So gay!!!

[Hopper]

I now see that Judge Walker has already been reprimanded by the U.S. Supreme Court for attempting to violate rules in this case, eh? Seems that, on the eve of trial, Walker amended (on a local basis) rules which prohibit public televising of federal court proceedings because he wanted his mug broadcast all over the country while presiding over his show trial.

The Supreme Court said this was illegal and was forced to step in and halt the intended spectacle. they were NOT happy about it:

"...our review is confined to a narrow legal issue: whether the District Court’s amendment of its local rules to broadcast this trial complied with federal law. We conclude that it likely did not and that applicants have demonstrated that irreparable harm would likely result from the District Court’s actions.

The District Court [i.e. Vaughn Walker] attempted to change its rules at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials in the district. Not only did it ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue. If courts are to require that others follow regular procedures, courts must do so as well."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09A648.pdf

Another drama queen dream crushed, eh?

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

I now see that Judge Walker has already been reprimanded by the U.S. Supreme Court for attempting to violate rules in this case, eh? Seems that, on the eve of trial, Walker amended (on a local basis) rules which prohibit public televising of federal court proceedings because he wanted his mug broadcast all over the country while presiding over his show trial.

The Supreme Court said this was illegal and was forced to step in and halt the intended spectacle. they were NOT happy about it:

"...our review is confined to a narrow legal issue: whether the District Court’s amendment of its local rules to broadcast this trial complied with federal law. We conclude that it likely did not and that applicants have demonstrated that irreparable harm would likely result from the District Court’s actions.

The District Court [i.e. Vaughn Walker] attempted to change its rules at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials in the district. Not only did it ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue. If courts are to require that others follow regular procedures, courts must do so as well."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09A648.pdf

Another drama queen dream crushed, eh?

Right, I agree with you to some extent that Walker was the one who crushed the dreams of millions when he went to the District Court and made the party regulars vote for taxcuts. But we would probably both agree that this solidly proves wrong every post you've made in this thread:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09sdfsA648.pdf

You might have to find how exactly it does so, but I have a feeling with your analytical skills you'll be able to see what I'm saying. Judge Walker should be set free, I don't see why we're pigeon holing his prospects here.

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

Which ones have not?

Quite a few actually, namely Tucker Johnson and Elijah Wood. You could argue that they HAVE but I think that would be a lolly in semantics.

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).

Granted, Loving did give Baker a chance to second guess the decision, and I figure he just didn't give it enough time. But as long as Loving's around, there won't be any gay marriage happening in the state of Colorado. It just won't. So we'll see this settled in the Supreme Court under the JCAA.

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, Craig?

Look, I've told you several times what their rights are. But every time you choose to ignore my points. Here's a question in your direction: how many gay rallies have resulted in lower taxes or benign tumors in medical courts?

 

[One Brow]

Eric, did you even read any part of the motion for stay I linked?

No. Did the motion become the definitive opinion on this case for some reason?

Let me guess, eh? No, you don't read trash, right?

I have no way of knowing that. I have heard that the attorneys for the defense were no particularly competent, but I can't personally vouch for that, and I don't know if they were involved in drafting the motion for a stay.

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.

I read that was one of the four criteria. I'm not sure that strong even means 50-50 chance here, but just a substantial likelihood. I don't doubt there is a substantial likelihood.

He didn't even have the decency ...

Terminology like this makes it clear there is a lot of emotion in your analysis.

After citing the two cases most DIRECTLY controlling Walker ...

I'm sure this is a claim in the brief. The court will actually decide if they are controlling or not. Using capital letters won't change that.

You will no doubt just continue to insist that Walker, a trial judge, ...

I've insisted on very little about this trial. You are doing all the insisting, and quite humorously.

... because you KNOW the voters had NO RIGHT to the benefits of the issue they voted on, eh?

What benefit, precisely, did the voters for Proposition 8 receive?

Which ones have not?

I recall a case up in Washington where to women tried to file jointly for bankruptcy.

Yeah, and Baker was decided only about 5 years after Loving, ...

