Why California’s Proposition 8 Would Make Jesus Weep (2 Viewers)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

same reason that courts recognize the importance of mothers when they rule in child custody cases. I'm sure you could convince one judge that mothers aren't important in todays world, but the point is you have a lot of historical evidence to show otherwise.

You have presented zero evidence that it has ever been important for marriage to be limited to opposite gender couples. Even if we accept your false premise that history never included gay marriages.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You still haven't explained why the mores of "thousands of years ago" are relevant today. How many goats did you give as a dowry for your wife?

The drastic change in childhood and maternal mortality rates in the last 160 years or so were the game changers that ultimately destroyed the needs for the traditional gender roles. Antiseptic messed it all up.

 

[Adebisi]

Jesus is a ##### if he would weep over something like this.

 

[Parrothead]

there are a lot bigger problems that the government should worry about than gay marriage.. jeez, 50% of marriages end in divorce anyway, if they want to take the risk, then go for it.. I am firmly in the "who cares who ####s who" camp..

 

[tommyboy]

.... Beside, even if they couldn't get married, they couldn't have gotten married throughout the entire history of civilization.

Wrong! Gay marriage existed in Egypt, Greece, and Rome (see Nero) and numerous other cultures every where on the planet and every time through out history.ETA: Dealt with starting here.

you are comparing a handful of examples spanning thousands of years and billions of marriages.

All I needed was one to disprove your claim. Sorry, by your own "you are comparing a handful of examples" your point is factually false.

would you agree that in the preponderance of history my claim is factually accurate?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

.... Beside, even if they couldn't get married, they couldn't have gotten married throughout the entire history of civilization.

Wrong! Gay marriage existed in Egypt, Greece, and Rome (see Nero) and numerous other cultures every where on the planet and every time through out history.ETA: Dealt with starting here.

you are comparing a handful of examples spanning thousands of years and billions of marriages.

All I needed was one to disprove your claim. Sorry, by your own "you are comparing a handful of examples" your point is factually false.

would you agree that in the preponderance of history my claim is factually accurate?

I would agree that the number of same sex marriages is trivial compared to the number of opposite sex marriages. Of course the number of gays is trivial compared to the number of heterosexuals. However for most of human history the need for multiple very risk pregnancies to have enough children that would survive to maintain a population was much greater than has been the case the past century and a half. Modern medicine has completely changed the game and those thousands of years of gender roles have gone away. Times have changed, some for the good, some for the bad but constantly swimming against the current pretending that there was any more noble purpose involved historically than simply survival serves what purpose?

 

[timschochet]

would you agree that in the preponderance of history my claim is factually accurate?

Yes. But in the preponderance of history, interracial marriage has always been frowned upon. Only for the last 40 years or so, has it been legal. When it was made legal thanks to a Supreme Court decision, that defied the popular will of the the people then living in the state of Georgia. Using your logic, it never should have been made legal. Also: 1844 John C. Calhoun made the argument that slavery should remain legal, because it has always had been legal throughout civilized history; this made slavery a "moral good." At the time, the majority of Americans either agreed with Calhoun or were indifferent to the issue. Had you been alive then, Tommyboy, based on your logic, you would have agreed with Calhoun. If you disagree with these two points, please explain the distinction between them and your current position.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

would you agree that in the preponderance of history my claim is factually accurate?

Yes. But in the preponderance of history, interracial marriage has always been frowned upon. Only for the last 40 years or so, has it been legal. When it was made legal thanks to a Supreme Court decision, that defied the popular will of the the people then living in the state of Georgia. Using your logic, it never should have been made legal. Also: 1844 John C. Calhoun made the argument that slavery should remain legal, because it has always had been legal throughout civilized history; this made slavery a "moral good." At the time, the majority of Americans either agreed with Calhoun or were indifferent to the issue. Had you been alive then, Tommyboy, based on your logic, you would have agreed with Calhoun. If you disagree with these two points, please explain the distinction between them and your current position.

Marriage and slavery are two completely different things. One is the complete humiliating subjugation of a human being to the point that they are no longer even human and their life is completely under the domination of their master.The other is slavery.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

This is like that game where Georgia Tech beat Cumberland 222-0.

 

[MongoL3]

This is like that game where Georgia Tech beat Cumberland 222-0.

Maybe you should make a cartoon about it.

 

[Josie Maran]

would you agree that in the preponderance of history my claim is factually accurate?

