twa Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 So your legal argument is "Since the ERA didn't pass, therefore all gender-based laws are Constitutional"? . No...but there exist real reasons gender should not be casually dismissed in marriage. My favorite legal argument is Walker does not bring a compelling legal argument....though it is certainly possible to be done during appeal. As Carpenter and others have said,it is not enough to sway http://volokh.com/2010/08/06/is-judge-walkers-opinion-really-that-compelling/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 If it is as clear as you state why are bans allowed?Things are not as simple as either side wishes to claim As Rall would say confirmation bias is rampant:) If segregation and Jim Crow laws were bad, why were they allowed? Bigoted laws are allowed because bigoted people exist. For example, ones who cry for the sanctity of marriage when SSM is brought up, yet don't even bat an eye at the fact the divorce rate is over 50% in the US. If majority rule really is the case, as I've seen some agreeing with you claim, then the majority of the country doesn't fully respect the sanctity of marriage either, or at least only when its convenient for them, say like when a minority group still fighting for acceptance wants to make a change on an ancient social stigma. Marriage is about love, and society is showing that love can be gender neutral. And again, from a LEGAL standpoint, marriage can be a union between two people. from a legal perspective it should be gender neutral just as other anti-discrimination laws and sexual orientation laws are. But it should be accepted in religion as well, unfortunately that's where the arguments against it is coming from, because so many don't realize that the Bible was written and edited down by man, and is man's interpretation. Many of those same people are against evolution also, because they see it as making God fallible, instead of realizing that it makes man rightly fallible, and it makes sense that portions would be wrong given the time in which it was written. Man way back then would never have been able to understand the secrets of life and the universe that we now know, he had to interpret things in his way in order to understand things. Its logical that the specifics, not the life lessons themselves, would become outdated. But because way back then the church decided homosexuality was strange and they didn't understand it, it became a sin. Since then it has allowed for much closet and open bigotry and open violence against homosexuals. Now its been shown homosexuality is a genetic condition, not simply a matter of choice (I don't choose to be heterosexual, I just am, I have no attraction to men, just as gay men have no attraction to women), but the Church will never admit its wrong because they have the illusion of infallibility to their followers and once someone has power they typically will not give it up. *sorry for the rant* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 So you have a genetic defect?....big whoop. traditional marriage...Why? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/opinion/09douthat.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss If “natural” is defined to mean “congruent with our biological instincts,” it’s arguably one of the more unnatural arrangements imaginable. In crudely Darwinian terms, it cuts against both the male impulse toward promiscuity and the female interest in mating with the highest-status male available. Hence the historic prevalence of polygamy. And hence many societies’ tolerance for more flexible alternatives, from concubinage and prostitution to temporary arrangements like the “traveler’s marriages” sanctioned in some parts of the Islamic world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 12, 2010 Author Share Posted August 12, 2010 Judge lifted the stay. SSMs to resume August 18th in California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 That seems weird. Why stay himself, then lift it? What's changed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 That seems weird. Why stay himself, then lift it? What's changed? This judge is a classic vacillator who happens to be homosexual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 12, 2010 Author Share Posted August 12, 2010 This judge is a classic vacillator who happens to be homosexual. So? You prefer a heterosexual hesitator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 That seems weird. Why stay himself, then lift it? What's changed? It is stayed simply to allow time for appeal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Judge lifted the stay.SSMs to resume August 18th in California. Wait, I thought it was supposed to expire today, and he extended it until the 18th. My head hurts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 My head hurts. Just wait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Anybody got a link to any actual stories with, like, actual facts? OK, found one. CNN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Anybody got a link to any actual stories with, like, actual facts? Facts? What is 'facts?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Anybody got a link to any actual stories with, like, actual facts? http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0813-gay-marriage-california-20100813,0,5087660.story http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/08/12/walker-lifts-stay-on-prop-8-ruling-gay-marriages-to-resume-next-week/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stugein Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 So basically he said that they can resume gay marriage immediately..but "immediately" really means "after the appeals court has a shot at it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Demonstrates a lack of faith in his ruling surviving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 So basically he said that they can resume gay marriage immediately..but "immediately" really means "after the appeals court has a shot at it". I get the impression it's more like "If you want this halted pending appeal, ask the appeals court to issue a stay." Still, it seems like he's jerking people around. IMO, if he was planning on staying things for one week, then lifting it, then he should have issued a ruling that says "I'm staying this for two weeks". Isn't that a Carlin routine? I have a dog, named Stay. "Come here, Stay." Who's he think he is, Brett Favre? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 I get the impression it's more like "If you want this halted pending appeal, ask the appeals court to issue a stay." Still, it seems like he's jerking people around. IMO, if he was planning on staying things for one week, then lifting it, then he should have issued a ruling that says "I'm staying this for two weeks". Isn't that a Carlin routine? I have a dog, named Stay. "Come here, Stay." Who's he think he is, Brett Favre? Well now he claims those he allowed to argue the case are not allowed(qualified) to appeal The games people play. The Most Egregious Performance Ever by a Federal District Judge[SIZE="4"][/size] http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/243693/most-egregious-performance-ever-federal-district-judge-ed-whelan http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/08/13/us/AP-US-Gay-Marriage-Trial.html Judge Doubts Gay Marriage Ban's Backers Can Appeal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 Well now he claims those he allowed to argue the case are not allowed(qualified) to appeal Judge Doubts Gay Marriage Ban's Backers Can Appeal 1) Well, good for the pro-ban people, he doesn't get to decide whether they have standing to appeal. The 9th Circuit does. 2) Although, based on my vast legal knowledge, (I've read some of Predicto's posts), he may be right, now that he mentioned it. They may not have standing. See, as "standing" has been explained to me, (or at least "as it was absorbed by me"), the plaintiff has to show that he has been harmed worse than the average citizen has. (That's why the birthers don't have standing. They can't show that Obama's election has harmed them worse than anybody else.) Now, if Prop 8 is ruled Unconstitutional, then how does that harm the Prop 8 backers more than it harms anybody else? "Your honor, we've been harmed because we wasted all this money"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 9th circuit extends stay , finds Walker is wrong on standing and most everything else(OK the last bit is a stretch;)) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100816/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 9th circuit extends stay , finds Walker is wrong on standing and most everything else(OK the last bit is a stretch;))http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100816/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial Where does that story mention standing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Where does that story mention standing? Nowhere,however ya might check who they allowed to file the appeal. It don't happen w/o standing,nor do they grant a appeal w/o reasonable grounds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 I think both sides want it to go to the Supreme Court. (Well, one side or the other might really prefer it if there were a few changes on the court, before it gets there.) And both sides want all of the t's crossed, on the way there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.