aREDSKIN Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 There is nothing deviant about watching Jessica Alba and Megan Fox kissing each other. Agreed but when it's Helen Thomas, Janet Reno & Janet Napalitano in a group "session" then there might be an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 And in latest news a stay has been issued on the judges ruling http://www.scribd.com/doc/35377313/Perry-v-Schwarzennegger-Order-Staying-Judgment-Pending-Motion-for-Stay-Pending-Appeal gee that didn't take long.:2drunks: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 4, 2010 Author Share Posted August 4, 2010 And in latest news a stay has been issued on the judges ruling http://www.scribd.com/doc/35377313/Perry-v-Schwarzennegger-Order-Staying-Judgment-Pending-Motion-for-Stay-Pending-Appeal gee that didn't take long.:2drunks: nevermind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 nevermind. Do you ever get the feeling this is a circus act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD5 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Just another judge trying to get famous, and going against the will of the state's citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NattyBo Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 and going against the will of the state's citizens. The rule of the majority does not make something constitutional or unconstitutional, the way the founders intended. Thank God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 There is nothing deviant about watching Jessica Alba and Megan Fox kissing each other. Or more. Or wanting to join in :ladiesmanJust another judge trying to get famous, and going against the will of the state's citizens.Not always a bad thing (see Brown v. Board). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 And in latest news a stay has been issued on the judges ruling http://www.scribd.com/doc/35377313/Perry-v-Schwarzennegger-Order-Staying-Judgment-Pending-Motion-for-Stay-Pending-Appeal gee that didn't take long.:2drunks: Although I'm not surprised, I wonder what orifice they pulled on, to get a justification for a stay. From what I understand, a stay is granted if implementing the decision would result in irreparable harm. Things like "If you execute this prisoner before his appeal comes up, then you can't un-execute him if he wins the appeal". Whereas California already has proof that permitting gays to marry did not irreparably harm the state, not did permitting gays to marry in any way prevent later actions from annulling those marriages. Where's the irreparable harm if the judge's ruling goes into effect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
generaltso Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 if we really cared so much about the sanctity of marriage, why dont we just outlaw divorce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Just another judge trying to get famous, and going against the will of the state's citizens. Well, that, and going with the clearly stated words of the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 4, 2010 Author Share Posted August 4, 2010 Where's the irreparable harm if the judge's ruling goes into effect? The Mormon church will have spent $30+ million on getting a prop passed to see it later ruled unconstitutional. :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 4, 2010 Author Share Posted August 4, 2010 if we really cared so much about the sanctity of marriage, why dont we just outlaw divorce? There is a petition to get that added as a proposition for vote in 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 The Mormon church will have spent $30+ million on getting a prop passed to see it later ruled unconstitutional.:evilg: Contemplating the implications of the Mormon Church getting a ballot initiative passed which some people claim will result in the laws outlawing bigamy being ruled unconstitutional. :paranoid: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 There is a petition to get that added as a proposition for vote in 2011. Over/Under on how much of the vote it gets? (I'm thinking 15%). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 4, 2010 Author Share Posted August 4, 2010 Over/Under on how much of the vote it gets? (I'm thinking 15%). I doubt it will get the 600k+ valid sigs that are needed to get it added to the ballot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Over/Under on how much of the vote it gets? (I'm thinking 15%). Does it really matter anyways? A "liberal" CA judge will just find it unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Although I'm not surprised, I wonder what orifice they pulled on, to get a justification for a stay. From what I understand, a stay is granted if implementing the decision would result in irreparable harm. Things like "If you execute this prisoner before his appeal comes up, then you can't un-execute him if he wins the appeal". Whereas California already has proof that permitting gays to marry did not irreparably harm the state, not did permitting gays to marry in any way prevent later actions from annulling those marriages. Where's the irreparable harm if the judge's ruling goes into effect? Actually the judge used the harm done by the last window that opened and closed in Cali....but what does that idiot know? Judge Walker btw http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_15675497 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter44 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Just another judge trying to get famous, and going against the will of the state's citizens. Yeah, lets get rid of judges all together and just let mob rule... Wasn't it judges that went against the mob and gave the election to GB?? I'll figure this all out one day.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redd Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 About damn time. If this ruling sticks people will move on over time and realize it's not really a big deal imo...........at least I hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 While I agree with the ruling, I REALLY wish this didn't go to the federal level; but I guess the voters in California only have themselves to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Just another judge trying to get famous, and going against the will of the state's citizens. Just like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy with Citizens United v. FEC, right? They're just trying to get famous too. That's the only reason for going against the clearly established will of the citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 if we really cared so much about the sanctity of marriage, why dont we just outlaw divorce? I've said it before and I'll say it again. Take the government out of marriage all together. I guy can marry his table cloth if he likes. No tax break. No anything. Marriage becomes about a person and his/her partner. If they would like to make a contract so that if they seperate, one gets something like they would in a divorce, fine. So who makes the decisions if a person is knocked unconsious, etc....make people come up with some kind of living will. I know I don't have all the details worked out and it isn't a perfect fix but....why is government even involved in it to begin with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 It's because they like feeling more important than they really are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 While I don't mind the ruling, I think it's insane that one judge (who is likely biased and is from San Francisco where a lot of the marriages took place a few years back) can just nullify the outcome of the votes of the entire state. That doesn't really make any sense. It seems like a really worrisome precedent. Shouldn't it at the least take a statewide panel or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngestson Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 The rule of the majority does not make something constitutional or unconstitutional, the way the founders intended. Thank God. I think that may be the best observation yet on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.