Ruling on Prop 8 Standing: What it Means

[tonestar100]

Love love love the spin.

[STNorry]

ALSO! u would rather a child grow up lonely in the orphanage thinking that noone loves them that having a loving family take the child in? WTF! and this orgy thing? Thaat's such a stupid comment. Im not even gonna say anymore about it.

[STNorry]

It's kinda sad, because these Gay people u are talking about have to try so hard to have a child and I know they would b great parents! Because they are willing to put in the effort. Then u get so many straight people who jsut have a child and leave them in them in the orphanage or kick their children out because they are different or because the parents don't want them. Gay parents would NEVER do that because they love their children. and they put in the effort to adopt them.

[STNorry]

and this promiscuous thing? BITCH PLEASE! WTH? I have been with one person al my life for 1 year while my friends who are straight will go around fcking anything that fits. Like really? Gays get called for being promiscuous because our sex is different, but Straight people are jsut crazy if they think they aren't. That statement is soooooooooo invalid and gets me mad, cuz I am so not like that.And I know so many others that arent. ITS A STEREOTYPE, one of which is overly believed.

[STNorry]

And wth is this sht about spiritual union LMAO, only 55% of marraiges last w/o divorce. I.E. Kim Kardashian, it get me so angry whne there are people who love each other that can't get married and there are people like her who does it for attention and publicity and money. THAT SPIRITUAL ENOUGH?

[PeekyBooo]

Marriage is a spiritual union after sex between a man and a women under God.

Gay marriage is just a legal marriage request. Gays can never truly marry, so its just an emotional trip from psychos and political trouble makers that want to force society to allow adoption and acceptance to a group suffering a mental disorder.

[STNorry]

@PeekyBooo fcking idiot troll. Go fck God u btch.

[PeekyBooo]

@STNorry Don't play personality attacks, is it true or false.

[STNorry]

@PeekyBooo I was kinda trollin u, the bible "UNDER GOD" says its ok to stone women yet that isn't allowed in NA. LMFAO, this is why i don't follow the bible anymore, it suppresses people and discriminates based on fiction, christians just pick and choose. LMAO, WE DON'T WANT YOUR ACEPTANCE! Bitch please, get over yourself, we just want to be able to live our lives and have equal rights like everyuone else. IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU! What gives you the right, I'm glad I'm in CA, I can get married.

[PeekyBooo]

@STNorry It still is ok to stone someone in a perfect society if they bring the society down in a dramatic way.

The issue is that society is broken, the Families of the world are broken. That is why a society has allowed a government to make criminal laws that have or have not death penalties. The difference is the killer can be blamed for the action, and the discipline/punishment of the crime can be changed. Stoning was a better setup, but society is not just at the head to allow it.

[STNorry]

@PeekyBooo You are fcked.. Americans.. honestly. I am SOOO glad I'm in Canada. That is NORMAL, animals kill each other and fight all the time, we are pretty much animals that have evolved intellectually the furthest. And STONING? That is not NATURAL. I cannont believe that u would think it's ok to stone someone. It is proven that Capital punishment does not act as a deterrent, because people kill in the heat of the moment. That is just primitive thinking and that's where innocent people get hurt

[PeekyBooo]

@STNorry I don't have a problem with you asking your slave master for a paper certificate to say you're married.

What I'm saying is that you can't be married spiritually as it has to be a real sexual union. Gay sex is pseudo sex.

What the real question is, should a government allow gays to adopt children, as that's what legal marriage will lead to. Do gays really want to expose children to their lifestyle? I'd say many would not.

[STNorry]

@PeekyBooo THIS IS JUST YOUR OPINION. There are no facts to back this up. You people take your religion and shove it up people's faces. people have different meaning FOR MARRIAGE. This spiritual thing that u got going on? That is not a good enough reason for denying anybody's RIGHTS. AND HELL YES GAYS SHOULD B ALLOWED TO HAVE CHILDREN! HAVE U SEEN ANY DOCUMENTARIES?

[PeekyBooo]

@STNorry

In same sex parenting, the opposite sex is demeaned. The child is also exposed to conduct that is not mentally acceptable. Example a dog trying to have sex with a cat, is wrong. The child knows its wrong. Now if a parent said is was correct, then the child could become psychotic.

Then consider that many gays are promiscuous. A child should not be thinking of orgies in their home.

Note heterosexuals are all good too as parents.

Think of the child.

[PeekyBooo]

@PeekyBooo Note heterosexuals are'NT all good too as parents.

[STNorry]

@PeekyBooo The opposite sex is not demeaned, that's an opinion. PLEASE DO NOT COMPARE GAYS TO ANIMALS THAT IS SO WRONG. THOSE AER DIFFERENT SPECIES, we are the same species and same sex giving CONSENT. It's not wrong, only in your eyes. You aer destroying people's lives based on a book that was made so long ago and society has changed. If you watch the documentary, the children KNOW that it's different, they just understand it better. And because u are raised by gays, doent mean they will b.

[PeekyBooo]

@STNorry 'I was kinda trollin u' no probs. It doesn't worry me.

