The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Chris_ on August 04, 2010, 04:12:19 PM
-
A federal judge on Wednesday overturned a California ban on same-sex marriage, ruling that the Proposition 8 ballot initiative was unconstitutional.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaugh Walker, one of three openly gay federal judges in the country, gave opponents of the controversial Proposition 8 ballot a major victory.
Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume. That's because the judge said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents pursue their appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Aug. 6 on the issue.
"Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," the judge ruled.
Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/04/federal-judge-overturns-californias-sex-marriage-ban/)
-
The DUmmies are hailing this as a victory, but it's just another step on the way to the USSC.
-
The DUmmies are hailing this as a victory, but it's just another step on the way to the USSC.
They have worn me down folks. I give up, none of this is my business.
It is just too darn hot to worry about anyones sex life except MY OWN ,and it is too darn hot to even want one----who has the energy.
-
Personally, I could care less either way --
However -- this will have negative ramifications for Obama. There are two groups who overwhelmingly support Prop 8
A ) Blacks.
B ) Hispanics.
and one religion..
A ) Muslim.
This also further highlights Obama's inability to recognize the most important thing today.. According to Biden, its a three-letter word --J-O-B-S-- Instead Team Obama is far too interested in gay marriage and immigration.
-
Any law disadvantages someone so that sure seems like a lame argument.
It by judicial decree ascribes a higher level of citizenry on them making them a protected group in the words of the finding "without any rational justification".
-
Conservatives have to care about this. This is just one more hammer at the foundations of our Judaeo-Christian traditions. I can't look at this coldly and see it only through a political prism.
Yes, it's not over; yes, this goes up the rungs. The 9th Circuit is a crapshoot, and for that matter, so is the USSC, and that's where this will end. And then what? This all depends on Anthony Kennedy again? One man decides whether or not centuries of Western tradition and law are shattered? Madness.
-
Teh Gheys won't be happy until a minister/preacher/priest can be forced into marrying them in a church.
-
Personally, I could care less either way --
However -- this will have negative ramifications for Obama. There are two groups who overwhelmingly support Prop 8
A ) Blacks.
B ) Hispanics.
and one religion..
A ) Muslim.
This also further highlights Obama's inability to recognize the most important thing today.. According to Biden, its a three-letter word --J-O-B-S-- Instead Team Obama is far too interested in gay marriage and immigration.
You raise a good point right there. As for gay marriage, if states want to ban or legalize them fine with me. Personally, I rather have civil unions for gays.
-
The only pleasure I ever got out of Prop 8 was when DU looked around, the day after the election of The One, all hungover on the hopey changey cocktails, and screamed: "OMG! Those black people voted against the gays!"
I LOVE it when they let their racism out of the basement.
-
Wow!
Gay San Francisco judge rules in FAVOR gays in gay marriage case.
Never saw that coming...
-
Regardless of where you stand on the issue, whenever an activist judge overrules the will of the people, then something is seriously wrong.
-
Wow!
Gay San Francisco judge rules in FAVOR gays in gay marriage case.
Never saw that coming...
I seem to remember that there were some calling for the judge to recuse himself when this first went before him.
-
When the corn holer supporters start crowing, and they will, ask if they can claim "Married filling jointly" on the Federal 1040's. When they say No, tell em to STFU.
BTW. They'll be a lot of TSing on the island tonight.
-
Teh Gheys won't be happy until a minister/preacher/priest can be forced into marrying them in a church.
Pardon me for quoting you saying "Teh Gheys " is really queer.
Use proper English language, please. Just so we can all follow along in what you want to say. And thanks in advance.
-
Pardon me for quoting you saying "Teh Gheys " is really queer.
Use proper English language, please. Just so we can all follow along in what you want to say. And thanks in advance.
You see, it is a manner of calling out the gays for the dysfunctional manner of their chosen existence: Dysfunctional WRONG spelling equates to Dysfunctional WRONG lifestyle.
-
I find it absurd and completely undemocratic that a judge can overturn a popular vote. That being said, I think we have much more important things to worry about than gays getting married. I mean, if you just let them have "civil unions" or something, they would shut up and we wouldn't have to hear about this crap anymore. Just saying, we have some issues closer to critical mass than this one.