So, it's quite possible SCOTUS is ready to recognize that it's time to overturn Baker.

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?

I think they the exact same rights as the opposers of Proposition 8: to marry the consenting adult of their choice. I think they lack the same right as the opposers of Proposiiton 8: the right to choose the consenting adult someone else can marry. Are you suggesting that Prop 8 supporters really do have the right to say who someone can marry? If not, what is the right they are being denied?

We'll catch up on the other question later.

Another drama queen dream crushed, eh?

I have no doubt that forcing the opponents of gay marriage to publically defend their opinions under cross-examination is indeed a "drama queen dream".

 

[Hopper]

I recall a case up in Washington where to women tried to file jointly for bankruptcy.

You "recall" it, eh? That your final answer? Any others? Do you "recall" any other details about that case? Do you know the name of the case? Any citation? Any idea what the issues were? Any idea of what the ultimate holding was? I assume you mean two (not "to") women. What happened with those two women and their attempt to file jointly for bankruptcy?

So, it's quite possible SCOTUS is ready to recognize that it's time to overturn Baker.

Anything is "possible," sure. But what does that have to do with the issue we were discussing? Does that "possibility" about what the Supreme Court might do give a trial judge the authority to overrule the Supreme Court? The authority to totally ignore precedents?

What benefit, precisely, did the voters for Proposition 8 receive?...I think they the exact same rights as the opposers of Proposition 8: to marry the consenting adult of their choice. I think they lack the same right as the opposers of Proposiiton 8: the right to choose the consenting adult someone else can marry. Are you suggesting that Prop 8 supporters really do have the right to say who someone can marry? If not, what is the right they are being denied?

"Are you suggesting that Prop 8 supporters really do have the right to say who someone can marry?" Of course I am. The California Supreme Court has clearly said so. That court has affirmed that gay people in California cannot constitutionally demand a marriage license.

YOU are clearly assuming that they do NOT have such a right. You are arguing that it is proper for a trial court judge to order all Calfornia officials to violate their duties as established by that constitution, as it stands. Like I said, I have yet to see a case that says "If One Brow says something is unconstitutional, then all state officials must immediately violate their constitution and deprive all citizens of the benefits of their constitutional rights under state law."

Your "logic" here is obviously along these lines: I, One Brow, assume (declare) that prop 8 voters have no rights, therefore they have no rights. I think it was Russell who said something like: "Assuming, in lieu of demonstrating, your conclusions has all the advantages, however despicable, that theft has over honest labor."

I have no doubt that forcing the opponents of gay marriage to publically defend their opinions under cross-examination is indeed a "drama queen dream".

So are you suggesting that the Supreme Court chastised Walker, for ignoring and violating federal law, merely because he held a trial? And you want to pretend that you're not a "denalist" (whatever that's supposed to mean)? Very interesting.

Hint: All federal trials are "public." Public BROADCASTING, however, is an entirely different issue.

 

[Hopper]

He didn't even have the decency to let his own state's constitution stand until an appellate ruling was made.

Terminology like this makes it clear there is a lot of emotion in your analysis.

I have included in my quote the latter part of the sentence, which you saw fit to omit, Eric. Statements like this merely reflect the fact that the Appellate Court concluded that it was necessary for them to intervene and issue an "emergency stay," because Walker improperly refused to issue a stay at the trial level.

 

[One Brow]

You "recall" it, eh? That your final answer? Any others?

Others have already been named. I'm fairly sure the Washington case was in the wikipedia article on Baker, though, if you are interested in that case specifically.

Anything is "possible," sure. But what does that have to do with the issue we were discussing? Does that "possibility" about what the Supreme Court might do give a trial judge the authority to overrule the Supreme Court? The authority to totally ignore precedents?

I'm not convinced he has overruled the Supreme Court and/or totally ignored precedents. The appellate court will no doubt clarify that, if they take the appeal, if the appeal is filed.

"Are you suggesting that Prop 8 supporters really do have the right to say who someone can marry?" Of course I am. The California Supreme Court has clearly said so. That court has affirmed that gay people in California cannot constitutionally demand a marriage license.

