Homophobic bigots want judge ruling thrown out because he is gay.

[jonks]

Wiki's page seems pretty good
snip

How does that in any way support your claim that all challenges to gay marriage laws have been at the state level? Your link confirms the challenge is to the federal law, not the state law. Do you understand the dual structure of our judicial system?

"Thats why all the suits filed for gay marriage are on a state level."

What would you consider a suit at the federal level if not a suit in federal court challenging a federal marriage law? Stated as simply as I can, what type of lawsuit are you saying doesn't exist? Your statement that all suits have been filed at one level implies another level exists in which no suit has been brought. What level is that?

 

[werepossum]

Stop.

You said "Marriage is not specifically defined anywhere on the federal level."

I posted a federal statute section titled "DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE". I don't care if it's "derived" from state law or Martian law. The federal govt has a definition of marriage enshrined in law as between a man and woman.

SNIP

Pretty sure Martian law allows homo marriage since apparently only men are from Mars.

Neither state nor federal government should be able to infringe on anyone's freedom without showing a compelling societal need that can only be fulfilled through that infringement. "A majority of voters find it icky" may be a compelling electoral need, but it is NOT a compelling societal need.

 

[classy]

Pretty sure Martian law allows homo marriage since apparently only men are from Mars.

Neither state nor federal government should be able to infringe on anyone's freedom without showing a compelling societal need that can only be fulfilled through that infringement. "A majority of voters find it icky" may be a compelling electoral need, but it is NOT a compelling societal need.

I think it will eventually go to the Supreme Court and eventually end up in Congress some how. We know it will never pass an electoral vote. It has lost every single time and shockingly even Maine repealed gay marriage solidly. Truthfully I don't know what to say. On one hand I am not for it at all, but on the other hand I don't feel good about hurting someone else's feelings. You get torn every which a way on the issue. I have a good work buddy who I think the world of. But I would feel uncomfortable being around him and his partner. Its not an easy thing.......

 

[jonks]

Pretty sure Martian law allows homo marriage since apparently only men are from Mars.

Neither state nor federal government should be able to infringe on anyone's freedom without showing a compelling societal need that can only be fulfilled through that infringement. "A majority of voters find it icky" may be a compelling electoral need, but it is NOT a compelling societal need.

I haven't even gotten to the merits yet, I'm still trying to get him to agree that 2+2 = 4. Why debate merits with someone who continues to make factually incorrect statements and stands by them even when confronted with clear evidence that demonstrates the assertion is false?

 

[Craig234]

I think it will eventually go to the Supreme Court and eventually end up in Congress some how. We know it will never pass an electoral vote. It has lost every single time and shockingly even Maine repealed gay marriage solidly. Truthfully I don't know what to say. On one hand I am not for it at all, but on the other hand I don't feel good about hurting someone else's feelings. You get torn every which a way on the issue. I have a good work buddy who I think the world of. But I would feel uncomfortable being around him and his partner. Its not an easy thing.......

Many white people 'felt uncomfortable' having blacks swim in the same pool with their children, sit next to them at the lunch counter, drink from the same water fountain.

But that's *totally different* from you telling two gay people who want to marry you are going to deny them that right because you 'don't feel comfortable being around them'.

If any more info were needed to show that the victims of bigotry are not in any way guaranteed not to become the perpetrators of bigotry, it doesn't get much clearer.

 

[classy]

I haven't even gotten to the merits yet, I'm still trying to get him to agree that 2+2 = 4. Why debate merits with someone who continues to make factually incorrect statements and stands by them even when confronted with clear evidence that demonstrates the assertion is false?

Dude what do you want? Every major case has been challenges on a state level. I have posted countless info that proves federal law has always recognized state law when it comes to marriage. Make a point if you have one. So far all you have done is ask the same question despite links showing clearly marriage is define at the state level except in the case of gay marriage because of DOMA. Make a point or just move on.

I have said and believe this will lose on appeal, because the it was done according to law. Not that it was right or wrong based on merit. Did this judge correctly rule on the voter passed resolution banning gay marriage. No I believe is the answer. Too many states have enacted and completed the exact same amendment process. Unless the error is in the process, this judge's ruling is going to be overturned. This is solely about law, not about what is right or wrong from societal perspective.

Now if you have your own point or opinion, then give it. Put your own thoughts out there to be examined and commented on if you can come up with any.

 

[Craig234]

Dude what do you want? Every major case has been challenges on a state level. I have posted countless info that proves federal law has always recognized state law when it comes to marriage. Make a point if you have one. So far all you have done is ask the same question despite links showing clearly marriage is define at the state level except in the case of gay marriage because of DOMA. Make a point or just move on.

