay marriage wouldn't affect the heterosexual crowd because there's nothing to gain from the ruling and thus heterosexuals have no reason to be against it in the first place.

Exactly.
But that was when I ruled the world
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:55 pm

Reading through this thread, I now realize how ridiculous I sounded four to five years ago before I changed positions on the issue.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 108):
Dismissing opinions based on your own opinions is arrogant and ignorant. I excuse any argument as the opinion of said person stating it whether I agree with it or not.

See above. I can dismiss such arguments as arrogant and ignorant because I used to be of that line of thinking. About four to five years ago, I used to believe much of the garbage that you're trying to admit is a credible argument by other users. I have since changed positions because I realized my line of thinking was wrong. I used to be of the "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" mentality. But my views on that have changed. I've met gay people and have learned it's not a choice for them. My feeling is if God felt homosexuality was that immoral, he wouldn't make people gay from birth. I also used to believe the "slippery slope" nonsense but that has changed too. The slope started when someone said it was okay for a man to marry a woman, not because two men or two women can marry. I personally don't care if churches don't wish to recognize homosexual marriages. That's their right as a private organization. But the government should, just as it recognizes heterosexual marriages for the reasons of legal benefits, which is one reason the polygamy argument fails - because polygamy would open up a can of worms in the legal world about which spouse has the legal rights to make decisions, etc - an issue that is non-existent in a two person heterosexual or homosexual marriage.
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001
 
travelin man
Posts: 3238
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:57 pm

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 80):
Yes, I would say that too. As a gay, the judge no matter what he says is automatically biased toward his fellow gays. Would it be appropriate for a judge whos child was murdered to hear a case involving same? No. This judge should have recused himself right from the start.

What a terrible line of reasoning. By that reasoning, Black judges should not hear racial discrimination cases, Women judges should not hear sexual harrassment cases, etc. etc. etc.

As others have pointed out, if a (allegedly) gay judge is biased towards gays, then isn't the converse true -- A straight judge is biased towards straight people?

[Edited 2010-08-05 11:00:53]
 
travelin man
Posts: 3238
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:02 pm

By the way, being gay is not a choice. As a gay man, I should know. I would like for any other gay members here to say if being gay was a choice for them. I have never met one (and I've been around a lot of gay people).
 
nyc2theworld
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:58 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:54 pm

Quoting travelin man (Reply 142):
By the way, being gay is not a choice. As a gay man, I should know. I would like for any other gay members here to say if being gay was a choice for them. I have never met one (and I've been around a lot of gay people).

Not a choice. I remember when my first crush was...in 7th grade...I doubt anybody else at that age decides "You know what, I think I will like guys instead of the socially accepted norm of girls!". Especially when they attend a faith-based school.
Always wonderers if this "last and final boarding call" is in fact THE last and final boarding call.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 11748
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:59 pm

Quoting NYC2THEWORLD (Reply 143):
Not a choice. I remember when my first crush was...in 7th grade...I doubt anybody else at that age decides "You know what, I think I will like guys instead of the socially accepted norm of girls!". Especially when they attend a faith-based school.

I don't see how any logically-minded person could think that it is. I sure remember around that same time also, becoming crazy about certain girls at school and doing whatever it took to be around them. Those feelings only became stronger in high school as they started looking like women...goddesses abound in the hallways and such. It's no choice at all - we are into what we're into - how we are hard-wired naturally coming to the fore.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:08 pm

I am not gay by choice. In fact, I used to pray (at age 11 until I was 18 or so) that God would please not let me be gay. I'd lay in bed and cry about it. I had my first gay crush in 7th grade, and the feelings have never gone away, though I became quite good about covering it up. To say it is a choice is just ignorant because the ones who say it's a choice are straight and have never experienced the evolution of being gay.

UAL
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:46 pm

Quoting caliatenza (Reply 138):
Yeah i dunno why people think SFO is this "Gay Capital of the World" and stuff...it didn't seem overtly Gay to me...seemed like a normal place.