Non sequitur. The second sentence does not support the first sentence. The lack of a right of one group to demand something does not support the right of another group to withhold it. Normally you don't miss these sorts of obvious fallacies.

YOU are clearly assuming that they do NOT have such a right. You are arguing that it is proper for a trial court judge to order all Calfornia officials to violate their duties as established by that constitution, as it stands.

The last of the miscegenation laws was still on the books until the 1990s. For over 20 years, circuit clerks in that state were ordered to violate their duties as established by that law, as it stood. So, who do you think you're kidding with this argument?

Like I said, ... Your "logic" here ...

Pure demagoguery, and quite boring, frankly.

Hint: All federal trials are "public." Public BROADCASTING, however, is an entirely different issue.

There are no federal trials closed to the public? None where the transcripts are not made available? I acknowledge it would have been better to say, "I have no doubt that forcing the opponents of gay marriage to publically broadcast the defense of their opinions under cross-examination is indeed a "drama queen dream".

I have included in my quote the latter part of the sentence, which you saw fit to omit, Eric. Statements like this merely reflect the fact that the Appellate Court concluded that it was necessary for them to intervene and issue an "emergency stay," because Walker improperly refused to issue a stay at the trial level.

If you had used "propriety" instead of "decency", I would have seen the text as less emotionally laden. However, it seems that for you, it's not merely a lack of protocal, but a matter of decent behavior.

 

[Hopper]

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

Which ones have not?

I recall a case up in Washington where to women tried to file jointly for bankruptcy.

You "recall" it, eh? That your final answer? Any others? Do you "recall" any other details about that case? Do you know the name of the case? Any citation? Any idea what the issues were? Any idea of what the ultimate holding was? I assume you mean two (not "to") women. What happened with those two women and their attempt to file jointly for bankruptcy?

====

Let's stop the pretense, here, eh, Eric? The case you are trying to vaguely hint at, while improperly trying to suggest that some courts have refused to acknowledge that Baker has precedential value, is In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123, 137 (Bkrtcy. W.D. Wash 2004), information which you summarily picked up at wiki.

Let's look at Kandu, eh? Of course the bankruptcy court in Kandu did not cite Baker as controlling in the facts before it, because it was not relevant. Baker was not a bankruptcy case, it merely held that a state's denial of a marriage license to a gay couple was not unconstitutional. Kandu made it's reasons for not "relying on" Baker clear: "The court instead believed Baker to only have precedential value when a same-sex couple challenged a state's decision not to issue a marriage license under its own state law."

So even this court acknowledges that Baker had clear precedential value in cases of it's kind. Nonetheless, the judge in Kandu DID DENY the two lesbians (married in another jurisdiction) the right to file jointly, upheld the national Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") passed in 1996 by the U.S. Congress, and found that the equal protection clause of the constitution did not give the lesbian couple before him the right to file a joint bankruptcy petition:

"Because federal bankruptcy law, as defined by DOMA, permits bankruptcy filings only by opposite-sex married couples, the bankruptcy court issued an order late last year telling the Kandus that their joint filing would be dismissed...So the Kandus filed legal papers challenging the constitutionality of DOMA on a number of grounds, arguing that the law disregarded the rights of the states to define marriage and that it denied same-sex couples the benefits of marriage in violation of the equal-protection and due-process clauses of the U.S. Constitution...

Kandu's central argument was that homosexual couples enjoy a "fundamental right" to marry that is protected by due process...Having concluded that DOMA does not require heightened scrutiny because it neither impairs a fundamental right to marry nor discriminates on the basis of sex (in that it applies equally to both sexes), Judge Snyder then addressed whether the law is supported by a rational basis. [He found] that it was..."

https://old.nationalreview.com/coffin/coffin200408180844.asp

Any other cases which you claim "deny" that Baker is a controlling precedent? I can cite you many cases which have acknowledged that it IS a controlling precedent, if you want to continue to pretend this issue is somehow in dispute.

And by "dispute" I don't mean the observation that "Baker is NOT a controlling precedent in a patent-violation claim, or an anti-trust suit." That goes without saying.

 

[Hopper]

Others have already been named.

What others?

I'm not convinced he has overruled the Supreme Court and/or totally ignored precedents.

And the question of whether or not you're familiar with the facts or the law, and are not convinced, is relevant---how? Have you even read his opinion? If so, you would KNOW what cases he ignored. Your failure to convince yourself, and to even make the slightest attempt to look at the facts, is TOTALLY irrelevant to your implied claim that the judge followed precedent. Do you have ANY facts or law to suggest it is NOT precedent? Do you have ANY facts or law to suggest that Walker did NOT ignore these cases? Yeah, that's what I thought, eh?

Non sequitur. The second sentence does not support the first sentence. The lack of a right of one group to demand something does not support the right of another group to withhold it. Normally you don't miss these sorts of obvious fallacies.

A lot of words to say nuthin, eh, Eric? Are you saying California voters do NOT have the right to have their votes counted and the result of their vote applied?

The last of the miscegenation laws was still on the books until the 1990s. For over 20 years, circuit clerks in that state were ordered to violate their duties as established by that law, as it stood. So, who do you think you're kidding with this argument?

What argument? Tell me again, in what way does anything about Loving give Walker the right, as a trial judge, to overrule the Supreme Court?

Pure demagoguery, and quite boring, frankly.

Yeah, it is gettin boring.

If you had used "propriety" instead of "decency", I would have seen the text as less emotionally laden. However, it seems that for you, it's not merely a lack of protocal, but a matter of decent behavior.

Eric, I think that pissing all over voters by arbitrarily trying to deny them their constitutional rights is indeed, "indecent." Even more so when this high-handed judge improperly tries to IMMEDIATELY enforce his arbitrary dictates. If that's a mere matter of "impropriety" to you, fine.

Look, all I did was suggest that the Judge should have merely followed precedent and let the plaintiffs appeal to the Appellate Court. You seem to think this would be improper, and that Vaughn SHOULD have ignored his duties and SHOULD have tried to immediately shove his desires down the throats of every citizen in California, and all the officials entrusted to protect them. Do you have any kinda explanation for your conclusion that he SHOULD have done what he did?

 

[Hopper]

Eric, if you're content to simply say: "Look, I don't pretend to understand the law, and I'm not going to try. I don't really know much about the facts of what the Judge did, or did not, ignore, and I'm not going to trouble myself with finding out. I don't know if what the judge did was proper, or not. That's for lawyers, judges, and fact-finders to decide. I'm just gunna wait, watch, and see how it all comes out," fine. I'm sure that's how about everyone else on this board feels too.

But you're NOT content with that. You want to say who has rights, and who doesn't. You want to claim that Walker did the right thing, legally and factually. You want to "argue" (by asserting conclusions all while admitting ignorance) with anyone who presents evidence to the contrary. Your conclusions here merely reflect your prejudices. Fair enough. Just say so, and stop the pretense then, eh?

 

[G-O-A-T]

Now that I see Hopper's title says "Banned"....

R.I.P. "So Gay!!!" thread

EDIT: well, for at least a week...

 

[TroutBum]

There IS a Heavenly Father.

 

[One Brow]

In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123, 137 (Bkrtcy. W.D. Wash 2004), information which you summarily picked up at wiki.

Sounds familiar.

Let's look at Kandu, eh? Of course the bankruptcy court in Kandu did not cite Baker as controlling in the facts before it, because it was not relevant. Baker was not a bankruptcy case, it merely held that a state's denial of a marriage license to a gay couple was not unconstitutional. Kandu made it's reasons for not "relying on" Baker clear: "The court instead believed Baker to only have precedential value when a same-sex couple challenged a state's decision not to issue a marriage license under its own state law."

...

Kandu's central argument was that homosexual couples enjoy a "fundamental right" to marry that is protected by due process...