I have said and believe this will lose on appeal, because the it was done according to law. Not that it was right or wrong based on merit. Did this judge correctly rule on the voter passed resolution banning gay marriage. No I believe is the answer. Too many states have enacted and completed the exact same amendment process. Unless the error is in the process, this judge's ruling is going to be overturned. This is solely about law, not about what is right or wrong from societal perspective.

Now if you have your own point or opinion, then give it. Put your own thoughts out there to be examined and commented on if you can come up with any.

We'll explain this to you for the 100th time, and see if you get it this time.

The lawsuit challenged this law as UNCONSTITUTIONAL (federal).

So when you say it was 'according to the law', no it wasn't, if it violated THE HIGHEST LAW, the federal constitution, as the judge ruled it did.

Is that clear?

 

[classy]

Many white people 'felt uncomfortable' having blacks swim in the same pool with their children, sit next to them at the lunch counter, drink from the same water fountain.

But that's *totally different* from you telling two gay people who want to marry you are going to deny them that right because you 'don't feel comfortable being around them'.

If any more info were needed to show that the victims of bigotry are not in any way guaranteed not to become the perpetrators of bigotry, it doesn't get much clearer.

There is some stark differences. Skin color requires no thought or action. It just is. Homosexuality is defined by what a person does, not what he or she looks like. I have seen the arguments that this is like civil rights, but its not. Civil Rights Act didn't make any new laws, it just guranteed that blacks would be given equal treatment under the amendments of the constitution. Not new ones, but the same ones. Gay rights are different because it requires an acceptance of ones different behavior.

I have said this time and time again. You can't seperate the lifestyle of a gay person from being gay. But that seems to be the argument. I am not perfect and I do try to be fair in all situations with all people. Is my hangups because I am a staunch hetero alpha male? Is it because I have a religous belief? Or is it in my dna to reject what I know is not the norm. You among others are quick to judge and criticize, but at least in real life I try to deal with things in a correct way. I try educate and listen to the other side. At least I try, that is more than most. Will I ever change? Maybe not.....

 

[classy]

We'll explain this to you for the 100th time, and see if you get it this time.

The lawsuit challenged this law as UNCONSTITUTIONAL (federal).

So when you say it was 'according to the law', no it wasn't, if it violated THE HIGHEST LAW, the federal constitution, as the judge ruled it did.

Is that clear?

Well......show me where marriage is a right guranteed or defined by the constitution? Thats the problem with his ruling. He makes the assumption that the constitution guarantees the right to marry, but marriage is not defined in the constitution.

Is that clear?

 

[jonks]

Every major case has been challenges on a state level.

1. You said "every case has been challenged on a state level"? There have been multiple cases filed at the federal level challenging both state and federal marriage laws.

2.

The second is because any marriage considered legal by the federal government also has to be considered legal by any and all state governments.

Again, factually incorrect. If and when DOMA Sec 3 is ruled unconstitutional, all that means is that the fed will recognize same sex marriage in states where it has been made legal. States where same sex marriage is not legal will NOT have to recognize those marriages because DOMA sec 2 says they don't. Thus, when Sec 3 is tossed, despite what you stated in your quote, there will be marriages considered legal by the federal government that will NOT have to be considered legal by "any and all state governments."

3. You said the federal gov't doesn't define marriage, and then link to a wiki article that says "the Fed Gov't defined marriage in 1996 when it passed DOMA." You said the fed govt clearly hasn't defined marriage b/c the supremacy clause would mandate that all states with contrary law would by necessity be overruled. I explained that's not how the supremacy clause works and cited specific language to show that the fed did in fact define marriage for the purpose of all federal laws.

Dude what do you want?

I'd like you to say "I was incorrect" when you are shown to have made provably incorrect statements. Barring that I'd like you to stick to posting your opinions about whether gay marriage should be legal, and refrain from asserting any sort of factual statements because you have demonstrated a startlingly high level of ineptitude with regard to current and past law, the judiciary, and federalism.

 

[jonks]

Well......show me where marriage is a right guranteed or defined by the constitution? Thats the problem with his ruling. He makes the assumption that the constitution guarantees the right to marry, but marriage is not defined in the constitution.

Is that clear?

Are you making a strict constructionist argument that all rights not articulated by the constitution cannot be fundamental rights? That's a seriously slippery slope. If you'd condescend to defer to the supreme court, they have held multiple times that marriage is in fact a fundamental right.

 

[Craig234]

There is some stark differences. Skin color requires no thought or action. It just is. Homosexuality is defined by what a person does, not what he or she looks like.