-
I find it absurd and completely undemocratic that a judge can overturn a popular vote. That being said, I think we have much more important things to worry about than gays getting married. I mean, if you just let them have "civil unions" or something, they would shut up and we wouldn't have to hear about this crap anymore. Just saying, we have some issues closer to critical mass than this one.
Um, no, they had Civil Unions, until a judge ruled that not allowing them to be married violated their civil rights, so the judge allowed Gay Marriage in California. The people voted that they did not want Gay Marriage, and now another judge is saying that the people's will doesn't matter.
The fact that they keep pushing for "real marriage" tells me that it is only a matter of time until a church is sued for not allowing a gay couple to marry, or until a photographer is sued for deciding not to work a gay wedding, or until a judge rules that they cannot be discriminated against when it comes to adoption. There are so many factors beyond just "they want to get married".
Here's a timeline for the whole history since San Francisco started allowing Gays to marry without state authorization:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/The-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-99977109.html
-
Yee-Haw! Ghey Marrage is back on the election cycle!
:fuelfire:
-
Um, no, they had Civil Unions, until a judge ruled that not allowing them to be married violated their civil rights, so the judge allowed Gay Marriage in California. The people voted that they did not want Gay Marriage, and now another judge is saying that the people's will doesn't matter.
The fact that they keep pushing for "real marriage" tells me that it is only a matter of time until a church is sued for not allowing a gay couple to marry, or until a photographer is sued for deciding not to work a gay wedding, or until a judge rules that they cannot be discriminated against when it comes to adoption. There are so many factors beyond just "they want to get married".
Here's a timeline for the whole history since San Francisco started allowing Gays to marry without state authorization:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/The-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-99977109.html
I mentioned the church thing , too, but on second thought , forcing a church to perform a wedding would be violating the first amendment right to freely practice their religion. However, I do think that a photographer has already been sued for this. Photographer sued. (http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/357084.aspx)
-
I mentioned the church thing , too, but on second thought , forcing a church to perform a wedding would be violating the first amendment right to freely practice their religion. However, I do think that a photographer has already been sued for this. Photographer sued. (http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/357084.aspx)
The court would probably rule in favor of the court, but considering judges in California, it might happen on appeal. However, most churches are not wealthy, and a court case could easily bankrupt a church, regardless of the outcome.
-
And if that wasn't a 1A violation, what is?
Frankly, marriage is/was a RELIGIOUS institution long before it was a legal/governmental one. If teh gheys want civil unions, more power to them. If they can find a church that will marry them (like the Unitarians or Episcopalians), go for it. Otherwise, cram it--no pun intended.
This is what, 32 states which have voted on gay marriage? And EVERY SINGLE TIME, it's been voted down. The only states in which gay marriage is legal, it was done by judicial or legislative fiat, not based on the will of the people.
And don't think there aren't a heck of a lot of people up here who remember Governor Lynch talking out both sides of his ass on this issue.
-
Um, no, they had Civil Unions, until a judge ruled that not allowing them to be married violated their civil rights, so the judge allowed Gay Marriage in California. The people voted that they did not want Gay Marriage, and now another judge is saying that the people's will doesn't matter.
The fact that they keep pushing for "real marriage" tells me that it is only a matter of time until a church is sued for not allowing a gay couple to marry, or until a photographer is sued for deciding not to work a gay wedding, or until a judge rules that they cannot be discriminated against when it comes to adoption. There are so many factors beyond just "they want to get married".
Here's a timeline for the whole history since San Francisco started allowing Gays to marry without state authorization:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/The-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-99977109.html
Thanks forthe info
-
Thanks forthe info
No problem. :) Welcome to the site.
-
Yet the unconstitutional health care bill is still standing. And the constitutional AZ bill has been shut down. :mental:
Funny how the 2 items with majority support are the ones the courts will stop. The one a majority does not want will stand. :banghead:
-
I've seriously considered linking to the zombietime blog and their pictures of the parades in SF, but I'm afraid it would really offend a few of the more religious people I know, and maybe a couple of possible gay ones, (females).
-
The judge who ruled on this case is gay himself, so this ruling comes as no suprise. I just wonder if it opens the door for polygamy, since marriage isn't one man and one woman.
