Historic Same Sex Marriage Trial About to Start

Jan 2, 2010
105
0
0
On monday the first federal trial on the constitutionality of the ban on same sex marriage will start in California. Regardless of how this district judge rulse, I think their is a very good chance the 9th circuit court they will find it unconstitutional given how progressive their pass rulings have been. If they do the SCotUS will have choice but to hear the case.

The problem is we have too many of bushes croonies on the benches of the SCotUS. We need Obama and the democratic legislature to start adding more progressive people to the court, to ensure a fair ruling on the ban. Remember the constitution doesn't set a limit on the number of judges, so Obama can add as many as he wants.

Also on releated news one of the defends has dropped out of the case, because of death threats. :) We need to make them all drop out of the case.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Liberals are so excited about creating these so called "Historic" moments that they've turned politics into a game just to shake things up for the sake of "history", when what's really better for the country is business as usual. Soh-toh-my-OR was a prime example of this childish and limited thinking.

Historic this, historic that, blah blah blah.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
While I support gay marriage, using the courts to make it happen is the wrong approach. Doing so will ensure it becomes a long-term lightning rod culture war issue like abortion that is corrosive to the political process. Give it a couple years and the people will allow it to happen via democratic means, and will be a much more durable solution. While I know it will be discouraging for gays to wait for the country to come around, I think it will result in a better long-term result.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Liberals are so excited about creating these so called "Historic" moments that they've turned politics into a game just to shake things up for the sake of "history", when what's really better for the country is business as usual. Soh-toh-my-OR was a prime example of this childish and limited thinking.

Historic this, historic that, blah blah blah.

Like your 'team' is any better. :rolleyes:
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I hope they rule unconstitutional- lots of couple rights and tax issues apply to marriage, as such, they are being discriminated against. How any fair minded jurist can't see this perplexes me. You might be surprised by SC challenge.
 
Last edited:

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
LOL.
The California legislature votes on same sex marriage and it loses.
It is put to a vote via a proposition and same sex marriage loses.
Finally it is put to a state constitutional amendment and same sex marriage loses.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
While I support gay marriage, using the courts to make it happen is the wrong approach. Doing so will ensure it becomes a long-term lightning rod culture war issue like abortion that is corrosive to the political process. Give it a couple years and the people will allow it to happen via democratic means, and will be a much more durable solution. While I know it will be discouraging for gays to wait for the country to come around, I think it will result in a better long-term result.

Just say it. Let the old bigots die off. :D
 

theflyingpig

Banned
Mar 9, 2008
5,616
18
0
Calling the 9th Circuit Court's decisions 'progressive' really shows how ignorant you are. lol. Progressive. lol.
 
Jan 2, 2010
105
0
0
LOL.
The California legislature votes on same sex marriage and it loses.
It is put to a vote via a proposition and same sex marriage loses.
Finally it is put to a state constitutional amendment and same sex marriage loses.

The people voted wrong, and it time the courts fixed it. This is big because since this is a federal court it affects not only the state ban but the federal one too.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
LOL.
The California legislature votes on same sex marriage and it loses.
It is put to a vote via a proposition and same sex marriage loses.
Finally it is put to a state constitutional amendment and same sex marriage loses.

If people voted to sacrifice 11 yr old girls on alter of Ra what say you?

* I'm not asking you TFP;)
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
If people voted to sacrifice 11 yr old girls on alter of Ra what say you?

* I'm not asking you TFP;)

That would violate someone of the right to life.

Having marriage be something between a man and a woman does not discriminate against someones ability to get married based on sexual orientation. Nothing in the law states that a homosexual cannot get married.

Similarly, the current law in California states that a domestic partnership is something only between same sex couples (excluding some very specific cases). The law does not say that two heterosexual people couldn't not enter into a domestic partnership.

Finally, California law is pretty clear that all rights (under California law) afforded to married couples must be afforded to domestic partners.

Frankly I do give two shits what people do on their own time but if you are going to use categories to describe people/groups of people in other areas why should this be any different?
 
Last edited:

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Allowing same sex marriage to be legal is pretty straight forward and history will look upon those today who deny gays the right to marry the way we look upon those who denied inter-racial couples the right to marry 50 years ago. It's not that hard to step back and look at the progress we've made on social issues.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
While I support gay marriage, using the courts to make it happen is the wrong approach. Doing so will ensure it becomes a long-term lightning rod culture war issue like abortion that is corrosive to the political process. Give it a couple years and the people will allow it to happen via democratic means, and will be a much more durable solution. While I know it will be discouraging for gays to wait for the country to come around, I think it will result in a better long-term result.

I wonder how long horrible things like segregation would have lasted if the courts did not exercise their function.
 