Wrong. Homosexuals just ARE homosexual as well. It may result in 'actions' - people have relationships based on who they are on sexual orientation - but homosexuality is an ATTRIBUTE of who they are just as race is. You are missing the point - what ABOUT race or sexual orientation justifies bigots being allowed to deny people rights based on those attributes? Why SHOULD blacks or gays or women or redheads have their rights denied?

Why should YOU feeling nauseous when you think about gay sex restrict gays' rights?

I have seen the arguments that this is like civil rights, but its not.

It's not like civil rights, is IS civil rights.

Civil Rights Act didn't make any new laws, it just guranteed that blacks would be given equal treatment under the amendments of the constitution.

Yes, it did make news laws, restricting bigots from limiting the rights of blacks.

Which is exactly like restricting bigots from restricting the rights of gays.

Blacks might have been from access to public facilities, housing, employment; gays have also had employment, and this is marriage. Same issue.

Not new ones, but the same ones.

EQUAL RIGHT to public facilities. To the front of the bus. To employment. To marry.

BLACK RIGHTS were for equality to the same things. GAY rights are for equality to the same things. What do you not get?

Gay rights are different because it requires an acceptance of ones different behavior.

What about gay 'behavior' justifies discrimination? Gay is WHO THEY ARE, an attribute like race. It results in behavior, most of the time, not always. What about that behavior justifies denying them rights? Are they murdering, are they stealing, are they selling crack cocaine, are they assaulting? No. They are loving who they love like anyone else, which does NOT justify you denying them rights, your nausea is YOUR PROBLEM just as the nausea a bigot feels seeing a black in the front seat of a bus is the BIGOT'S problem.

I have said this time and time again. You can't seperate the lifestyle of a gay person from being gay. But that seems to be the argument. I am not perfect and I do try to be fair in all situations with all people. Is my hangups because I am a staunch hetero alpha male? Is it because I have a religous belief? Or is it in my dna to reject what I know is not the norm. You among others are quick to judge and criticize, but at least in real life I try to deal with things in a correct way. I try educate and listen to the other side. At least I try, that is more than most. Will I ever change? Maybe not.....

That's to your credit. The thing is to recognize that YOUR repulsion - and frankly I have felt repulsion too - is NOT any reason to deny people born gay rights.

The reaction to people who are different - whether it be fear or anger or nausea - needs to be recognized for what it is, and not allowed to be expressed as legal discrimination.

This is a common societal issue - it comes out a lot in race, where one race feels superior to another - whether it be one variation of Asian, or of African, or of Native American, or betwen different major 'racial' groups; it comes out in genders, not only most often in the treatment of women as second-class (who could not vote the majority of American history), a bigoty masked as 'respect' (women are too noble to be forced to deal with the dirtiness in politics), or the Indian caste system, or sexual orientation...

It's all wrong. It all denies people equal rights for bigotry. And it's all hard to change, deeply ingrained in societies for hundreds and thousands of years, with excuses widely accepted for continuing it that 'sound good' to the bigots.

 

[Craig234]

Well......show me where marriage is a right guranteed or defined by the constitution? Thats the problem with his ruling. He makes the assumption that the constitution guarantees the right to marry, but marriage is not defined in the constitution.

Is that clear?

No.

Equality under the law doesn't REQUIRE the specific law to be identified.

A law saying "blacks can't swim in the same pool as whites" doesn't NEED swimming in pools to be in the constitution to be protected by the equal rights clause.

A law saying "blacks can't sit in the front of the bus" doesn't NEED sitting in buses to be in the constitution to be protected by the equal rights clause.

A law saying "blacks can't be barred from white neighborhoobs" doesn't NEED living in any neighborhood to be in the constitution to be protected by the equal rights clause.

A law saying "blacks can marry any race they want" doesn't NEED marrying any race you want to be in the constitution to be protected by the equal rights clause.

Is that clear?

 

[Howard]

Homosexuality is defined by what a person does, not what he or she looks like.

Breaking news: Celibate gays turn out to be asexual!

 

[JSt0rm]

classy I think you should embrace your homosexuality. Who knows, you may enjoy being out of the closet and open with yourself.

 

[dpodblood]

Wow I can't believe that in America; "land of the free" gays are still fighting for basic human rights and equality. I guess there's always bigots like classy there to slow down progress, even thought there is no logical basis for their argument against gay marriage.

 

[JSt0rm]

Wow I can't believe that in America; "land of the free" gays are still fighting for basic human rights and equality. I guess there's always bigots like classy there to slow down progress, even thought there is no logical basis for their argument against gay marriage.

Well the problem with classy is that he hates himself. The more normal gay becomes the more risk there is he will slide into what he truly is. This is why he will fight it to the end. In his mind EVERYONE will be gay if it is allowed. He doesnt realize that no matter how many laws there are that are pro gay some of us will never be gay.