I agree ... I like the city and I never noticed it being any different than others of the same size... me and my ex wife had many fun times there. She came out of the closet after 13 yrs of marriage ... and I don't blame SF for that 
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:48 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 129):
Do you know something about a potential marriage partner of his that we don't?

By ruling in favor he grants himself the right to marry. That is the conflict of interest. What would you say if he was ruling on a company he owned stock in?

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 129):
It's heresay, plain and simple.

To take your word for it he is gay. If he is gay, then he should have recused himself.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 129):
I don't think it would bear out in a statistically significant way to suggest two person marriages are characterized by a recurrent pattern of abuse

There are countless shelters in this country where women of all backgrounds would disagree with you.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 129):
In the experience of persons in a particular state of the union, that has not been the case with polygamous households.

How do we know, its been over a hundred yeas since polygamy was practiced in this country. Using your example we should outlaw the muslim faith since they have a habit of mistreating their women and treating them as property.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 131):
Do you believe in the legality of the Loving Ruling?

Yes, it involved one man and one woman and centered around race, not sexual orientation.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 131):
How come the sexuality of the judge was never an issue until the ruling came down?

I can't speak for others but this is the first I heard he was gay. Evidently the fact was kept pretty quiet and with good reason since it prresents a huge conflict of interest.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 132):
The same attitudes that led to the murder of Matthew Shepard continues in those who want to ban same-gender marriage and supported Prop. 8.

   You just wiped credibility out of the rest of your post with a lead in line like that.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 133):
We can still vote on it. If the majority wants its

No you can't. Read the Constitution for details, specifically how amendments are passed or repealed.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 133):
Like taking automatic citizenship from people born in the US.

You can't vote on that either as an ordinary citizen.

Quoting D L X (Reply 136):
This is a poor argument that keeps getting repeated for some reason. "Marriage" is not in the constitution, but how the government must treat people is. It is absolutely a violation of the constitution to give a right to some people but not others.

When that "right" belongs to the State is does. If if doesn't then there should be a national driving license, a national electricians license so forth and so on. At some point the 9 and 10th amendments either have meaning or they are useless words.

Quoting D L X (Reply 136):
Well for starters, the parties have to request recusal

That's funny, I seem to recall a recent Supreme Court Justice nominee that said they would recuse themselves from ruling on case they already ruled on. I've also seen in the past where Judges have passed cases on due to conflicts of interest for a variety of reasons both professional and personal.

Quoting D L X (Reply 136):
Because I have worked with him. Discussed issues with him, and noticed his wedding ring. Surely that means more than a rumor monger, doesn't it?

But evidently never asked him. So you judged based on looks and feelings?

[Edited 2010-08-05 12:51:00]

[Edited 2010-08-05 12:52:43]
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:16 pm

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 140):
But my views on that have changed. I've met gay people and have learned it's not a choice for them
Quoting dxing (Reply 147):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 131):
Do you believe in the legality of the Loving Ruling?

Yes, it involved one man and one woman and centered around race, not sexual orientation.

Well the same process that gave us Loving might give us Gay Marriage. If you believe in the legality of the process that gave us Loving, you should have no problem with this.

Quoting dxing (Reply 147):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 131):
How come the sexuality of the judge was never an issue until the ruling came down?

I can't speak for others but this is the first I heard he was gay. Evidently the fact was kept pretty quiet and with good reason since it prresents a huge conflict of interest.

Will the appeals judge be gay too?

Quoting travelin man (Reply 141):
What a terrible line of reasoning. By that reasoning, Black judges should not hear racial discrimination cases, Women judges should not hear sexual harrassment cases, etc. etc. etc.

 checkmark 

[Edited 2010-08-05 13:17:39]
Step into my office, baby
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21795
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:22 pm

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 90):

If the people voted for the law, then the law should be on the books.

Not in this country. That's why we have a Constitution. Otherwise, we could just vote you into a gas chamber.

Did you know that a double-digit percentage of the U.S. population STILL opposes interracial marriage? Good thing that never got put to a vote.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArchGuy1, c933103, dazoy, flyguy89 and 30 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos