VeeshanVault

Prop 8 overturned in California.  A battle won, but not the war.  Count on an appeal.  Still, it's a cause for celebration.

After reading some of the prosecution's "evidence" I'm in awe that the lawyers had the balls to stand in front of a judge and be put on the record repeating that garbage.  You cannot discriminate based on religious grounds.  It will not hold up in a court of law.

One of many steps ahead. I am happy with this outcome.

Great news for all the people that was to get married!

Hopefully this judgement holds up.

Yeah, heard it today, was great to see that they finally got to their senses....and yeah, i expect an appeal from the cristian fundies.

Gay marriage and marijuana need to be legalized on the same day. Stoned gay people are funny.

'Twas a beautiful day in the gayborhood.

Winnow wrote:Gay marriage and marijuana need to be legalized on the same day. Stoned gay people are funny.

Once it's legal, will you smoke a fattie?

Fairweather Pure wrote:Once it's legal, will you smoke a fattie?

I don't think Winnow is gay.

New political arithmetic in California...

(6,401,482 voting citizens + 1 gay judge) > 7,001,084 voting citizens

Just a few short weeks ago the Lefties were screaming because judge Martin Feldman in Louisiana owned some drilling stocks yet he ruled on the offshore drilling ban.

Yet we have a gay judge assigned to adjudicate a gay marriage suit?

We are expected to look the other way because the judge's "gayness" can't possibly influence his decision regarding that very trait which seems to trump all other human aspects of a gay person's identity. I don't think so. Yet, if a straight judge had been assigned to hear the case wouldn't this entail the same problem? The gay community would distrust the ability of the judge to set aside his/her subtle bias. No matter who wins this case, the judiciary loses. Perhaps they should just let the people decide? What a novel approach, sort of like democracy or something. You know, government "of the people, by the people, for the people".

Metanis wrote:The Law > 7,001,084 voting citizens

I fixed that for ya.

Just a few short weeks ago the Lefties were screaming because judge Martin Feldman in Louisiana owned some drilling stocks

He chose to purchase those stocks....Vaughn Walker never chose to be a homosexual.

We are expected to look the other way because the judge's "gayness" can't possibly influence his decision regarding that very trait which seems to trump all other human aspects of a gay person's identity. I don't think so. Yet, if a straight judge had been assigned to hear the case wouldn't this entail the same problem?.

So you're basically saying that homosexuals should not be allowed to rule on issues regarding homosexual rights?
Should heterosexual judges not be allowed to rule on any matters regarding heterosexual rights?
Should black judges be disallowed from hearing any issues regarding of race?
What about religion?
What about gender?

Fairweather Pure wrote:The Law > 7,001,084 voting citizens

OK funny boy. Now, while avoiding circular logic, explain where "The Law" comes from?

miir wrote:

Just a few short weeks ago the Lefties were screaming because judge Martin Feldman in Louisiana owned some drilling stocks

He chose to purchase those stocks....Vaughn Walker never chose to be a homosexual.

What a ridiculous comment. If anything it only proves that Walker is more "invested" in his potential for bias than Feldman. Either that or you are implying his bias should be excused because he's a homosexual?!?

Or could it simply be that your moronic comment is only intended to provide a sort of victim status for Walker in order to buy him some cover? So are you saying that homosexuals are automatically victims?

Metanis wrote:

Fairweather Pure wrote:The Law > 7,001,084 voting citizens

OK funny boy. Now, while avoiding circular logic, explain where "The Law" comes from?

In this particular case, the law was interpreted by a panel of judges elected by the people whose job it is to, you know, interpret law.

Is this really that hard to understand or are you being facetious? I don't see where you're trying to go with this...

miir wrote: So you're basically saying that homosexuals should not be allowed to rule on issues regarding homosexual rights?
Should heterosexual judges not be allowed to rule on any matters regarding heterosexual rights?
Should black judges be disallowed from hearing any issues regarding of race?
What about religion?
What about gender?

Hey, I'm not the one trying to define the "new" normal. That would be your crowd. Your questions are trite and laughable. Society has been dealing with race, gender, and religion for most of human history. Focus on sexual preference is something new in our lifetimes.

Fairweather Pure wrote:I don't see where you're trying to go with this...

Coward.

You know that all LAW emanates from God! (Or possibly the "consent of the governed")?

Which God would that be? Yours or mine?

Metanis wrote:Perhaps they should just let the people decide?

No, you're not supposed to vote on rights, that's why they're called rights. If we voted on the rights of minorities, black people would still be picking our cotton, and we wouldn't be celebrating the 45th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act today, because of racist and straight-supremacist shitbags like you.

Spang wrote:No, you're not supposed to vote on rights, that's why they're called rights.

So where do these rubbery things called "rights" come from? You blow them out of your prison hole?

Metanis wrote:So where do these rubbery things called "rights" come from?

The United States Constitution.

Spang wrote:

Metanis wrote:So where do these rubbery things called "rights" come from?

The United States Constitution.

Another coward.

Metanis wrote:So where do these rubbery things called "rights" come from? You blow them out of your prison hole?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pq ... tube_gdata

Where do Rights come from? George Carlin said it best. Skip to 4:20, grab a pencil and take notes Metanis.

Metanis wrote:

Fairweather Pure wrote:I don't see where you're trying to go with this...

Coward.

You know that all LAW emanates from God! (Or possibly the "consent of the governed")?

hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha

The funny thing is, Metanis says nutty things and then is shocked, SHOCKED (and butthurt) that people think he's a nut. There's tons of room for thoughtful, considerate discussion with reasonable people who hold opposing views, but for the Metanises and Kilmolls of the world, it's just a waste of time. I love it when the raving loons become comically indignant when people choose merely to mock the stupid things they say than to chase the rabbit of having a discussion with them.

Metanis will either disappear from this thread, or have no response to the Carlin bit which was the most direct answer to his questions and insinuations.

Pwned from beyond the fucking grave.

Fairweather Pure wrote:Metanis will either disappear from this thread, or have no response to the Carlin bit which was the most direct answer to his questions and insinuations.

Pwned from beyond the fucking grave.

Actually George does a pretty good job for an atheist. He makes my point for me, though, you only have the rights that you can convince society to grant you. In other words, those rights are pretty elastic. So elastic that 1 single judge in California thinks that he can find a new right in the Constitution which doesn't exist there. Now, if he can get enough people to buy into his fraud then it's a done deal. However, I think those 7 Million people who voted against this "right" might decide they aren't going to accede quite so easily.

So when miir posits that the Law is greater than 7 Million I'm asking what law? A majority of citizens attempted to define the law as they want it to be enforced on themselves. So then Fairly Grimy attempts to claim that the judge was just trying to "interpret" the law. But if the law doesn't come from the consent of the governed then it's not law, it's tyranny.

This judge has edged over the line and did his profession dirty. You think those 7 Million people will have the same respect for "the law" after this? They might remember this come November.

Where in the Constitution does it state that gays and lesbians can't have the same rights as straight people?

Spang wrote:Where in the Constitution does it state that gays and lesbians can't have the same rights as straight people?

somewhere in the back

Well now we have two sepperate issues to discuss...

First off, marriage itself.

As part of the Protestant Reformation, the role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage passed to the state, reflecting Martin Luther's view that marriage was a "worldly thing".[36] By the 1600s many of the Protestant European countries had a state involvement in marriage. As of 2000, the average marriage age range was 25–44 years for men and 22–39 years for women. In England, under the Anglican Church, marriage by consent and cohabitation was valid until the passage of Lord Hardwicke's Act in 1753. This act instituted certain requirements for marriage, including the performance of a religious ceremony observed by witnesses.[37]

As part of the Counter-Reformation, in 1563 the Council of Trent decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses. The Council also authorized a Catechism, issued in 1566, which defined marriage as, "The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life."[38]

Many people still hold to that belief. That marriage is a function of the church and should follow its laws. And civil unions would be a funcion of the state. This is simple semantics. If california legaly allowed civil unions for gay couples then this simply was a struggle to call it marriage and nothing more. However if a gay civil union was not allowed (wich i am unsure of) then it becomes an issue of civil rights...


Now the one word everyone loves to throw around is "Democracy". The United States is not and never will be a "Democracy". It is a Constitutional Republic. With a true democracy, we would have chaos and anarchy. Give me enough money and in a Democracy I could get 51% of the people to vote me as the new Emperor. So no, our Republic is bound by the letter of the Constitution. And the constitution is quite clear (even though often ignored since it's inception) on civil rights. If two people want to live together as one "family" entity, I believe it is protected that they may. Whether it be a man and woman, a man and man, a son and mother... It does not have to revolve around sexuality. A household is a household. Plain and simple. It's the left's own fault for wanting to call it marriage in the first place that brings the fight. Had they not been so set upon the symantics, there never would have been the need for the discusion in the first place.

Why give gays rights? After all, the "moral majority" has already made allowances for Negros, womenfolk, atheists and foreigners.... Hell, civil war reenactments are at an all time low turnout anyway.....

The Defense of Marriage Act prevents gay and lesbian couples from receiving full civil rights. Even in states with legalized same-sex marriage and/or civil unions, they're missing out on 1,138 rights.

Metanis wrote:This judge has edged over the line and did his profession dirty. You think those 7 Million people will have the same respect for "the law" after this? They might remember this come November.

Hopefully so because he was a Republican appointment twice, and not just any Republican. That hateful, mentally deficient puppet and every right-wing nutbar's all-time favorite fetish, Ronald Reagan appointed him to his first federal position. HW appointed him to his current position. He even had some difficulties getting confirmed initially because he was viewed as being too conservative and insensitive to gays, his own orientation not withstanding.

As spang alludes to, the constitution doesn't provide anyone with the right to marry, gay, straight or otherwise. It does however, guarantee equal protection under the law, and denying a minority class of citizens the same rights as the majority due to the (primarily) religious objections of many (perhaps even a majority) is EXACTLY the sort of thing that our shitty constitution endeavors to prevent. It's one of the few things that the founding douchebags got right. That's probably not very well explained in your tea party's pocket constitution with Glenn Beck commentary.

Metanis,

Strictly out of curiousity, why would you give a shit who gets married anyway?

Noysyrump wrote:It's the left's own fault for wanting to call it marriage in the first place that brings the fight. Had they not been so set upon the symantics, there never would have been the need for the discusion in the first place.

It's entirely intentional. In addition to the short term goal of giving equal rights, something I support, the battle in semantics is aimed a creating a societal change. Change the words and you change the thoughts.

To me marriage carries a religious\social connotation, related but independent of the civil aspect.

Aabidano wrote:To me marriage carries a religious\social connotation, related but independent of the civil aspect.

Marriage carries a shitload of rights that are only afforded to straight people.

Spang wrote:

Aabidano wrote:To me marriage carries a religious\social connotation, related but independent of the civil aspect.

Marriage carries a shitload of rights that are only afforded to straight people.

Those same rights should be extended to all people, regardless of orientation. However that's a civil issue, not (necessarily) a religious one.

And doesn't negate the fact that the verbiage that's being fought over has the intent of creating societal changes, not legal ones.

Tyek wrote:Metanis,

Strictly out of curiousity, why would you give a shit who gets married anyway?

Because God Fox News told him to.

The Source

If Metanis was ass raped by a slow moving chainsaw, would anyone notice?

Conservative Bush attorney explains why the will of 7 million voters is meaningless in this case:

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/ ... ace-olson/

That guy's fucking awesome. I'd have his babies.

I really encourage watching this video, especially the back and forth that follows Perkins' first statement:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6754377n

ted olson is a real republican and not some drooling bigot shit stain ala metanis who don't deserve rights because they are nazi terrorist racists.


peace out

Gays and lesbians may be able to get married in California as early as the 18th of August. Opposite-sex-married couples in California, and the bordering cities, your marriages are still safe. For now.

Judge Walker's order.