Yes. But in the preponderance of history, interracial marriage has always been frowned upon. Only for the last 40 years or so, has it been legal. When it was made legal thanks to a Supreme Court decision, that defied the popular will of the the people then living in the state of Georgia. Using your logic, it never should have been made legal. Also: 1844 John C. Calhoun made the argument that slavery should remain legal, because it has always had been legal throughout civilized history; this made slavery a "moral good." At the time, the majority of Americans either agreed with Calhoun or were indifferent to the issue. Had you been alive then, Tommyboy, based on your logic, you would have agreed with Calhoun. If you disagree with these two points, please explain the distinction between them and your current position.

Marriage and slavery are two completely different things. One is the complete humiliating subjugation of a human being to the point that they are no longer even human and their life is completely under the domination of their master.The other is slavery.

Be here all week?

 

[timschochet]

This is like that game where Georgia Tech beat Cumberland 222-0.

It's almost an impossible score. See if you can come up with a game scenario in which one team defeats the other 222-0 in a 60 minute game.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

This is like that game where Georgia Tech beat Cumberland 222-0.

It's almost an impossible score. See if you can come up with a game scenario in which one team defeats the other 222-0 in a 60 minute game.

You put Peens on the roster and anything is possible.

 

[timschochet]

Check these statistics out:

YARDS RUSHING:

Cumberland 27 attempts for -96 yards and 0 TDs, 9 turnovers

Georgia Tech 40 attempts for 1,620 yards and 28 TDs

 

[Running with scissors]

.... Beside, even if they couldn't get married, they couldn't have gotten married throughout the entire history of civilization.

Wrong! Gay marriage existed in Egypt, Greece, and Rome (see Nero) and numerous other cultures every where on the planet and every time through out history.ETA: Dealt with starting here.

you are comparing a handful of examples spanning thousands of years and billions of marriages.

All I needed was one to disprove your claim. Sorry, by your own "you are comparing a handful of examples" your point is factually false.

would you agree that in the preponderance of history my claim is factually accurate?

For the preponderance of history dinosaurs roamed the earth. Still irrelevant today.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Consequences of gay marriage (pie chart).

 

[tommyboy]

would you agree that in the preponderance of history my claim is factually accurate?

Yes. But in the preponderance of history, interracial marriage has always been frowned upon. Only for the last 40 years or so, has it been legal. When it was made legal thanks to a Supreme Court decision, that defied the popular will of the the people then living in the state of Georgia. Using your logic, it never should have been made legal. Also: 1844 John C. Calhoun made the argument that slavery should remain legal, because it has always had been legal throughout civilized history; this made slavery a "moral good." At the time, the majority of Americans either agreed with Calhoun or were indifferent to the issue. Had you been alive then, Tommyboy, based on your logic, you would have agreed with Calhoun. If you disagree with these two points, please explain the distinction between them and your current position.

history is ripe with interracial marriage.slavery has nothing to do with marriage

 

[tommyboy]

For the preponderance of history dinosaurs roamed the earth. Still irrelevant today.

not true and entirely irrelevant

 

[Celph Titled]

Check these statistics out:YARDS RUSHING:Cumberland 27 attempts for -96 yards and 0 TDs, 9 turnoversGeorgia Tech 40 attempts for 1,620 yards and 28 TDs

Did GT ever have a 2nd down? Did Cumberland ever make a first down?

 

[tommyboy]

I would agree that the number of same sex marriages is trivial compared to the number of opposite sex marriages. Of course the number of gays is trivial compared to the number of heterosexuals. However for most of human history the need for multiple very risk pregnancies to have enough children that would survive to maintain a population was much greater than has been the case the past century and a half. Modern medicine has completely changed the game and those thousands of years of gender roles have gone away. Times have changed, some for the good, some for the bad but constantly swimming against the current pretending that there was any more noble purpose involved historically than simply survival serves what purpose?

thanks. I would disagree that the number of gays is trivial unless you think 5-10% of the population is trivial. regardless i would disagree that gender roles have gone away and i'm not sure what your last sentence is trying to say.

 

[Celph Titled]

http://www2.cumberland.edu/about/gotc/mvr.html

 

[timschochet]

http://www2.cumberland.edu/about/gotc/mvr.html

It answers your question:Neither team made a first down. This is true. Georgia Tech scored everytime their offense came to the line of scrimmage, and CU never made the ten yards from the original line of scrimmage.

 

[tommyboy]

Judge Walker’s Anti-Prop 8 Sham Trial

July 12, 2010 3:10 PM

By Ed Whelan

Any day now, federal district judge Vaughn Walker may issue his ruling inventing a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage and invalidating California’s Proposition 8. This is a good time to highlight what an utter sham Walker’s handling of the case has been—and to call attention to one new reported fact that may add to the already overwhelming evidence that Walker should have recused himself from the case.

