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."

 

[One Brow]

You think that question still requires an answer, Eric?

I don't particularly care if you make baseless claims or not. It only requires an answer if you care to justify your claim.

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?

The Prop 8 supporters were able to vote, their votes were counted, and it was not arbitrarily undermined by a judge lacking Constitutional authority. So, you missed listing any rights of which they were deprived.

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.

I think asking for the rights of which they have been deprived clearly relies on teh assumption they have rights.

All this judge had to do, and all he should have done, ...

You must think it's a shame Walker didn't have your expertise in Constitutional law.

 

[Hopper]

You must think it's a shame Walker didn't have your expertise in Constitutional law.

In a case like this, no expertise is required. Simple literacy is sufficient. I have posted some (a mere fraction) of the controlling precedents myself, directly or indirectly, in this thread. This TRIAL judge simply does NOT have the discretion to ignore and violate prior supreme court holdings. Only the supreme court itself has the authority to do that. Anyone who ever took a 7th grade civics class knows that. Don't take no expert.

You seem to be the one claiming expertise which far superior to that of the supreme court, eh, Eric? You keep INSISTING that the constitutional is being violated, contrary to what the supreme court has said.

 

[One Brow]

In a case like this, no expertise is required. Simple literacy is sufficient.

You're kidding yourself if you think simple literacy is enough to truly understand the intracacies of legal opinions (or for that matter, the specialized workproduct of any field where post-graduate work is essential to competence).

You seem to be the one claiming expertise which far superior to that of the supreme court, eh, Eric?

To my knowledge, the current Supreme court has not yet ruled on this.

You keep INSISTING that the constitutional is being violated, contrary to what the supreme court has said.

You could have made the same arguments about male sexual relations 8 years ago. Then came Lawrence vs. Texas, and it turned out the constitution was being violated, but SCOTUS had not previously realized it.

 

[Hopper]

You're kidding yourself if you think simple literacy is enough to truly understand the intracacies of legal opinions (or for that matter, the specialized workproduct of any field where post-graduate work is essential to competence).

I didn't say you didn't need expertise to understand all "intricacies"

To my knowledge, the current Supreme court has not yet ruled on this.

Then I will quickly remind you that a Minnesota Court ruled that a gay couple had no right to a marriage license. They appealed, claiming their constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, free association, etc. were being violated. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, who had a duty to rule on the issue. The court summarily dismissed it, deeming the issue not even worthy of an oral hearing, stating that no substantial federal issues were being raised. Judge Walker REFUSED to even acknowledge the existence of this precedent (and many others).

You could have made the same arguments about male sexual relations 8 years ago. Then came Lawrence vs. Texas, and it turned out the constitution was being violated, but SCOTUS had not previously realized it.

Yes, I could have. And they would have been just as valid and accurate then, too. A TRIAL court does NOT have the right to ignore supreme court rulings on a subject. The supreme court can reverse itself, but trial courts can't "reverse" them.

Of course no inferior federal court ever made such an attempt in Lawrence v. Texas. And that ruling made it clear that is was NOT intended to provide support for gay marriage. Kennedy limited the unconstitutionality of the sodomy law to the narrow set of consensual adult sexual conduct, enumerating areas where sodomy laws could potentially remain in effect, saying:

"The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."

The way I read this reference to "public conduct" a state could definitely make it illegal for a homo to hang around the bus station restroom proposing sodomistic activity to every guy who comes in. The ruling only protects "personal and private consensual acts between adults."

After having read the case carefully, I cannot find anywhere that it says: "If One Brow thinks a provision of the California constititution is forbidden by the U.S. constitution, then the duty of all citizens to adhere to that constitution should be immediately suspended."

 

[Boondocksaint27]

Hate to interrupt the two-person back-and-forth that's going on here...but I just saw this video, thought it was pretty funny, and decided to share it -
Prop 8, the Musical.


[video]https://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones

You may continue

 

[One Brow]

I didn't say you didn't need expertise to understand all "intricacies"

Of course not. You just pontificate on the decision as if you really understand the issues, while admitting you have no training in the field.