So, Baker was not a controling case for Kandu because it did not involve the right to marry, and Kandu's lawyers based their argument in part on the right to marry. Do you ever read what you are writing?

Any other cases which you claim "deny" that Baker is a controlling precedent? I can cite you many cases which have acknowledged that it IS a controlling precedent, if you want to continue to pretend this issue is somehow in dispute.

I don't recall pretending anything is in dispute. I merely find your pretense at detailed knowledge of this topic amusing.

What others?

Craig K. Manscill mentioned two others (or maybe it was one other with two people).

And the question of whether or not you're familiar with the facts or the law, and are not convinced, is relevant---how? Have you even read his opinion?

My reading the opinion, sans legal training, means only that I would interpret it without the legal background necessary to correctly interpret it, much as you have been doing.

If so, you would KNOW what cases he ignored. Your failure to convince yourself, and to even make the slightest attempt to look at the facts, is TOTALLY irrelevant to your implied claim that the judge followed precedent.

Feel free to show the implication you claim I made,outside of your own dismay that I find you unconvincing and ill-informed to make such determinations.

Do you have ANY facts or law to suggest it is NOT precedent? Do you have ANY facts or law to suggest that Walker did NOT ignore these cases?

Not at all. My only question is why the Proposition 8 defendants did not bring up Baker vs. Nelson in their briefs before the court. If the case is a well-established, controlling precedent as you indicate, that makes them extremely incompetent, don't you think?

Are you saying California voters do NOT have the right to have their votes counted and the result of their vote applied?

Do they have the right to vote to ban interracial marriage and have the results of their vote counted? If you say no, then we agree on this. They do not have the right to have the results of their vote applied on every issue.

If you want to limit this to specifically the question of gay marriage, that that's what the trial was about, was it not?

What argument? Tell me again, in what way does anything about Loving give Walker the right, as a trial judge, to overrule the Supreme Court?

I'm not convinced he did. I'll let the appellate court sort that out.

Yeah, it is gettin boring.

Feel free to cut back on the demagoguery, then.

Look, all I did was suggest that the Judge should have merely followed precedent and let the plaintiffs appeal to the Appellate Court. You seem to think this would be improper,

Where did I say that? Maybe I think either action could be a proper action. For all I know, Judge Walker did act improperly. I'm not storming around claiming any view on that is accurate.

Eric, if you're content to simply say: "Look, I don't pretend to understand the law, and I'm not going to try.

Actually, I'm saying that, sans going to law school and spending another three-five years in the field on Constitutional law, I won't have the background to properly Judge Walker's actions, and neither do you, so I won't pretend to say whether they were correct or incorrect, nor will I blandly accept your determination. There are plenty of much more experienced people on both sides of that debate. I'll let the appellate court sort that out, and probably SCOTUS afterward.

When it comes to whether I think homosexuals should have the right to marry, I feel much more comfortable in that discussion, because it concerns much more ordinary phenomena. I've been married. I've had extensive social interactions with gay men as individuals and as couples.

You want to say who has rights, and who doesn't. You want to claim that Walker did the right thing, legally and factually.

See, I only claim he did the right thing factually. I find his legal decision to be a natural consequence of the factual decision, but that does not make it proper.

What it might do, thought, it directly address the the rational review standard. All the court opinions you have been quoting have been saying, to my lay understanding, that they are presuming there is a rational reason behind the gay marriage bans. Whaever else Judge Walker's finding does, it seems to have put into the record that such a rational reason can no longer be presumed to exist. I don't know it that nullifies Baker vs. Nelson as a precedent, or what it means for any of the other cases that relied on a rational review standard, because I don't know exactly how all that fits together. I'm just going to sit back and watch the show, legally. In 20 years, it will all be moot anyhow.

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

What others?

Fred P. Kilmer and Anthony Randolph have been stated to be among the group, if you want the full list, feel free to PM me. It's very large.

