Same-Sex Marriage General Discussion Thread - Page 16 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-07-2012, 01:38 PM   #226
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 10:42 PM
Cue the 'activist judges' talk.

5,4,3,2...

When a court finds "Obamacare" unconstitutional it's justice, when one finds a ban against two women marrying, it's activist.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 01:43 PM   #227
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 11:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
This is a narrower win than many people seem to understand.


when you say "narrow" do you mean that it was close, or that the ruling itself is limited in scope?

i'd agree with the latter.

also, fwiw, the dissenting judge is a Mormon. if we're going to freak out about Walker being gay then should we also not freak out about this?

what may well happen is that the narrowness becomes a mixed blessing -- it may actually keep it away from SCOTUS and leave the painful task of equality up to the states.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 02:01 PM   #228
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 11:42 PM
obvy no time to read the 128-pages. but here's the meat of it as identified by people who have read it:

Quote:
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, in the court’s 128-page opinion, wrote that “although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.”

“All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of ‘marriage,’ which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships,” Reinhardt wrote. “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for ‘laws of this sort.’”
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 02:08 PM   #229
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:42 PM
it may go to SCOTUS

narrow in that it was decided about the CA law only, and would and will have no effects nationally,
the propoents of 8, get two more bites of the apple, they can take it to a full larger panel of the 9th District Court, and if they lose there, then they will try and go the SCOTUS, at which point the they could take it or not take it
and just let this stand in CA, that would do nothing for all the other states that have passed laws against gay marriage, or even if they take it, any decission would just apply to CA

all the other state laws, would need to be over turned in their own state court systems, I don't see many conservative states and their judges doing this.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 02:43 PM   #230
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 11:42 PM
it does seem to be about CA, and CA only. up next are appeals after appeals, which is good, imho. the quality of arguments put forth by the Prop 8 folks were weak sauce, at best, and the more this issue is discussed the more public opinion falls on the side of pro-SSM. it appears as if the dissenting position was about the tired old argument about procreation as a "rational basis" for discrimination. as if one can only get married if one produces biological children of one's own.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 02:56 PM   #231
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
trojanchick99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Feliz, CA (between Hollywood and Downtown LA)
Posts: 8,090
Local Time: 08:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
it does seem to be about CA, and CA only. up next are appeals after appeals, which is good, imho. the quality of arguments put forth by the Prop 8 folks were weak sauce, at best, and the more this issue is discussed the more public opinion falls on the side of pro-SSM. it appears as if the dissenting position was about the tired old argument about procreation as a "rational basis" for discrimination. as if one can only get married if one produces biological children of one's own.
That's a very weak argument. I mean, he'd support a ban on marriage after menopause? Right. Didn't think so.
__________________
trojanchick99 is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 03:02 PM   #232
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:42 PM
this happened yesterday

Goldman Sachs boss backs same-sex marriage - Americas - World - The Independent

and is positive, there are other major corporations that have gotten out in front on this.


(what is the sound of a million moms crying two million tears)
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 03:04 PM   #233
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 11:42 PM
of course, the real victim here is Maggie Gallagher:

Quote:
Ninth Circuit to 7 Million California Voters: You Are Irrational Bigots
By Maggie Gallagher
February 7, 2012 1:50 P.M.

In a breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic, a divided Ninth Circuit ruled 2–1 that because Prop 8 does not take away civil-union benefits for same-sex couples, it’s an unconstitutional exercise in irrational animus towards gay people.

Dishonestly, the court claimed it did not require any heightened scrutiny to reach this result.

The very timid dissent (“please don’t go after me!”) points out that Baker v. Nelson is ruling precedent and that the differences between same-sex and opposite sex couples in terms of the state’s interest in responsible procreation could be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

Back in 2004, when we fought about a Federal Marriage Amendment, gay rights advocates said we were alarmists for claiming that they would go to federal court seeking a right to impose gay marriage on all 50 states.

That was so last decade.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ggie-gallagher
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 03:32 PM   #234
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:42 AM
(for marriage equality in CA, not Maggie Gallagher)

The take from legal scholars seems to be that the narrow and cautious ruling here was tailored to appeal to Justice Kennedy, as it closely follows his argument in Romer.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 05:24 PM   #235
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 11:42 PM
what i'm liking about the ruling is how it is focused on Prop 8, and how the sole purpose of Prop 8 was to deliberately target a specific class of people, take away their rights, and render them second-class citizens. it nicely gets at the bitter, nasty heart of Prop 8 and the mean-spiritedness of those who oppose SSM. which seems obvious to anyone. there are much better ways to "defend" marriage than by smearing a group of people who have been historically subject to the worst kinds of discrimination.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 10:19 PM   #236
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 10:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by trojanchick99 View Post
This is truth:
It definitely is.

The anti-gay rights side are continuing to lose. Slowly but surely, more and more people are looking at their attitudes and laughing at the insanity of it all. This may be a small step, sure, but doesn't matter; any move forward towards letting gay people finally get the full rights they deserve is always good news .
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 02-07-2012, 10:36 PM   #237
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 08:42 PM
I'm just here to throw some festive confetti to celebrate my state rejoining the correct century!

Yay!
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 10:38 PM   #238
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,886
Local Time: 11:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
obvy no time to read the 128-pages. but here's the meat of it as identified by people who have read it:
That is fantastic.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 11:56 AM   #239
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 11:42 PM
abcnews.com

In an episode of her daytime talk show airing Wednesday, DeGeneres says the court’s decision on Proposition 8 is a “step in the right direction.” She then brings up the group One Million Moms and its criticism of her JCPenney deal. She says, “I’d like to talk about it because my haters are my motivators.”

DeGeneres says of the group, which recently claimed that JCPenney will lose sales because it hired the openly-gay comedienne as its brand ambassador, “They wanted to get me fired, and I’m proud and happy to say that JCPenney stuck by their decision to make me their spokesperson. Which is great news for me because I also need some new crew socks. I’m really going to clean up with this discount.”

Reading from a statement in which One Million Moms accused JCPenney of jumping on the “pro-gay bandwagon,” DeGeneres says, “Being gay or pro-gay isn’t a bandwagon. You don’t get a free ride anywhere. There’s no music. And occasionally we’ll sing ‘We Are Family’ but that’s about it.”

DeGeneres then disputes the notion that JCPenney is losing customers because of the hire, pointing to supportive comments written by people on One Million Moms’ Facebook page. She says, “I usually don’t talk about stuff like this on my show but I really want to thank everyone who is supporting me….Here are the values I stand for. I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you’d want to be treated and helping those in need.”
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 02:53 PM   #240
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 10:42 PM
Hehe. Go, Ellen. Nicely put.

Yeah. I'm really failing to see how someone as flat out nice and inoffensive as she is is going to be a real threat of any sort to someone's precious lifestyle and delicate sensibilities.
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com