Then I will quickly remind you that a Minnesota Court ruled that a gay couple had no right to a marriage license. They appealed, claiming their constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, free association, etc. were being violated. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, who had a duty to rule on the issue. The court summarily dismissed it, deeming the issue not even worthy of an oral hearing, stating that no substantial federal issues were being raised. Judge Walker REFUSED to even acknowledge the existence of this precedent (and many others).

Some decisions have use Baker v. Nelson as a controlling precedent, some have not. While I'm sure the conservative sources you've been unanimous on this point, that doesn't mean they are correct. Your pretense that you know with certainly that this is a controlling precedent is the same sort of sophistry you regularly condemn.

Of course no inferior federal court ever made such an attempt in Lawrence v. Texas.

You mean, because it went straight from state court to the Supreme Court, presumably.

And that ruling made it clear that is was NOT intended to provide support for gay marriage.

Don't recall claiming otherwise. I just noted it to make the point that the Court does reverse itself relatively quickly, from time to time. The precedent Lawrence vs. Texas overruled was decided after Baker vs. Nelson.

So, any luck on coming up with the right denied to the supporters of Prop 8?

Any luck using my ideological reasons to figure out who I would say is a denialist?

I didn't think so.

 

[Hopper]

Eric, did you even read any part of the motion for stay I linked? Let me guess, eh? No, you don't read trash, right?

Do you even pay the slightest bit of attention you anything posted in this thread that you don't agree with? In order to get an emergency stay, the prop 8 guys had to make a STRONG showing that they were likely to prevail on appeal. They got their stay.

This is notwithstanding the fact that good ole Vaughnie-boy had denied a stay, on the ground that they were "unlikely" to win on appeal, and tried to begin denying California voters their constitutional rights the day the stay was granted by the appellate court. He didn't even have the decency to let his own state's constitution stand until an appellate ruling was made.

After citing the two cases most DIRECTLY controlling Walker (one by the Supreme Court and one by the 9th circuit itself) BOTH of which I have quoted here already, and BOTH of which Walker totally IGNORED, the brief goes on to say:

"The district court’s decision is also contrary to the overwhelming weight of judicial authority addressing the validity of the traditional opposite-sex definition of marriage under the Federal Constitution, including decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, two State courts of final resort, two intermediate State courts within this Circuit in decisions that were denied review by the States’ supreme courts, and virtually every other court to address the issue. The sheer weight of authority opposed to the district court’s decision further confirms that that decision will likely be reversed on appeal."

About 10 cases are then cited, in addition to the two mentioned, including the Bruning case, previously discussed in this thread. You may recall (but probably don't) that Bruning had a virtually identical set of circumstances as this case; homosexuals were trying (unsucessfullly) to overturn a voter initiative that prohibited gay marriage in Nebraska.

The stay was granted, because a strong showing had been made that the prop 8 proponents would prevail on appeal.

You will no doubt just continue to insist that Walker, a trial judge, had the DUTY to ignore these cases and IMMEDIATELY prevent all callfornia officials from honoring the constitution, but that the appellate court is just too stupid to see it the right (i.e. your) way. Then again, they aren't near the legal expert that YOU are, because you KNOW the voters had NO RIGHT to the benefits of the issue they voted on, eh?

 

[Hopper]

Some decisions have use Baker v. Nelson as a controlling precedent, some have not.

Which ones have not?

The precedent Lawrence vs. Texas overruled was decided after Baker vs. Nelson.

Yeah, and Baker was decided only about 5 years after Loving, the so-called "right to marriage" case, and the plaintiff's in Baker relied heavily on it (Loving). They still lost at every level, up to, and including, the Supreme Court level. The Supreme Court was so unimpressed by the claim that Loving gave homo's rights that it didn't even care to be briefed on the topic. It would all just be a waste of their time since "no substantial federal questions" had been raised by that argument (that Loving gave homos a right to marriage, that is).

So, any luck on coming up with the right denied to the supporters of Prop 8?

Any luck using my ideological reasons to figure out who I would say is a denialist?

I didn't think so.

When you still can't fathom what rights prop 8 people could possibly have, I'd have to say that you are the "denialist," eh, Eric?