-
Regardless of where you stand on the issue, whenever an activist judge overrules the will of the people, then something is seriously wrong.
Very true. I don't know what's worse, the judge spitting in the eye of the American people whom voted against this or the gays marrying?? :hammer:
-
You see, it is a manner of calling out the gays for the dysfunctional manner of their chosen existence: Dysfunctional WRONG spelling equates to Dysfunctional WRONG lifestyle.
Oh, I didn't know... :hammer:
-
The judge who ruled on this case is gay himself, so this ruling comes as no suprise. I just wonder if it opens the door for polygamy, since marriage isn't one man and one woman.
Why stop at number? Why not species? Why would it even have to be the same kingdom? What if I want to marry a bacterium? Or bacteria--talk about your polygamy! Actually, I've been getting that warm tingly feeling for the fusobacteria--ohh, those gums--but trachoma has been giving me the eye and I'll admit to getting cold feet.
And why are only living things entitled to the benefits of matrimony? Come to think about it, what about man and woman's love for the guy buried next to their father? Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, so why can’t my neighbor marry Venus or Mars? What they do in the privacy of their own Solar system is their business, say I. That’s what makes America great.
And what about abstractions? And who says that humans have to be one party to a marriage? Maybe Purple has a secret thing for Viscosity. And has anyone seen the way Time has been looking at Conceptualization? Those two are made for each other, and it’s just heartless and mean that we’re standing in the way of true love.
All this might be too expensive to budget for. We’d be ripping the national debt a whole new event horizon, although I admit that even as I write that I can see that ripping the national debt a whole new event horizon has been married to the Democrat Party for some time, and we wouldn’t want to be adulterer(s). The judicial branch (who I just heard has proposed to Moderately Humid and Ethel the frog, the little minx) would be overrun by marriage applications; their other legitimate functions, such as securing the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and eleventy-th Constitutional rights of terrorists and preventing illegal Mexican migrants from being overrun by stubbed toes or American citizens from walking freely in America, could be severely compromised. I suggest that the cost-effective approach would be for the universe to marry itself.
But I’m drawing the line at parallel universes! Now that’s just sick.
-
But my brain’s gut feeling is that it’s age that the anti-Western thought elite will attack next. It’s what they in their depraved, doctrinally against-all-decent-human-behavior ethos probably instantly regard as “bourgeois,†or, even worse offense to them, Middle-American, middle-class mores. Look for age-of-consent laws to be the next target. They’ll probably spin it out in a complicit media as “wouldn’t it be better for these unmarried and pregnant 13-year-old girls to be married to their 20-year-old lovers than throwing the guy in prison for the rest of his life? Let him support her, and not be any further drain on the taxpayer.†That’s how they’ll start. Most likely In Hawaii.
-
I find it absurd and completely undemocratic that a judge can overturn a popular vote. That being said, I think we have much more important things to worry about than gays getting married. I mean, if you just let them have "civil unions" or something, they would shut up and we wouldn't have to hear about this crap anymore. Just saying, we have some issues closer to critical mass than this one.
I'm not an attorney and I'm no student of law, but I'd be willing to bet my next paycheck that the law does not require a judge to look at a "popular vote." Far from it. The law requires that a judge look at the law and then interpret that law.
There have been plenty of examples where a judge - any judge - has ruled against popular opinion. That's the crux of the legal system - judges aren't supposed to be bound by politics and the feeling du jour about any issue.
The real outrage in this particular case, from a legal perspective at least, is that this particular judge is an openly practicing peter puffer. He should have recused himself, imho, because his own interpretive ability is subject to his own biases apart from the law.
Regarding other more "critical mass" issues, your own sense of urgency on this is purely subjective and is relative to your own opinion, which is perfectly fine to express here. Others have commented as to the ramifications of this decision down the pike, should the decision stand, which most definitely are alarming.
Godot - great posts. :cheersmate:
-
I'm not an attorney and I'm no student of law, but I'd be willing to bet my next paycheck that the law does not require a judge to look at a "popular vote." Far from it. The law requires that a judge look at the law and then interpret that law.
There have been plenty of examples where a judge - any judge - has ruled against popular opinion. That's the crux of the legal system - judges aren't supposed to be bound by politics and the feeling du jour about any issue.