And the question of whether or not you're familiar with the facts or the law, and are not convinced, is relevant---how? Have you even read his opinion? If so, you would KNOW what cases he ignored. Your failure to convince yourself, and to even make the slightest attempt to look at the facts, is TOTALLY irrelevant to your implied claim that the judge followed precedent. Do you have ANY facts or law to suggest it is NOT precedent? Do you have ANY facts or law to suggest that Walker did NOT ignore these cases? Yeah, that's what I thought, eh?

I HAVE read his opinion on the subjects, and it's clear that the judge followed precedent in his decision. But I also have laws that suggest it isn't precedent under code 4211. So I'm not sure what else you want. Walker didn't ignore those cases, he just saw fit to exclude them from his rational being. Such an action is called exclusionary metamorphosis, and it's not a stretch of the imagination.

A lot of words to say nuthin, eh, Craig? Are you saying California voters do NOT have the right to have their votes counted and the result of their vote applied?

No, I do think that California voters should have their votes tallied, but not necessarily in an algebraic way. Geometry and calculus should also be applied, at least if we're going to discern the curvature of the voters' collective velocity towards a certain issue, we should find the derivitive of their position.

What argument? Tell me again, in what way does anything about Loving give Walker the right, as a trial judge, to overrule the Supreme Court?

The thing about Loving that we both probably need to realize (I didn't know this until I researched him on wikipedia) is that he has unimmutable rights towards policy overruling affairs. It's written in clause 40, they gave it to him on his 50th. So what he can and cannot do is not something we should argue. What we SHOULD be arguing is HOW he should do those things which he can now do with his gift.

 

[billyshelby]

I've skimmed what I missed since I went away, but in all this talk about Walker ignoring Baker, has it come up that he dismissed it prior to the case? He ignored it in his opinion, presumably because he dismissed it, and thus I'm guessing he didn't feel "bound" by the controlling decision. He might have been wrong to dismiss it, but arguments have been made that the case doesn't specifically apply and isn't as "controlling" as it is as alleged to be.

The pro (as per Vikram David Amar): https://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20091023.html
The con (as per Vikram David Amar): https://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20091106.html

The point: this is all a lot more complicated than simply assuming Walker elephant footed all the way through his job without knowing what he was doing. He might get shot down for what he did, but he made his case while jumping officially over the legal hurdles.

 

[billyshelby]

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.

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).

Did you read the motion for stay I just cited, I wonder? Among other relevant information, that motion includes the exact same language used by Meese. It says the judge found that the “evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes,” Ex. A at 127.

So, there ya have it, then, eh? It's in Exhibit A, at page 127.

As to the quote by Walker, yeah I did see that. As I interpret it without any legal training, the quote is referring to his estimation of the evidence specifically presented. That he didn't use that language in his 'findings of fact' is probably somewhat telling. "Beyond serious debate" might be a stretch, but it's at least defensible on some level. Having said that, my gut reaction to his word choices in that section is that it was a little too strident. I'm not saying it was a mistake because I'm not qualified to know what is or isn't a mistake when writing that section of a judicial opinion. As a layman, though, it doesn't seem to be the best choice of words.

As to your other point, I always find it strange when arguments attempt to belittle one side of the coin (gays insistence on the right to marry legally) as trivial, when the other side is launching all their cannons to prevent it from occurring. It also doesn't hold logically. If I had the right to "vote, lodging, entering public places," but didn't have the right to marry, I probably wouldn't content myself with all the rights I did have. And relative to subtext, blacks HAD the right to vote--they just had to pay a poll tax and potentially get lynched if they paid it to vote. Blacks HAD the right to lodging, just not in certain places. Blacks HAD the right to enter public places, just not through the same door whites could enter. By extension, gays have the rights to 'civil unions,' just not the right to marry. It isn't trivial.

 

[Beantown]

There IS a Heavenly Father.

.......says the BYU fanatic.

 

[TroutBum]

To think, the title of this thread would get me a permanent ban by today's lofty standards.



Still an awesome thread.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

38 pages of nothin but homophobes and bigots i spoze.

 

[Safetydan]

I wonder, if we pushed hard enough, could we make it a clean thousand posts?

My mom's a gay.