Walker’s entire course of conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case has reflected a manifest design to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making, Scopes-style show trial of Prop 8’s sponsors. Walker’s actions, taken together, have only one sensible explanation: that Walker has been hellbent from the outset to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage.

Let’s start with Walker’s initial case-management conference when he determined, to the surprise even of plaintiffs’ lawyer Ted Olson, that the case couldn’t be resolved, one way or the other (as other courts have done in similar cases), as a matter of law but would instead require extensive discovery into supposed factual issues..

Take Walker’s insane and unworkable inquiry into the subjective motivations of the more than seven million Californians who voted in support of Prop 8.

Take the incredibly intrusive discovery, grossly underprotective of First Amendment associational rights, that Walker authorized into the internal communications of the Prop 8 sponsors. That ruling was overturned, in part, by an extraordinary writ of mandamus issued by a Ninth Circuit panel consisting entirely of Clinton appointees. But the portion that survived enabled plaintiffs to conduct scorched-earth discovery that leveraged the massive resource advantage provided by their lavish Hollywood backers. And the sweeping judicial invasion of the core political speech rights and associational rights of Prop 8 supporters had the added benefit, from Walker’s perspective, of intimidating opponents of same-sex marriage from ever daring to exercise those rights again.

Take Walker’s resort to procedural shenanigans and outright illegality in support of his fervent desire to broadcast the trial, in utter disregard of (if not affirmatively welcoming) the harassment and abuse that pro-Prop 8 witnesses would reasonably anticipate. Walker’s decision was ultimately blocked by an extraordinary (and fully warranted) stay order by the Supreme Court in an opinion that was plainly a stinging rebuke of Walker’s lack of impartiality.

Take Walker’s permitting a parade of anti-Prop 8 witnesses at trial who gave lengthy testimony that had no conceivable bearing on any factual or legal issues in dispute but who provided useful theater for the anti-Prop 8 cause. And—surprise, surprise—every single one of plaintiffs’ “expert” witnesses is an activist for same-sex marriage whose “expert” testimony was just a repackaging of their political advocacy.

As I explained in early February when a San Francisco newspaper reported that Walker himself is gay:

In terms of his judicial performance in the anti-Proposition 8 case, the bottom-line question that matters isn’t whether Walker is straight or gay. It’s whether he is capable of ruling impartially. I have no reason to doubt that there are homosexuals who could preside impartially over this case, just as I have no reason to doubt that there are heterosexuals whose bias in favor of, or against, same-sex marriage would unduly skew their handling of the case.

As I concluded then, Walker should have recused himself from the case not because he is gay but because his entire course of conduct demonstrates his manifest inability to be impartial in this matter.

Well, it turns out that there’s yet another reported fact that bears on the already overwhelming case for Walker’s recusal. According to a Los Angeles Times article from three weeks ago, Walker’s colleagues say that Walker “attends bar functions with a companion, a physician.” The apparent implication is that Walker has a regular male partner and may be in a long-term relationship. If that’s so, then the question arises whether Walker himself has any interest in entering into a same-sex marriage in California. If he does, then the provisions of federal law requiring that a judge recuse himself when he knows that he has “any other interest [other than financial, that is] that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding” (28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4)) or when “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (28 U.S.C. § 455(a)) may well have been triggered.

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/...trial/ed-whelan

 

[timschochet]

Well, it turns out that there’s yet another reported fact that bears on the already overwhelming case for Walker’s recusal. According to a Los Angeles Times article from three weeks ago, Walker’s colleagues say that Walker “attends bar functions with a companion, a physician.” The apparent implication is that Walker has a regular male partner and may be in a long-term relationship. If that’s so, then the question arises whether Walker himself has any interest in entering into a same-sex marriage in California. If he does, then the provisions of federal law requiring that a judge recuse himself when he knows that he has “any other interest [other than financial, that is] that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding” (28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4)) or when “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (28 U.S.C. § 455(a)) may well have been triggered.

Just pathetic.

 

[Chiwawa]

http://www2.cumberland.edu/about/gotc/mvr.html

It answers your question:Neither team made a first down. This is true. Georgia Tech scored everytime their offense came to the line of scrimmage, and CU never made the ten yards from the original line of scrimmage.

I don't think the first part is true:

McDonald kicked off for Cumberland to Shaver who returned the ball 70 yards to the Cumberland 10. Strupper Got 9 yards at right end. Alexander scored from the 1. Preas' conversion made it 35-0 Georgia Tech.

So, 2nd and goal from the 1?

 

[timschochet]

http://www2.cumberland.edu/about/gotc/mvr.html

It answers your question:Neither team made a first down. This is true. Georgia Tech scored everytime their offense came to the line of scrimmage, and CU never made the ten yards from the original line of scrimmage.