 

[classy]

Well the problem with classy is that he hates himself. The more normal gay becomes the more risk there is he will slide into what he truly is. This is why he will fight it to the end. In his mind EVERYONE will be gay if it is allowed. He doesnt realize that no matter how many laws there are that are pro gay some of us will never be gay.

Me hate myself. That is a new one. Dude I love myself. I think I am awesome to be honest . And you are right those of you who are pro-gay will be never gay. And those of us who aren't so pro-gay will never be gay either.

 

[Dekasa]

Me hate myself. That is a new one. Dude I love myself. I think I am awesome to be honest . And you are right those of you who are pro-gay will be never gay. And those of us who aren't so pro-gay will never be gay either.

Step One: Denial.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

mevermind

 

[Farang]

And because of that, I agree that his decision should be thrown out...let the new judge review the case.
That's what they're asking.

Of course, since it's a bunch of crazy fundies who are pushing this, if a 100% straight judge reaffirms the ruling, they'll be protesting that as well.

Actually that makes it even more hilarious. While my kneejerk reaction is "Yea, probably not fair that a gay guy is judging the case," when has a judge's sexuality ever been a successful argument for overturning a ruling? It isn't going to happen.

 

[Wreckem]

There is some stark differences. Skin color requires no thought or action. It just is. Homosexuality is defined by what a person does, not what he or she looks like. I have seen the arguments that this is like civil rights, but its not. Civil Rights Act didn't make any new laws, it just guranteed that blacks would be given equal treatment under the amendments of the constitution. Not new ones, but the same ones. Gay rights are different because it requires an acceptance of ones different behavior.

I have said this time and time again. You can't seperate the lifestyle of a gay person from being gay. But that seems to be the argument. I am not perfect and I do try to be fair in all situations with all people. Is my hangups because I am a staunch hetero alpha male? Is it because I have a religous belief? Or is it in my dna to reject what I know is not the norm. You among others are quick to judge and criticize, but at least in real life I try to deal with things in a correct way. I try educate and listen to the other side. At least I try, that is more than most. Will I ever change? Maybe not.....

Thats not correct.

Homosexuality and being black are what the Supreme Court would call immutable characteristics. Being gay is not an action. Same sex sodomy is, and that cannot be illegal per Lawrence v. Texas.

Basically, under prior Supreme Court precedent, this should be a slam dunk. Marriage is a fundamental right(Loving v. Virigina), gay sex cannot be made illegal(lawrence v. taylor), if a law is facially discriminatory, or if you classify a group of people you have to have a really damn good reason to. And morality cannot be the sole basis. Fuck strict scrutiny or even intermediate scrutiny. There is no rational basis for a gay marriage ban. There is no legitimate state interest in banning gay marriage.

Gay marriage bans are unconstitutional, SCotUS will eventually, sooner or later, rule that way.

 

[Wreckem]

Well......show me where marriage is a right guranteed or defined by the constitution? Thats the problem with his ruling. He makes the assumption that the constitution guarantees the right to marry, but marriage is not defined in the constitution.

Is that clear?

The constitution does not enumerate every fundamental right. If it did we would not have that many rights.

Marriage is a fundamental right. Loving v. Virigina, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

There is nothing that defines marriage, but the anti-miscegenation laws are very very analogous to gay marriage bans. Which is why the history and tradition argument some people(Scalia, Thomas, anti-gay rights people) make about what rights are, doesn't fly. History and tradition when the US formed up until Loving v. Virginia disallowed inter-racial marriage.

What I mean is people argue and will argue history and tradition defines marriage as man and woman. Well history and tradition defined blacks as less than human and made it illegal(criminally) for them to marry outside their own race.

 

[MikeMike]

blah

Just like the Judge in this case, you have a clear bias.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well the problem with classy is that he hates himself. The more normal gay becomes the more risk there is he will slide into what he truly is. This is why he will fight it to the end. In his mind EVERYONE will be gay if it is allowed. He doesnt realize that no matter how many laws there are that are pro gay some of us will never be gay.

Wishful thinking. I think. Classy will never be gay. What he intends always to be is a bigot. His bias against gays does not come from his wish to suppress any supposed gayness he has, though there are some who are like that. He opposed gays because he believes that God also opposes folk being gay. He has a book that says so. He can't listen to logic or to rational thought that says God made folk both animal and human gay by nature. He believes the bigots who put their human bigotry in the Bible and he believes the Bible is the Word of God. He believes in a pathetic god, a moron who would create gay people so he would have something to reject. He is ego delighted not to be among those God made gay.