Jan 2, 2010
105
0
0
What is great is the defendents are shitting bricks because the judge is allowing the case to be seen youtube, their witnesses apparently don't want their faces shown to the public.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
What is great is the defendents are shitting bricks because the judge is allowing the case to be seen youtube, their witnesses apparently don't want their faces shown to the public.

Why because some scum bag liberal might target them in public and violate their civil liberties?

Ironic.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
You really think someone would be targeted for being a witness on a trial in support of the ban on same sex marriage.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html

What Happens If You're on Gay Rights' 'Enemies List'
By Alison Stateman / Los Angeles
TIME
Saturday, Nov. 15, 2008

Ever since a slim majority outlawed gay marriage in California, opponents have waged national protests and petitions, urging the judicial system to reconsider the results of the Nov. 4 referendum. (Proposition 8 overturned an earlier decision by the California Supreme Court that legalized same-sex marriage.) While the court weighs whether or not to get back into the fray, the civil unrest ignited by the ban shows no sign of abating. A national protest against Prop. 8 organized by JoinTheImpact.com is scheduled for today. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which opponents say donated more than $20 million to the Yes on 8 campaign, has already become a focus of protests, with demonstrators gathered around Mormon temples not only in California but across the country.

The Mormon Church is not the only group being singled out for criticism. African Americans, 70% of whom voted yes on Prop. 8, according to a CNN exit poll, have become a target. According to eyewitness reports published on the Internet, racial epithets have been used against African Americans at protests in California — with some even directed at blacks who are fighting to repeal Prop. 8. Said Evan Wolfson, executive director of nonprofit group Freedom to Marry: "In any fight, there will be people who say things they shouldn't say, but that shouldn't divert attention from what the vast majority are saying against this, that it's a terrible injustice." (See the Top 10 ballot measures.)

In addition to the protests, gay rights activists have begun publishing lists online exposing individuals and organizations that have donated money in support of Prop. 8. On AntiGayBlacklist.com, individuals who gave money toward Prop. 8 are publicized, and readers are urged not to patronize their businesses or services. The list of donors was culled from data on ElectionTrack.com, which follows all contributions of $1,000 and more and all contributions of more than $100 given before Oct. 17. Dentists, accountants, veterinarians and the like who gave a few thousand dollars to the cause are listed alongside major donors like the Container Supply Company Inc. of Garden Grove, which gave $250,000. "Anyone who steps into a political fight aimed at taking away fundamental rights from fellow citizens opens themselves up to criticism," said Wolfson. "The First Amendment gives them the right of freedom of speech and to support political views, but people also have the right to criticize them."

Even before the passage of Prop. 8, the group Californians Against Hate compiled and published a "dishonor roll" of individuals (and their company affiliations) who gave $5,000 or more in support of the measure. Phone numbers and websites were added, along with commentary about some of the larger donors, all public information obtained through the California secretary of state's office. "My goal was to make it socially unacceptable to give huge amounts of money to take away the rights of one particular group, a minority group," says Fred Karger, a retired political consultant and founder of Californians Against Hate. "I wanted to make the public aware of who these people are and how much they're giving, and then they could make a decision as to whether or not they want to patronize their businesses."

The negative publicity is having an effect on both companies and individuals. Scott Eckern, artistic director of the California Musical Theatre in Sacramento, whose $1,000 donation was listed on ElectionTrack, chose to resign from his post this week to protect the theater from public criticism. Karger says a "soft boycott" his group had started against Bolthouse Farms — which gave $100,000 to Prop. 8 — was dropped after he reached a settlement with the company. Bolthouse Farms was to give an equal amount of money to gay rights political causes. The amount ultimately equaled $110,000.

Meanwhile, lists of donors to Prop. 8, once trumpeted on the Yes on 8 website, have been taken down to protect individuals from harassment. "It's really awful," says Frank Schubert, campaign manager for Yes on 8. "No matter what you think of Proposition 8, we ought to respect people's right to participate in the political process. It strikes me as quite ironic that a group of people who demand tolerance and who claim to be for civil rights are so willing to be intolerant and trample on other people's civil rights."
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Liberals are so excited about creating these so called "Historic" moments that they've turned politics into a game just to shake things up for the sake of "history", when what's really better for the country is business as usual. Soh-toh-my-OR was a prime example of this childish and limited thinking.

Historic this, historic that, blah blah blah.

Funny, idiots said the same thing about slavery and other civil rights. You're immoral. You not understanding morality is why you don't understand liberals' motive and make up that it's 'history'.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
LOL.
The California legislature votes on same sex marriage and it loses.
It is put to a vote via a proposition and same sex marriage loses.
Finally it is put to a state constitutional amendment and same sex marriage loses.

The Democratic CA legislature has been PASSING gay marriage. Arnold vetoes it.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
While I support gay marriage, using the courts to make it happen is the wrong approach. Doing so will ensure it becomes a long-term lightning rod culture war issue like abortion that is corrosive to the political process. Give it a couple years and the people will allow it to happen via democratic means, and will be a much more durable solution. While I know it will be discouraging for gays to wait for the country to come around, I think it will result in a better long-term result.

That's a pretty typical right-wing post from someone who really doesn't give a crap about others' rights and posts a 'moderate, pragmatic' opinion. All the bother and hassle uproar causes! Who needs it?

Why, history shows that the popiulation always evolves the right view, if you're just patient. Oh, wait, it shows the opposite.

We had a court decision the public hated in Brown v. Board of Education. Funny, after having progress forced on them - with billboards saying to lynch Earl Warren - now it's one of the most beloved rulings.

It'd also been 60 years. But no doubt if they'd ust let the public opinion get around to it, it'd be so much better for them than having the public forced.

I've got an idea. Let's have the public deny you the right to marry and hold off on the courts protecting your right.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
The people voted wrong, and it time the courts fixed it. This is big because since this is a federal court it affects not only the state ban but the federal one too.

And what part of the constitution grants the federal government the power to define what a marriage is? What section specifically?

Now, I know you are going to say "equal protection" bla bla bla, but the fact of the mater is the law in California in no way bars someone who is homosexual from getting married.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
And what part of the constitution grants the federal government the power to define what a marriage is? What section specifically?

Now, I know you are going to say "equal protection" bla bla bla, but the fact of the mater is the law in California in no way bars someone who is homosexual from getting married.

You're an idiot. The law in California excludes homosexuals from the equal right to marry the person they love.

For the idiot here, I'll repeat the analogy used for years here.

Take laws against mixed-race marriage. "Hey, no discrimination! They can marry a samne-race person the same way anyone else can."

But they can't marry the person they want to the way anyone else can. It's discriminiation.

Which Patranus is something you don't care about. Be honest for a change. Gay rights are a debate topic for you and nothing more.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,592
6,715
126
You're an idiot. The law in California excludes homosexuals from the equal right to marry the person they love.

For the idiot here, I'll repeat the analogy used for years here.

Take laws against mixed-race marriage. "Hey, no discrimination! They can marry a samne-race person the same way anyone else can."

But they can't marry the person they want to the way anyone else can. It's discriminiation.

Which Patranus is something you don't care about. Be honest for a change. Gay rights are a debate topic for you and nothing more.

Gay rights are a hate topic for him and nothing more. What he needs is a country in which a man can only marry another man and the arrogant worthless piece of shit would finally understand.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
You're an idiot. The law in California excludes homosexuals from the equal right to marry the person they love.

For the idiot here, I'll repeat the analogy used for years here.

Take laws against mixed-race marriage. "Hey, no discrimination! They can marry a samne-race person the same way anyone else can."

But they can't marry the person they want to the way anyone else can. It's discriminiation.

Which Patranus is something you don't care about. Be honest for a change. Gay rights are a debate topic for you and nothing more.

I love my sister yet I cannot marry her even when the California constitution states the marriage is between a man and a woman.

What exactly is your point.

Can a homosexual get married? YES THEY CAN.
You care confusing two different issues. If the law said that marriage could only be between two heterosexual people than you might have an argument but that is not what the California constitution states.

NOTHING in the California constitution forbids a homosexual from getting married.

EDIT: On a side note, I love how disagreeing with someone means that I hate them. Typical liberal attitude that has lead to the demise of support throughout California over those who were against Proposition 8.
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I love my sister yet I cannot marry her even when the California constitution states the marriage is between a man and a woman.

What exactly is your point.

Can a homosexual get married? YES THEY CAN.
You care confusing two different issues. If the law said that marriage could only be between two heterosexual people than you might have an argument but that is not what the California constitution states.

NOTHING in the California constitution forbids a homosexual from getting married.

EDIT: On a side note, I love how disagreeing with someone means that I hate them. Typical liberal attitude that has lead to the demise of support throughout California over those who were against Proposition 8.

You're an idiot. The law in California excludes homosexuals from the equal right to marry the person they love.For the idiot here, I'll repeat the analogy used for years here.Take laws against mixed-race marriage. "Hey, no discrimination! They can marry a samne-race person the same way anyone else can."But they can't marry the person they want to the way anyone else can. It's discriminiation.Which Patranus is something you don't care about. Be honest for a change. Gay rights are a debate topic for you and nothing more.

By the way, there's a rational reason for banning marriage with your sister where children are s possibility. If you want to fight for the right otherwise, go to it, but you are wrong to hold gays hostage in the meantime.