I don't think the first part is true:

McDonald kicked off for Cumberland to Shaver who returned the ball 70 yards to the Cumberland 10. Strupper Got 9 yards at right end. Alexander scored from the 1. Preas' conversion made it 35-0 Georgia Tech.

So, 2nd and goal from the 1?

I see what you mean. That statement, which I quoted from the website, is incorrect then. But it's still true that Georgia Tech never got a first down.

 

[Claydon]

Nice to see some justice for a change. Seven million bigots overruled.

 

[toshiba]

Nice to see some justice for a change. Seven million bigots overruled.

 

[ScottyFargo]

would you agree that in the preponderance of history my claim is factually accurate?

Yes. But in the preponderance of history, interracial marriage has always been frowned upon. Only for the last 40 years or so, has it been legal. When it was made legal thanks to a Supreme Court decision, that defied the popular will of the the people then living in the state of Georgia. Using your logic, it never should have been made legal. Also: 1844 John C. Calhoun made the argument that slavery should remain legal, because it has always had been legal throughout civilized history; this made slavery a "moral good." At the time, the majority of Americans either agreed with Calhoun or were indifferent to the issue. Had you been alive then, Tommyboy, based on your logic, you would have agreed with Calhoun.

If you disagree with these two points, please explain the distinction between them and your current position.

history is ripe with interracial marriage.slavery has nothing to do with marriage

Single guy, eh?

 

[otello]

Well, it turns out that there’s yet another reported fact that bears on the already overwhelming case for Walker’s recusal. According to a Los Angeles Times article from three weeks ago, Walker’s colleagues say that Walker “attends bar functions with a companion, a physician.” The apparent implication is that Walker has a regular male partner and may be in a long-term relationship. If that’s so, then the question arises whether Walker himself has any interest in entering into a same-sex marriage in California. If he does, then the provisions of federal law requiring that a judge recuse himself when he knows that he has “any other interest [other than financial, that is] that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding” (28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4)) or when “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (28 U.S.C. § 455(a)) may well have been triggered.

Just pathetic.

Are you suggesting that the provision does not apply?

 

[Running with scissors]

For the preponderance of history dinosaurs roamed the earth. Still irrelevant today.

not true and entirely irrelevant

Thank you for making my point.

 

[timschochet]

Well, it turns out that there’s yet another reported fact that bears on the already overwhelming case for Walker’s recusal. According to a Los Angeles Times article from three weeks ago, Walker’s colleagues say that Walker “attends bar functions with a companion, a physician.” The apparent implication is that Walker has a regular male partner and may be in a long-term relationship. If that’s so, then the question arises whether Walker himself has any interest in entering into a same-sex marriage in California. If he does, then the provisions of federal law requiring that a judge recuse himself when he knows that he has “any other interest [other than financial, that is] that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding” (28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4)) or when “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (28 U.S.C. § 455(a)) may well have been triggered.

Just pathetic.

Are you suggesting that the provision does not apply?

Of course it does not apply:Known as a conservative with a libertarian streak, Walker was first nominated to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987. His appointment was stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee, however, because a group of House Democrats -- led by Nancy Pelosi -- claimed he was insensitive to gays and the poor. George Bush the Elder renewed Walker's nomination in 1989 and managed to get it through.

It is also worth noting that both the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times have reported that Walker is gay. The judge has neither confirmed nor denied the reports, and the legal team defending Proposition 8 did not raise the issue -- perhaps because Walker has shown no hesitation to rule against gay plaintiffs or defendants when that is what the law requires

 

[flufhed]

He doesn't delve into appropriate scrutiny because he has something like 400 words to work with and he's writing for guys like Stat who wouldn't know what the hell he was talking about anyway.

I don't right understand fancy lawyerin words

Yeah this thread got boring quick. We need to lighten things up a bit. On that note. Adam Lambert is very happy with the ruling. Apparently he tweeted "We're gonna throw glitter on this barn tonight"You go boy!!

Yeah, the sooner we can get away from logical, legal analysis and back to bigotry, stereotyping and demagougery, the better.

 

[MongoL3]

He doesn't delve into appropriate scrutiny because he has something like 400 words to work with and he's writing for guys like Stat who wouldn't know what the hell he was talking about anyway.

I don't right understand fancy lawyerin words

Yeah this thread got boring quick. We need to lighten things up a bit. On that note. Adam Lambert is very happy with the ruling. Apparently he tweeted "We're gonna throw glitter on this barn tonight"You go boy!!

Yeah, the sooner we can get away from logical, legal analysis and back to bigotry, stereotyping and demagougery, the better.