[TheLightAndTheWay]

@PeekyBooo God is imaginary. You're welcome.

[PeekyBooo]

@TheLightAndTheWay So your desires are just foolish animal wants, that can be overlooked.

The mind in stronger than the body.

[STNorry]

@PeekyBooo did God tell u that too? Do you do everything tat God tells you to do and you never sin and u pray to Mary mother jesus and Saint mother Theresa every night? LMAO, JK. The mind is stronger than the body, our minds tell us that it'[s natural to be attracted to the same sex. The mind tels oiur bodies that it's alright. So, GOD is telling us that it's alright,

[mikeyrobins022585]

anyone want a hot dog?

[booker1959]

In the 1967 Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia, marriage was declared a basic civil right that could only be denied for a "legitimate overriding purpose."

Given that a central argument of the proponents of Prop 8 was that, with Calif.'s domestic partnership law guaranteeing all of "the rights, privileges and benefits of marriage", denying only the designation "marriage", what overriding purpose can be identified arising from, not the substance of al aw, but from what it is called?

[Y2Krashman]

Once California is won, 50% of Americans will live in states where same sex marriage is legal. Would it not be probable that with the majority of Americans living in equality, that DOMA would not be repealed shortly thereafter?

[eaglefan9727]

In the end. The US supreme court will say that there is no right to SSM in this country and that is all there is to it.

[andizle123]

incredibly uplifting! thanks again for your hard work on these videos! :)

[NobodysOffTheHook]

I'm really looking forward to Dec 8!

[beegbolt]

Those who want to hold on to the traditional definition of marriage, have to realize the following:

Marriage has been determined by the SCOTUS, that IT is a "fundamental right".

Never before, has there been a "movement" of a significant population, since the 60's, demanding their rights.

Gay marriage is a "new" idea, just as everything that has ever happened in history.

There is no evidence that allowing two persons of the same sex to marry causes "damage" to society.

Conclusion: TBD.

[Clemburke1111]

Matt when do you think this may reach SCOTUS ?

[tonestar100]

To characterize the California Supreme's ruling on standing as a "good thing" is gravely short-sighted. Judge Walker counted on proponents not having standing. That one grave error will haint him and others when SCOTUS gets this case and decides the issue of gay marriage in a way that'll effect the entire country. Trust me when I say, it's not a good ruling for opponents of Prop 8.

[tonestar100]

I like the way you characterize it as a "good thing." And I love the "airtight case" rhetoric. It's because you don't realize, nor do you want to realize Vaughn Walker's abandonment of the rules of law have led you to believe it's all said and done. Preview of coming attractions: 9th Circuit grants standing, affirms Walker's ruling which then gets appealed to SCOTUS where proponents of Prop 8 Win BIG with the most scathing rebuke of the 9th Circuit's rulings you'll ever see.

[Godbluffer]

@tonestar100 What specific abandonment of the rules of law by judge Vaughn Walker do you mean?

[tonestar100]

@Godbluffer The rule in Baker v. Nelson 409 U.S. 810 (1972) which states that a law restricting marriage to opposite sex couples does not violate the federal Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process. Walker was legally bound to follow that precedent which is binding on the 9th Circuit. He didn't. Start there - there's much more but this really isn't a con law workshop.

[TheLightAndTheWay]

@tonestar100 Precedents are only binding when the legal situations are the same. Baker is not a precedent if, say, you challenge a speeding ticket in court. In Baker, the state supreme court had not decided that marriage for couples of the same sex was a fundamental right nor were there thousands of legally married couples of the same sex in Minnesota. Same sex couples who want to marry now are having the right to ep violated in a way substantially different. Not a con law workshop indeed!

[tonestar100]

@TheLightAndTheWay Since were talking about prop 8 let's dispense with the irrelevant colloquy on "speeding tickets." Okay? The essential role of Baker - there is no fundamental right to gay marriage. Period. Exclamation point. Whether or not Minnesota had [yet] passed a law allowing gay marriage is also irrelevant for purposes of what Baker means today. It's still good law. There is no fundamental right to GAY marriage. Class dismissed.

[TheLightAndTheWay]

@tonestar100 There is a fundamental right to MARRIAGE, which is the crucial point here. Ironically, it was the conservative wing of the Supreme court which pointed out that the changed legal landscape left the banning of same sex marriage on shaky constitutional ground. DOH!

[TheLightAndTheWay]

@tonestar100 Oh and another interesting historical note about Baker. The clerks who were responsible for writing the decision at the time noted that they had a difficult time rejecting the plaintiffs' claims. They resorted to a bunch of nonsense about fictional characters named Adam and Eve created out of mud and ribs by an imaginary god and relied on prevailing biases of the time. Not exactly the strongest of precedents. Snicker.

[tonestar100]

@TheLightAndTheWay "Not exactly the strongest of precedents." Gay wishful thinking. You have no case that even deals with gay marriage fool! It's the only precedent that matters. I've heard so many attempt to minimize Baker, but can't get it done. IT'S BINDING PRECEDENT. Period. Exclamation point. Your daffy argument is as worthless as your snicker, DOH, and whatever lame ass salutation you can dream up. The SCOTUS cases are heavily favored for Prop 8.

