So gay!!!

[Scat]

Lawyers might excoriate Walker, but at worst he's the guy who poured gasoline on himself to make a political statement which will eventually be borne out as self evident fact when the world catches up to the obvious truth of gay marriage. He'll be one of history's winners that only the unsexy legal world doesn't recognize. At best, he'll actually win. His case will make it past CERT and he'll be the hero as the guy who launched the 14th Amendment revisions that brought the United States further into the future.

So save the dishonest, illogical, solipsistic legal crap. The whole legal system has an illustrious history of depriving people of their basic rights until suddenly, out of nowhere, those rights become apparent. If Walker is shot down, he'll just be the guy doing the right thing the wrong way the best way he knew how. Law is gamesmanship. When we're lucky, it stumbles onto truth. Fortunately, it's mostly made steady progress that arena, however slow it takes.

Am I reading this correctly? You admit that Walker may be judicially out of line but since you agree that gay marriage should be allowed it's OK for a federal judge to disregard the laws that he has sworn to uphold because of personal viewpoint or opinion?? You could have saved everyone pages and pages of nonsense if you would have just stated this from the get go.

I wonder, if judge Walker had ruled the other way based on his personal feelings and opinions, if you be arguing so vociferously on his behalf?

 

[Hopper]

A federal judge has no business ignoring the law due to his personal feelings or beliefs.

Wrong, Marcus, just flat-out WRONG, I tellya! If ya don't believe me, just ax some *edited for content* this judge, or any of them. They all know the truth.

Edit: Damn, Marcus, seems like everytime I hauls off and quotes ya, ya goes back and changes the post I done quoted. Zup wit dat, I wonder? Ya tryin to make it seems like I just makin crap up, dat it?

 

[One Brow]

Did it ever occur to you, Biley, that homosexuals in California are not being deprived of the right to vote, the right to lodging, the right to enter public places, the right to enter into "domestic partnerships," etc.? The attempt to equate letting homos marry with the abolition of the enslavement of blacks don't fly with anybody except homosexuals, I'm afraid.

Sure, they are only deprived of the right to marry anyone they find marriageable. It certainly doesn't compare to the scope of Brown vs. Borad of Education. On the other hand, you could argue that in Loving vs. Virginia, the oppression was smaller, since it didn'[t prevent people from marrying anyone at all that they found marriageable.

Even if you did want to equate the two, then the homos should git busy amendin the U.S. Constitution, instead of appealing to the Supreme Court, I figure. That's what it took to end slavery, not a Supreme Court case (which was powerless to amend the constitution).

I don't recall anyone bringing slavery into this, but civil rights generally.

You admit that Walker may be judicially out of line but since you agree that gay marriage should be allowed it's OK for a federal judge to disregard the laws that he has sworn to uphold because of personal viewpoint or opinion??

The judges primary responsibility is to:
1) the laws that he has sworn to uphold,
2) prior rulings of other judges on this matter, and/or
3) preserving the Constitution rights of citizens.

Guess which one is supposed to have precedence?

 

[Hopper]

The judges primary responsibility is to:
1) the laws that he has sworn to uphold,
2) prior rulings of other judges on this matter, and/or
3) preserving the Constitution rights of citizens.

Guess which one is supposed to have precedence?

I would guess 3, Eric, which just shows that his highest duty was NOT to piss all over the constitutional rights of the voters who passed prop 8.

 

[Hopper]

I don't recall anyone bringing slavery into this, but civil rights generally.

Both Brown and Loving were ENFORCING the U.S. Constitution to protect civil rights, not VIOLATING the constitution to deprive voters of their civil rights, ya know? Seems kinda different for some damn reason...aint sure exactly what reason, but some damn reason, ya know?

 

[Hopper]

Times change. Attitudes change. Along with them, certain fundamental principles of law gotta change, too, I figure. So, then, looky here, eh?:

Don't be reactionary. Dump the lame-*** "rule of law" and usher in the era of "rule of the" *edited* - check your PM.

 

[Scat]

Wrong, Marcus, just flat-out WRONG, I tellya! If ya don't believe me, just ax some homo. Any homo, this judge, or any of them. They all know the truth.

Edit: Damn, Marcus, seems like everytime I hauls off and quotes ya, ya goes back and changes the post I done quoted. Zup wit dat, I wonder? Ya tryin to make it seems like I just makin crap up, dat it?

LOL If you'd cool your jets and give people enough tome to collect their thoughts we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[One Brow]

I would guess 3, Eric, which just shows that his highest duty was NOT to piss all over the constitutional rights of the voters who passed prop 8.

Does a voter have a rigth to oppress another group? Outside of that, can you name the right of which the Prop 8 supporter has been denied?

 

[Hopper]

Does a voter have a rigth to oppress another group? Outside of that, can you name the right of which the Prop 8 supporter has been denied?

Well, Eric, ya know, the whole damn constitution aint found in the 14th amendment. They's a whole lot in there that sets forth governing principles for the proper separation of powers, and all kinda thangs like that.

Yeah, voters do have the right to "oppress" NAMBLA by passin such things as statutory rape laws, believe it or not. Like it says in that motion for stay:

"Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, 450 U.S. 464, 475 (1981) (plurality) (rejecting as “ludicrous” argument that California’s law criminalizing statutory rape for the purpose of preventing teenage pregnancies was “impermissibly overbroad because it makes unlawful sexual intercourse with prepubescent females who are, by definition, incapable of becoming pregnant”)"

For some damn reason, bottom-feeders for pedophiles didn't have any problem makin that argument to the Supreme Court. I spect NAMBLA can't even begin to imagine why the court didn't accept it as valid, rather than callin it "ludicrous," neither. What the court should have done, obviously, is make sex with prepubescent chillinz legal for them, and not go round bein unconstitutionally "overbroad" about it, ya know?

 

[One Brow]

Well, Eric, ya know, the whole damn constitution aint found in the 14th amendment. They's a whole lot in there that sets forth governing principles for the proper separation of powers, and all kinda thangs like that.

True enough. You didn't answer the question, though. Of what rights has the Prop 8 supporter have been denided?

Yeah, voters do have the right to "oppress" NAMBLA by passin such things as statutory rape laws, believe it or not.

Statutory rape laws make acts illegal, not organizations nor membership in organizations. You still didn't answer the question, though. Of what rights has the Prop 8 supporter have been denided?

 

[Hopper]

True enough. You didn't answer the question, though. Of what rights has the Prop 8 supporter have been denided?



Statutory rape laws make acts illegal, not organizations nor membership in organizations. You still didn't answer the question, though. Of what rights has the Prop 8 supporter have been denided?

You think that question still requires an answer, Eric? How about his fundamental right to vote, which by implication includes the right to have his vote counted and NOT have it arbitrarily undermined by judges with no constitutional authority to do so?

I guess it's already been made quite apparent that gay advocates can't even begin to conceive of the notion that anyone else may also have rights, but such attitudes still kinda amaze me, somehow.

 

[Hopper]

All this judge had to do, and all he should have done, was say: "Look, I may personally agree with you that prop 8 is bad law, but I am constitutionally restrained from disobeying precedent pertaining to the meaning of the U.S. constitution. I will gladly give you an immediate ruling, denying your attempt to overturn the voter initative and the changes to the California constitution it implemented. Feel free, in fact I would encourage you, to take the issue to my superiors, the 9th circuit of appeals. If they too feel constrained to follow the law, and deny you relief, you can petition the Supreme Court. That's the best I can do for you, legally, sorry."