Oh cry me a river

 

[flufhed]

Peens, I've seen pictures of your wife. You should be happy about this.

Whoah

 

[MongoL3]

Peens, I've seen pictures of your wife. You should be happy about this.

Whoah

Is that the best you got? seriously?

 

[flufhed]

Judge Walker’s Anti-Prop 8 Sham Trial

July 12, 2010 3:10 PM

By Ed Whelan

Any day now, federal district judge Vaughn Walker may issue his ruling inventing a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage and invalidating California’s Proposition 8. This is a good time to highlight what an utter sham Walker’s handling of the case has been—and to call attention to one new reported fact that may add to the already overwhelming evidence that Walker should have recused himself from the case.

Walker’s entire course of conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case has reflected a manifest design to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making, Scopes-style show trial of Prop 8’s sponsors. Walker’s actions, taken together, have only one sensible explanation: that Walker has been hellbent from the outset to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage.

Let’s start with Walker’s initial case-management conference when he determined, to the surprise even of plaintiffs’ lawyer Ted Olson, that the case couldn’t be resolved, one way or the other (as other courts have done in similar cases), as a matter of law but would instead require extensive discovery into supposed factual issues..

Take Walker’s insane and unworkable inquiry into the subjective motivations of the more than seven million Californians who voted in support of Prop 8.

Take the incredibly intrusive discovery, grossly underprotective of First Amendment associational rights, that Walker authorized into the internal communications of the Prop 8 sponsors. That ruling was overturned, in part, by an extraordinary writ of mandamus issued by a Ninth Circuit panel consisting entirely of Clinton appointees. But the portion that survived enabled plaintiffs to conduct scorched-earth discovery that leveraged the massive resource advantage provided by their lavish Hollywood backers. And the sweeping judicial invasion of the core political speech rights and associational rights of Prop 8 supporters had the added benefit, from Walker’s perspective, of intimidating opponents of same-sex marriage from ever daring to exercise those rights again.

Take Walker’s resort to procedural shenanigans and outright illegality in support of his fervent desire to broadcast the trial, in utter disregard of (if not affirmatively welcoming) the harassment and abuse that pro-Prop 8 witnesses would reasonably anticipate. Walker’s decision was ultimately blocked by an extraordinary (and fully warranted) stay order by the Supreme Court in an opinion that was plainly a stinging rebuke of Walker’s lack of impartiality.

Take Walker’s permitting a parade of anti-Prop 8 witnesses at trial who gave lengthy testimony that had no conceivable bearing on any factual or legal issues in dispute but who provided useful theater for the anti-Prop 8 cause. And—surprise, surprise—every single one of plaintiffs’ “expert” witnesses is an activist for same-sex marriage whose “expert” testimony was just a repackaging of their political advocacy.

As I explained in early February when a San Francisco newspaper reported that Walker himself is gay:

In terms of his judicial performance in the anti-Proposition 8 case, the bottom-line question that matters isn’t whether Walker is straight or gay. It’s whether he is capable of ruling impartially. I have no reason to doubt that there are homosexuals who could preside impartially over this case, just as I have no reason to doubt that there are heterosexuals whose bias in favor of, or against, same-sex marriage would unduly skew their handling of the case.

As I concluded then, Walker should have recused himself from the case not because he is gay but because his entire course of conduct demonstrates his manifest inability to be impartial in this matter.

Well, it turns out that there’s yet another reported fact that bears on the already overwhelming case for Walker’s recusal. According to a Los Angeles Times article from three weeks ago, Walker’s colleagues say that Walker “attends bar functions with a companion, a physician.” The apparent implication is that Walker has a regular male partner and may be in a long-term relationship. If that’s so, then the question arises whether Walker himself has any interest in entering into a same-sex marriage in California. If he does, then the provisions of federal law requiring that a judge recuse himself when he knows that he has “any other interest [other than financial, that is] that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding” (28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4)) or when “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (28 U.S.C. § 455(a)) may well have been triggered.

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/...trial/ed-whelan

 

[Claydon]

HAWT

 

[Chiwawa]

Peens, I've seen pictures of your wife. You should be happy about this.

Whoah

Is that the best you got? seriously?

The legal issue is pretty clear, and it's pretty obvious that gay marriage isn't going to adversely affect anyone who's against it. There isn't much to debate seriously.

 

[Running with scissors]

From commenters on Andrew Sullivan's blog. They make the anti-gay marriage lawyers look even more incompetent and the people that talk about how the 'gay' judge was biased even more daft looking.

I really, really hate – as in, this is extra special slimy, even for them – the fact that only now, since the Prop 8 proponents have lost, is the whole "he's gay, should he have recused himself" meme starting to take hold. Folks, if you think your judge should recuse himself, you put on your big boy or girl pants and you file the damn motion. 22 years ago I did a jury trial for a client who was charged with molesting his kid. The judge originally assigned had handled the civil restraining order, and I felt that created bias, so I filed a motion to recuse, which he granted. (By the way, with a different judge, the jury acquitted in 55 minutes.) About a week later, I ran into that judge and started to apologize for the motion. He cut me off before I could finish and he said, "You should never, ever apologize for doing your job. Ever." The point is this: if you are a good lawyer, and you've got grounds, you file that motion. And if you don't file it, either a) you're not a good lawyer, or b) you got no grounds in the first place, and you know it.

And the Prop 8 proponents knew it. And didn't file it. Because there was nothing to file. It's no more bias to be gay in this case than it would to be African American, Latino, Jewish or female in a discrimination case. This is a smear. And a cowardly smear at that. Nothing less.

If straight marriages like mine are truly impacted negatively by gay marriage, as many Prop 8 supporters claim, then a straight judge would have to recuse himself as well. He'd HAVE TO - because his group would (supposedly) benefit from Prop 8. If black judges shouldn't be deciding civil rights cases because they benefit from the outcome, then white judges shouldn't either, because civil rights legislation (supposedly) impacts whites negatively (fewer seats on the bus, etc.) so the white judge can benefit from the outcome as well. You can always turn the scenario around and see how the race/gender/religion/sexual orientation of the allegedly unbiased group is every bit as biased in a tangible way. This idea that only one group is biased is preposterous. The problem is so few people bother trying to see things from another groups' view it never occurs to them that their group will potentially benefit from the decision as much as the other group.

 

[flufhed]

If straight marriages like mine are truly impacted negatively by gay marriage, as many Prop 8 supporters claim, then a straight judge would have to recuse himself as well. He'd HAVE TO - because his group would (supposedly) benefit from Prop 8. If black judges shouldn't be deciding civil rights cases because they benefit from the outcome, then white judges shouldn't either, because civil rights legislation (supposedly) impacts whites negatively (fewer seats on the bus, etc.) so the white judge can benefit from the outcome as well. You can always turn the scenario around and see how the race/gender/religion/sexual orientation of the allegedly unbiased group is every bit as biased in a tangible way. This idea that only one group is biased is preposterous. The problem is so few people bother trying to see things from another groups' view it never occurs to them that their group will potentially benefit from the decision as much as the other group.

Exactly. The whole point of the Prop 8 supporter's argument, I thought, was that allowing gay marriage would undermine the institution of marriage as a whole. So aren't hetero-sexuals AT LEAST as biased on the issue as homosexuals?

 

[Konotay]

Yeah, the sooner we can get away from logical, legal analysis and back to bigotry, stereotyping and demagougery, the better.

link

Q: What do you most wish your opponents on the marriage issue would hear you out on?

A: Gay-marriage advocates need to stop dehumanizing their opponents, who are, after all, the majority of Americans. They need to accept the truth that the majority of Americans who think marriage is a union of husband and wife are not motivated by irrational hatred and bigotry, but a love for the truth about marriage. We are seeing bad behavior from followers, because the leaders of this movement are consistently pushing a message that delegitimizes opposition, wrongly equates support for marriage with hatred and bigotry, and encourage ordinary pro-gay-marriage activists to act as if only one side has the right to be heard. That’s what we are seeing in too many places across America today.

Q: What do you most wish people knew about the whole Prop 8 fight?

A: Gay marriage has consequences. The goal of this movement is to use the law to reshape the culture so that disagreement with their views on sex and marriage gets stigmatized and repressed like bigotry. Children will be taught, whether parents like it or not, that traditional faith communities’ views on marriage are based on hatred and bigotry. In the new America they are attempting to build, core civil rights will be sacrificed for imaginary ones that will then be used to exclude most religious people and institutions from the public square. We are already seeing the beginnings of this great purge in the academy, and it will march from there through professional licensing and institutions in ways that will affect a great many people.

Interesting argument. The quest to validate same sex marriage is also a quest to delegitimize religion. Also the quest to stop hatred and bigotry toward gays is itself promoting hatred and bigotry to those with religious views.

 

[MongoL3]

Yeah, the sooner we can get away from logical, legal analysis and back to bigotry, stereotyping and demagougery, the better.

link

Q: What do you most wish your opponents on the marriage issue would hear you out on?

A: Gay-marriage advocates need to stop dehumanizing their opponents, who are, after all, the majority of Americans. They need to accept the truth that the majority of Americans who think marriage is a union of husband and wife are not motivated by irrational hatred and bigotry, but a love for the truth about marriage. We are seeing bad behavior from followers, because the leaders of this movement are consistently pushing a message that delegitimizes opposition, wrongly equates support for marriage with hatred and bigotry, and encourage ordinary pro-gay-marriage activists to act as if only one side has the right to be heard. That’s what we are seeing in too many places across America today.

Q: What do you most wish people knew about the whole Prop 8 fight?

A: Gay marriage has consequences. The goal of this movement is to use the law to reshape the culture so that disagreement with their views on sex and marriage gets stigmatized and repressed like bigotry. Children will be taught, whether parents like it or not, that traditional faith communities’ views on marriage are based on hatred and bigotry. In the new America they are attempting to build, core civil rights will be sacrificed for imaginary ones that will then be used to exclude most religious people and institutions from the public square. We are already seeing the beginnings of this great purge in the academy, and it will march from there through professional licensing and institutions in ways that will affect a great many people.

Interesting argument. The quest to validate same sex marriage is also a quest to delegitimize religion. Also the quest to stop hatred and bigotry toward gays is itself promoting hatred and bigotry to those with religious views.

Yep

 

[timschochet]

I agree that it is counterproductive to label all people who are opposed to gay marriage as bigots. It's not true, it gets us (those of us for gay marriage) nowhere.

But the other argument provided, that somehow children will be taught that "traditional faith communities are bigoted" is ridiculous. Like all other instances where the morals of the secular appears to conflict with the morals of the religious, the former will not be able to force anything on the latter. And my Christian friends who disapprove of this will continue to teach their children what they already have: that we believe this is wrong, but its also not our business to criticize others and we must show respect for everyone's privacy.

 

[Konotay]

There is no conflict here. The 14th Amendment sets a floor. State laws dealing exclusively with intrastate commerce (and thus outside of the commerce power of Congress) must nevertheless satisfy the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. Marriage is like that. Whether or not Congress has the power to regulate marriage or not, state laws regulating marriage must conform to the 14th Amendment.

The argument when DOMA was being be discussed that marriage was a states rights issue. From those of who are not lawyers we see the law twisted and turned to advance the opinion of the judge or judges.For example,Rowe vs Wade: Isn't the right to life in the constitution. Wasn't it a primary concern by our founding fathers ? So how did Judges twist the constitution to exactly the opposite of what our founding fathers wanted? This goes to the core about judicial activism. That laws are created out of whole cloth. Once these laws are made there is no checks and balances over the court by the legislative and presidential branches (a constitutional amendment standard is so high that it isn't a realistic check and balance.) And checks and balances were important to our founding fathers. Our country was not designed to be ruled by judges. Rather those make laws are there by the consent of the voters. Because judges are not voted in and in many cases have life time appointments this completely abrogates the "consent of the governed" principle that our Representative Republic is based on.Finally, many believe that it was only a matter of time that gay marriage would win at the ballet box. Having a judge create a judicial fiat short changes your legitimate victory. It replaces a legitimate victory with a judicial fiat that is directly against the will of the people. This process turns people off and sets your argument backwards. So rather winning the issue by change hearts and minds you do with the heavy hand of the judicial system. We like the Representative Republic form of government and eschew Monarchy (or what ever you call laws created by unelected judges with life time appointments). This is not the kind of government we want. Making law is not the role of judges, it is the role of the legislative branches. This is wrong way to pass this law and IMHO is not what our founding fathers envisioned about the role of the judicial branch.

 

[the moops]

We like the Representative Republic form of government and eschew Monarchy (or what ever you call laws created by unelected judges with life time appointments).

Long live King, err, Judge Vaughn Walker.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Yeah, the sooner we can get away from logical, legal analysis and back to bigotry, stereotyping and demagougery, the better.

link

... the majority of Americans who think marriage is a union of husband and wife are not motivated by irrational hatred and bigotry, but a love for the truth about marriage. We are seeing bad behavior from followers, because the leaders of this movement are consistently pushing a message that delegitimizes opposition, wrongly equates support for marriage with hatred and bigotry, and encourage ordinary pro-gay-marriage activists to act as if only one side has the right to be heard.

Q: What do you most wish people knew about the whole Prop 8 fight?

A: Gay marriage has consequences. The goal of this movement is to use the law to reshape the culture so that disagreement with their views on sex and marriage gets stigmatized and repressed like bigotry. Children will be taught, whether parents like it or not, that traditional faith communities’ views on marriage are based on hatred and bigotry. In the new America they are attempting to build, core civil rights will be sacrificed for imaginary ones that will then be used to exclude most religious people and institutions from the public square. We are already seeing the beginnings of this great purge in the academy, and it will march from there through professional licensing and institutions in ways that will affect a great many people.

The "truth" that is mentioned is certainly subjective, given that homosexual couples certainly believe their relationships deserve to be treated as valid as heterosexual couples (who's marital sanctity has not been so threatened by quick-y Vegas sham-marriages and divorce to warrant trying to outlaw them). The claim of a rational argument is pretty weak and fallacious.The second point is wildly off base. The goal is equal treatment. Reshaping prop-8 proponents as the victim is not unusual for that crowd, however. Nobody wants to exclude religious points from public debate, but I do think it's pretty funny that since the debate points brought have failed so miserably to make any kind of statement that the argument is being twisted in that manner. If that side had any rational basis of argument that resounded as truth, as claimed here, the wouldn't be so embarrassed by their position is so easily associated with bigotry.

To recap: Just because you can't debate the argument doesn't mean people are trying to stop you from debating.

 

[the moops]

Making law is not the role of judges, it is the role of the legislative branches. This is wrong way to pass this law and IMHO is not what our founding fathers envisioned about the role of the judicial branch.

What law did this judge create?What exactly would you like judges to do when a law (created by the legislature) is unconstitutional? Ignore whatever personal feelings you may have about prop 8.

 

[huthut]

Yeah, the sooner we can get away from logical, legal analysis and back to bigotry, stereotyping and demagougery, the better.

link

Q: What do you most wish your opponents on the marriage issue would hear you out on?

A: Gay-marriage advocates need to stop dehumanizing their opponents, who are, after all, the majority of Americans. They need to accept the truth that the majority of Americans who think marriage is a union of husband and wife are not motivated by irrational hatred and bigotry, but a love for the truth about marriage. We are seeing bad behavior from followers, because the leaders of this movement are consistently pushing a message that delegitimizes opposition, wrongly equates support for marriage with hatred and bigotry, and encourage ordinary pro-gay-marriage activists to act as if only one side has the right to be heard. That’s what we are seeing in too many places across America today.

Q: What do you most wish people knew about the whole Prop 8 fight?

A: Gay marriage has consequences. The goal of this movement is to use the law to reshape the culture so that disagreement with their views on sex and marriage gets stigmatized and repressed like bigotry. Children will be taught, whether parents like it or not, that traditional faith communities’ views on marriage are based on hatred and bigotry. In the new America they are attempting to build, core civil rights will be sacrificed for imaginary ones that will then be used to exclude most religious people and institutions from the public square. We are already seeing the beginnings of this great purge in the academy, and it will march from there through professional licensing and institutions in ways that will affect a great many people.

Interesting argument. The quest to validate same sex marriage is also a quest to delegitimize religion. Also the quest to stop hatred and bigotry toward gays is itself promoting hatred and bigotry to those with religious views.

What is being done to harm those with religious views? Other than "Wahhhhh people are restricting my ability to promote hatred and bigotry (just like Jesus would have wanted ).

 

[Konotay]

Yeah, the sooner we can get away from logical, legal analysis and back to bigotry, stereotyping and demagougery, the better.

link

Q: What do you most wish your opponents on the marriage issue would hear you out on?

A: Gay-marriage advocates need to stop dehumanizing their opponents, who are, after all, the majority of Americans. They need to accept the truth that the majority of Americans who think marriage is a union of husband and wife are not motivated by irrational hatred and bigotry, but a love for the truth about marriage. We are seeing bad behavior from followers, because the leaders of this movement are consistently pushing a message that delegitimizes opposition, wrongly equates support for marriage with hatred and bigotry, and encourage ordinary pro-gay-marriage activists to act as if only one side has the right to be heard. That’s what we are seeing in too many places across America today.

Q: What do you most wish people knew about the whole Prop 8 fight?

A: Gay marriage has consequences. The goal of this movement is to use the law to reshape the culture so that disagreement with their views on sex and marriage gets stigmatized and repressed like bigotry. Children will be taught, whether parents like it or not, that traditional faith communities’ views on marriage are based on hatred and bigotry. In the new America they are attempting to build, core civil rights will be sacrificed for imaginary ones that will then be used to exclude most religious people and institutions from the public square. We are already seeing the beginnings of this great purge in the academy, and it will march from there through professional licensing and institutions in ways that will affect a great many people.

Interesting argument. The quest to validate same sex marriage is also a quest to delegitimize religion. Also the quest to stop hatred and bigotry toward gays is itself promoting hatred and bigotry to those with religious views.

What is being done to harm those with religious views? Other than "Wahhhhh people are restricting my ability to promote hatred and bigotry (just like Jesus would have wanted ).

I don't believe those who voted for proposition 8 were motivated by hate and bigotry.