[gabbababble]

@tonestar100 It'll be 7-2 striking down Prop 8. You heard it here first.

[TheLightAndTheWay]

@tonestar100 Oh, and one more thing. The SCOTUS doesn't even have to find a constitutional right to ssm. Prop 8 is STILL doomed because it irrationally creates two classes of unequally protected same sex couples. And that's, yep, you guessed it: unconstitutional. Doh!

[biggsterboy]

@tonestar100 And what evidence did the proponents of Prop 8 actually present in Walker's court that could possibly result in a win for them in appeal?

[tonestar100]

@biggsterboy A better way of framing the question would be, what evidence could the proponents of Prop 8 possibly have presented to a supremely biased, activist judge like Vaughn Walker to change his mind? Knowing what we know about Walker, the answer to the question is painfully obvious.

[ch5342]

@tonestar100 "where proponents of Prop 8 Win BIG with the most scathing rebuke of the 9th Circuit's rulings you'll ever see." --> So lets recap a bit. Protectmarriage presented only one "expert" to support their points, and I think a second one backed down. Also, Protectmarriage was asked about the harms of gay marriage to society and I believe the answer to the judge was point bluntly "I dont know your honor." Polls are turning around also. Yeah, it looks good for Prop 8 proponents... NOT LOL

[tonestar100]

@ch5342 You like SO many hand wringing lay observers who have watched entirely too much court TV have no concept of the relative value of "witnesses" and "evidence" in this type of case. The SCOTUS will spend precious little time perusing the testimony of the liberal militant gay activist witnesses. Why? This case is about law, a LEGAL case. It doesn't turn on "witness testimony." It was Judge Walker's intermeddling that caused witnesses to appear. For show. All sizzle no bacon.

[sklanger]

@tonestar100 More to the point, Walker had no right to ignore the Supreme Court's admonition that -- when applying rational basis review -- "legislative choice is not subject to courtroom factfinding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data." FCC v. Beach Communications, 508 U.S. 307, 315 (1993). Since Walker purported to decide the case under rational basis review, witnesses testifying about "evidence" were entirely irrelevant.

[tonestar100]

@ch5342 I love how you use "polls" to buttress your position. But when it comes to allowing state citizens like Prop 8 and other states to vote on gay marriage YOUR SIDE fights tooth and nail to prevent it! Why? Because the proof is in the polls. Any state with gay marriage was because of activist judge's and cowardly legislators. Any state that puts it to a vote will vote against gay marriage. And you all know it. So do I.

[ch5342]

@tonestar100 "I love how you use "polls" --> Yeah, thats because now the tides are changing. More people are in favor of gay marriage and gay rights every day. You know that.

"YOUR SIDE fights tooth and nail to prevent it! Why?" --> Because civil rights of a minority should not be put to vote. The oppressing majority will always win. Simple, huh? Ever heard of the Constitution?

"because of activist judge's" --> Ridiculous. Your bigotry has its days counted and you know that.

[Hersheysd]

Matt, just to clarify, the hearing set for Dec 8th, is only about the videos, right?

[marriagenewswatch]

@Hersheysd Actually, no -- it could be about any number of issues, including standing.

[Hersheysd]

@marriagenewswatch That doesn't make sense. Why would they rehear the arguments? They heard arguments on standing as well as the merits on December 6, 2010.

[marriagenewswatch]

@Hersheysd That's true. But they have wide latitude in asking further questions, so they could ask for clarification on any number of issues.

[Hersheysd]

@marriagenewswatch Cool. Thanks for the clarification. :)



[AlphaGeminorium]

I was married in CA to my partner of 20 years (at the time). I fully intend to have CA turn right around and recognize my marriage again. After all, I have a VALID marriage certificate issued by that state.

[FuryFlurry1]

@AlphaGeminorium I thought the CA Supreme Court ruled that if you got a valid marriage certificate before the Prop 8 ban, you were protected under the grandfather clause?

[DJAbeClements]

thank you for making this update.

[the1tigglet]

Well once they get in there they will come to the same conclusion they did in the supreme court when DOMA was being defended. It

[jimmartin4]

@the1tigglet The effect could be far broader. If the 9th Circuit adopts the holding of the trial court in California, the resulting rule could potentially cover the States of California, Hawaii, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and Alaska. Several of which passed their own DOMA-type amendments to their state constitutions.

[the1tigglet]

@jimmartin4 oh didn't know that one, that's awesome so this one court could potentially remove all of the damaging DOMA type bills these repiggie governors have been working so hard on this whole year and a half!? That freakin makes my day! thanks!

[jimmartin4]

Excellent.  The 9th Circuit could potentially deal with the issue in a manner which overrides DOMA-type amendments to state constitutions.

[jriver0007]

Equality will always prevail in the long run.

[sklanger]

@jriver0007 Marriage equality for polygamists hasn't prevailed "in the long run" -- it hasn't prevailed since 1878.