Agreed
The real outrage in this particular case, from a legal perspective at least, is that this particular judge is an openly practicing peter puffer. He should have recused himself, imho, because his own interpretive ability is subject to his own biases apart from the law.
Disagree, because if he had been hetero and ruled in favor of Prop 8 the same argument could be used in reverse.
Here is the real outrage: the judge ruled based on the findings of sociologists and other researchers.
First, sociology is debatable as a form of science. Sure, it has insights but it isn't bound by hard facts like like math and chemistry.
Second, even if sociology etc were solidly established it matters not one wit. We are a republic, not a technocracy who must ask our scientific masters leave whenever we wish to establish laws for our own governance.
If the people wish to forbid the marrying of red heads to brunettes it doesn't matter how ridiculous the law is the fact of the matter remains as soon as we demand scientific imprimatur on our laws we lose the freedom to govern ourselves.
-
We are a republic, not a technocracy who must ask our scientific masters leave whenever we wish to establish laws for our own governance.
BINGO! Very well said. :hi5:
-
Judge is a gay ACTIVIST and certainly should heve recused himself. Well, now, do the Mormons and the Moslems get their 5 wives now? Can "BI" peolpe marry one of each? Can 2 three four and more loving couples have round robin marrages? This is utter stupidity. Marage is not a "right" as you must have the willing conscent of another. Without it, no marrage. Further, Hamurabi's code refered to a man and a woman as marrage partners, no mention of 2 men or2 womem, it is what works, and trying to change it to satisfy a multitude of peversons is STUPID!
-
Disagree, because if he had been hetero and ruled in favor of Prop 8 the same argument could be used in reverse.
I thought about exactly your point after I posted and yes, you're right, the same argument could be used in reverse. What I actually meant, but failed to express, is captured in Peter3_1's post next above.
All judges are human at the end of the day, but there are instances when a judge should recuse himself because of the obvious conflicts of interest that are either there or perceived to be there.
-
Judge is a gay ACTIVIST and certainly should heve recused himself. Well, now, do the Mormons and the Moslems get their 5 wives now? Can "BI" peolpe marry one of each? Can 2 three four and more loving couples have round robin marrages? This is utter stupidity.
If the community elected leaders that campaigned in favor of polygamy and then passed their agenda according to constitutional parameters, then, yes they could.
But Judge Walker has deprived such legislators and their constituents of their power and surrendered it to a collection of research projects.
-
Judge is a gay ACTIVIST and certainly should heve recused himself. Well, now, do the Mormons and the Moslems get their 5 wives now? Can "BI" peolpe marry one of each? Can 2 three four and more loving couples have round robin marrages? This is utter stupidity. Marage is not a "right" as you must have the willing conscent of another. Without it, no marrage. Further, Hamurabi's code refered to a man and a woman as marrage partners, no mention of 2 men or2 womem, it is what works, and trying to change it to satisfy a multitude of peversons is STUPID!
Well now Peter, I have been doing something dangerous for me, I have been thinking, about this.
Marriage is between a male and female--but there are sub-depths of requirements for even this to be allowed.
You Peter are not allowed to marry a 6 year old female.
You Peter are not allowed to marry your sister even if you are 100% sterile.
Is some states you cannot marry your 1ST. or 2ND cousin. Even if one of you are adopted and no blood relation, having the same parents can cause problems.
When the SCOUS gets this and has to make a decision will it be considered that anyone regardless of sex or relationship of one to another, anyone can marry anyone they please.?? Can brother marry brother, sister marry sister.? What if identical twins want to marry and adopt a child, or the sisters want to become pregnant with the same man.
Peter, are you old enough to have heard the song, " I AM MY OWN GRAND PA'?"
This whole question on same sex marriage just opens up a bucket of worms.
-
vEST...,
Indeed I am more than "old enough"...just cements my point. The "gays" are asking for special, not equal, rights. Civilizations, for the last 5,000 years have found that marrage between a MAN and a WOMAN, are what works best, so the DEFINITION has been that. Not to pretend affairs, cheating, the "down low", etc were niot happening, but that the definition and associated laws workes best for the scociety as a whole.
And BTW, we are no different that our ancestors, we just have MUCH nicer toys.....