TheItinerantSon
Well-Known Member
fixed it.
So gay!!!
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
fixed it.
Scorpjazz
Well-Known Member
It's passed pathetic now. A gay judge over rules Prop 8? Serious? lol, surprise.
This isnt bigotry either. I dont care how un PC it is, sexual orientation IS a choice. It isnt race, ethnic heritage, or anything similar. It is a choice you decide for yourself. That the rainbow movement tries to include or compare itself with racial causes is bogusand sad.
I dont care if someone DECIDES to be gay, that is their call and if it isnt illegal and 2 cxonsenting adult, have at it. BUT, to then try to impose on society that they should get all legal rights of non gay couples is stupid. Sorry, that is just how it is.
So-called progression isnt always good.
***Edited out because it is too honest and people cant handle that***
This isnt bigotry either. I dont care how un PC it is, sexual orientation IS a choice. It isnt race, ethnic heritage, or anything similar. It is a choice you decide for yourself. That the rainbow movement tries to include or compare itself with racial causes is bogusand sad.
I dont care if someone DECIDES to be gay, that is their call and if it isnt illegal and 2 cxonsenting adult, have at it. BUT, to then try to impose on society that they should get all legal rights of non gay couples is stupid. Sorry, that is just how it is.
So-called progression isnt always good.
***Edited out because it is too honest and people cant handle that***
Amen. I remember struggling for a long time about which team I should play for. I prayed. I talked to a lot of people. I read books, because one can not make this choice too hastily. Finally, I decided to flip a coin. Heads- hetero, tails- homo. When George Washington's profile appeared, my choice was made. I am glad I made that choice. How did you make your choice, Scorp?
by drawing straws perhaps?
maybe he got the short one
(just another mindless post provided to you by a lithium-crazed midwesterner)
maybe he got the short one
(just another mindless post provided to you by a lithium-crazed midwesterner)
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
I'm curious. What if in 1,000 years, there are more homos than heteros in the country and they, the majority, then decide via legislation that heteros can't get married because, well, sorry, that is just how it is.
G-O-A-T
Member
Hopper said:
Sometimes it's better to take things step by step instead of jumping to broad conclusions... this is one of those times.
In the trial court it's the plaintiff who must show standing. The gay couple succeeded... therefore the trial court decision holds up (at least for this issue).
In the appellate court it's the appellant (person bringing the appeal) who must demonstrate standing. Here, it's questionable whether the intervenors are actually being injured by the ruling... and that's what this article is about. On the other hand, the state of California is definitely being injured by the ruling (they can't enforce the constitution), but the state isn't the one bringing the appeal, the intervenors are.
In other words, the trial court decision will be unaffected by these potential standing issues at the appellate level.
The real issue you should to be concentrated on is whether the "proposition 8 proponents" (the group who defended the law) intervention was valid.
Hopper
Banned
I don't follow your reasoning here at all, Goat. You may or may not remember all the cases I cited and quoted, but the import was clearly that, in order for a court to even be willing to adjudicate a matter, BOTH sides must have a valid stake so that an "actual controversy" can arise under Article III.
In deciding this question, BOTH sides are looked at simultaneously, not in a discrete, serial manner. Nor is the import that ONLY one side need have a vested interest; in fact that is the very evil to be avoided. "Friendly suits" not only CAN be, but, if you take the court literally, MUST be dismissed, ESPECIALLY where rulings on constitutionality are at stake.
Under your reasoning, any ruling entered against a defaulting, "friendly" defendant would be absolutely unassailable rather than dismissable, i.e. voidable on grounds of collusion.
Last edited:
Hopper
Banned
What is especially egregious here is that the Govenor has a solemn duty to "uphold and defend" the state constitution. In collusion with a gay judge, he seems to have clearly ignored and violated that duty, seeking to uphold and defend ONLY the portions of the constitution which he personally agrees with. If allowed, this would, in effect, make HIM a supreme court, with only one "Justice."
"It never was the thought that, by means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the legislature could transfer to the courts an inquiry as to the constitutionality of the legislative act' (citing Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U.S. 339, 344 -345).
"It never was the thought that, by means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the legislature could transfer to the courts an inquiry as to the constitutionality of the legislative act' (citing Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U.S. 339, 344 -345).
Last edited:
Craig K. Manscill
Well-Known Member
I choose not to be gay everyday.
Sometimes it's not an easy choice. Flashes of gay porn involuntarily enter my brain. I can't help it. And I have to be like, "Is this gross? Or is this... delightful?" I make that choice, just like you do. And I consider it thoughtfully. Then I choose to remain heterosexual.
Oh man, remember when you were little and you chose to be heterosexual? This is giving me nostalgia. Just laying on my bed thinking, "Man, should I be gay? Or not?" Weighing the pros and cons. It's something we all do, right Scorpjazz?
- Craig
(PS: Still LOVE the scorpion avatar with a wall of flames behind him. It kicks BUTT. It's sooooo AWESOME.)
NAOS
Well-Known Member
Hopper.. er, I mean, Craig -
This is your best work yet.
(this is why Scorpjazz was the first on my foe list. damn fool.)
The really sad part about this post is that he actually really believes this. I'm fairly certain that BeanTurd isn't as bad as he lets on, and is having a bit of fun at all of our expenses, but Scorp really is this stupid. Anyone want to take a stab at what his parents are like?
I remember messing with my dad when I was like 8 (you know, the age at which we ALL make conscious decisions) and I told him that I was going to be gay. I was like, "APRIL FOOLS!", lol. That's how the ruckus gets brung.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
This is good. I think you and I have finally found some common ground: mutual contempt for ScorpJazz.
Hopper
Banned
Hopper
Banned
From Wiki:
"On May 18, 1970, two University of Minnesota gay student activists, Richard Baker and James Michael McConnell, applied for a marriage license in Minneapolis. The clerk of the Hennepin County District Court, Gerald Nelson, denied the request on the sole ground that the two were of the same sex. The couple filed suit in district court to force Nelson to issue the license
The couple first contended that Minnesota's marriage statutes contained no explicit requirement that applicants be of different sexes. If the court were to construe the statutes to require opposite-sex couples, however, Baker claimed such a reading would violate several provisions of the U.S. Constitution:
First Amendment (freedom of speech and of association),
Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment),
Ninth Amendment (unenumerated right to privacy), and
Fourteenth Amendment (fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause and sex discrimination contrary to the Equal Protection Clause).
The trial court dismissed the couple's claims and ordered the clerk not to issue the license.
The [Minnesota Supreme] Court first dealt with the statutory interpretation. Based on the common usage of the term "marriage" and gender-specific references elsewhere in the same chapter, the Court held that the statutes prohibited marriage between persons of the same sex.
This familiar restriction, the Court reasoned, did not offend the Due Process Clause because procreation and child rearing were central to the constitutional protection given to marriage...
On October 10, 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order dismissing the case "for want of a substantial federal question."
In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court's refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below. However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal may be considered a decision on the merits of the case."
More on this case, and subsequent* cases, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
* For example:
"In Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning (2006), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejected claims by Nebraska citizen organizations that the state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage offended the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, among other provisions. While Baker did not appear in the court's Fourteenth Amendment analysis, the court's opinion did note in its concluding passage:
"Indeed, in Baker v. Nelson, when faced with a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to a decision by the Supreme Court of Minnesota denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple, the United States Supreme Court dismissed "for want of a substantial federal question." There is good reason for this restraint."
It's probably not best to rely on sound bites from your favorite political commentator to try to convey meaningful conclusions about the law, eh, Mo?
Last edited:
Hey man, I used to try to bring up the caboose around here, be the absolute biggest tool, you know? But, I must say that you have always out-shown me with sucktatude.
Hopper
Banned
Nebraska, and federal courts, have been down this very road before, as the gay San Francisco judge might have known had there been a defendant with "standing" to defend the California constitution, eh?
"In November, 2000, Nebraska's voters approved Initiative Measure 416 by 70%, amending the Nebraska Constitution to prohibit the state from recognizing either same-sex marriage or any other same-sex union...In 2003, two LGBT advocacy organizations, Citizens for Equal Protection and the Nebraska Advocates for Justice and Equality, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union and additionally represented by Lambda Legal, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska to challenge the validity of Initiative Measure 416.
Because the case concerned a question of law, rather than a question of fact, the parties entered into a joint stipulation of facts and filed briefs. Judge Bataillon announced his ruling in favor of the plaintiffs on May 12, 2005, overturning Initiative Measure 416 based on the Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment, and the prohibition on bills of attainder contained in the Contract Clause..."
So, a district judge struck down a voter's initiative banning gay marriage in that case, too, eh? Jeez, I wonder how that came out, ya know?
"On July 14, 2006, in a unanimous opinion written by Chief Judge Loken, the Court reversed Judge Bataillon's decision on all three of its conclusions...The plaintiffs did not file a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_Equal_Protection_v._Bruning
"Because the case concerned a question of law, rather than a question of fact, the parties entered into a joint stipulation of facts and filed briefs." Seems like the San Francisco judge could have saved the parties and the State what must have amounted to many millions of dollars (not to mention his own efforts in writing a 136 page decision finding all kinda "facts" to be true), by not wasting months on the "factual" aspects of this issue, eh? Maybe he has some other reason, worth millions to him, for doin it, ya think?
"In November, 2000, Nebraska's voters approved Initiative Measure 416 by 70%, amending the Nebraska Constitution to prohibit the state from recognizing either same-sex marriage or any other same-sex union...In 2003, two LGBT advocacy organizations, Citizens for Equal Protection and the Nebraska Advocates for Justice and Equality, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union and additionally represented by Lambda Legal, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska to challenge the validity of Initiative Measure 416.
Because the case concerned a question of law, rather than a question of fact, the parties entered into a joint stipulation of facts and filed briefs. Judge Bataillon announced his ruling in favor of the plaintiffs on May 12, 2005, overturning Initiative Measure 416 based on the Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment, and the prohibition on bills of attainder contained in the Contract Clause..."
So, a district judge struck down a voter's initiative banning gay marriage in that case, too, eh? Jeez, I wonder how that came out, ya know?
"On July 14, 2006, in a unanimous opinion written by Chief Judge Loken, the Court reversed Judge Bataillon's decision on all three of its conclusions...The plaintiffs did not file a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_Equal_Protection_v._Bruning
"Because the case concerned a question of law, rather than a question of fact, the parties entered into a joint stipulation of facts and filed briefs." Seems like the San Francisco judge could have saved the parties and the State what must have amounted to many millions of dollars (not to mention his own efforts in writing a 136 page decision finding all kinda "facts" to be true), by not wasting months on the "factual" aspects of this issue, eh? Maybe he has some other reason, worth millions to him, for doin it, ya think?
Last edited: