08-04-2010, 03:04 PM | #261 |
Timed Out
How Do You Identify?:
Permanently Banned 10/24/2010 Preferred Pronoun?:
She. Relationship Status:
Married (one of 18,000) Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Atascadero, CA
Posts: 4,933
Thanks: 2,309
Thanked 7,109 Times in 2,327 Posts
Rep Power: 0 |
praise harvey.
thank you to the real Jesus. for the love you meant it to be. |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SuperFemme For This Useful Post: |
08-04-2010, 03:11 PM | #262 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
A.G - Stone Butch - GenderFuck Preferred Pronoun?:
Hym, Hyz...or, just b respectable, it's not that hard.. Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Columbus
Posts: 2,280
Thanks: 2,227
Thanked 3,183 Times in 1,287 Posts
Rep Power: 21474853 |
Sweet Sweet Music to my ears...!!
I think my headache's gone ...
__________________
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Rook For This Useful Post: |
08-04-2010, 03:13 PM | #263 |
Junior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Humanlike Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: In the South
Posts: 53
Thanks: 87
Thanked 120 Times in 41 Posts
Rep Power: 347 |
Ultimately, the judge concluded that Proposition 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. … Because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”]
Praise the California Constitution.
__________________
No matter who you are... |
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Manul For This Useful Post: |
08-04-2010, 03:14 PM | #264 |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
Butch Lesbian Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Exit Zero
Posts: 1,267
Thanks: 1,694
Thanked 1,617 Times in 633 Posts
Rep Power: 226199 |
Fuck You Maggie!
Hahahahahaha
__________________
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Cyclopea For This Useful Post: |
08-04-2010, 03:20 PM | #265 |
Junior Member
How Do You Identify?:
♪ Preferred Pronoun?:
Name, please, English is not my language :) . Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Europe
Posts: 30
Thanks: 62
Thanked 37 Times in 17 Posts
Rep Power: 478 |
Oh, YES!!!
Gotta go and spread the news in other parts of the world... YES!!! |
The Following User Says Thank You to Nawen For This Useful Post: |
08-04-2010, 03:27 PM | #266 |
The Planet's Technical Bubba
How Do You Identify?:
FTM Preferred Pronoun?:
He/Him/Geek Relationship Status:
Married to my forever! Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 5,440
Thanks: 2,929
Thanked 10,743 Times in 3,176 Posts
Rep Power: 21474856 |
So now it will go to Appeals and then onwards to the Supreme Court, maybe? Yes? And if it reaches Supreme Court and they say it's unconstitutional... Then finally, DOMA will be killed and it will become federal law?
__________________
|
08-04-2010, 03:28 PM | #267 |
Infamous Member
How Do You Identify?:
Human Preferred Pronoun?:
He Relationship Status:
Very Married Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Where I want to be
Posts: 8,155
Thanks: 47,491
Thanked 29,299 Times in 6,640 Posts
Rep Power: 21474859 |
He just accepted a stay on behalf of the bigots..
__________________
"Many proposals have been made to us to adopt your laws, your religion, your manners and your customs. We would be better pleased with beholding the good effects of these doctrines in your own practices, than with hearing you talk about them".
~Old Tassel, Chief of the Tsalagi (Cherokee) |
08-04-2010, 03:37 PM | #268 | |
Junior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Humanlike Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: In the South
Posts: 53
Thanks: 87
Thanked 120 Times in 41 Posts
Rep Power: 347 |
Quote:
"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians."
__________________
No matter who you are... |
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Manul For This Useful Post: |
08-04-2010, 03:38 PM | #269 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
. Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: .
Posts: 2,905
Thanks: 4,151
Thanked 5,831 Times in 1,721 Posts
Rep Power: 21474853 |
__________________
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. - H. L. Mencken |
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Mister Bent For This Useful Post: |
08-04-2010, 03:43 PM | #270 |
The Planet's Technical Bubba
How Do You Identify?:
FTM Preferred Pronoun?:
He/Him/Geek Relationship Status:
Married to my forever! Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 5,440
Thanks: 2,929
Thanked 10,743 Times in 3,176 Posts
Rep Power: 21474856 |
That was to be expected. Both sides said that whatever the result they were going to appeal. I expect this will be taken right to the Supreme Court itself.
__________________
|
08-04-2010, 03:44 PM | #271 |
Timed Out - TOS Drama
How Do You Identify?:
... Preferred Pronoun?:
... Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: ...
Posts: 6,573
Thanks: 30,737
Thanked 22,958 Times in 5,020 Posts
Rep Power: 0 |
PROP 8 TRIAL TRACKER...A SNIPIT
UPDATE (2:23): The American Foundation for Equal Rights presser with Olson/Boies/plaintiffs has started. I will provide notable updates for those of you who can’t watch/are out and about.
Chad Griffin is speaking. He’s discussing principles that inspired the marches in Selma, the Stonewall riots, and other civil rights activism. UPDATE (2:29): Chief Judge Walker issued a temporary stay: Defendant-intervenors (“proponents”) have moved to stay the court’s judgment pending appeal. Doc #705. They noticed the motion for October 21, 2010 and moved to shorten time. Doc #706. The motion to shorten time is GRANTED. Plaintiffs, plaintiff-intervenor and defendants are DIRECTED to submit their responses to the motion to stay on or before August 6, 2010, at which time the motion will stand submitted without a hearing unless otherwise ordered. The clerk shall STAY entry of judgment herein until the motion to stay pending appeal, Doc #705, has been decided. CNN’s legal analyst, Andrew Cohen, says this means things are on hold for the time being, and they will give both sides a moment to make their case on whether marriages should be allowed or not before the next decision. |
The Following User Says Thank You to MsTinkerbelly For This Useful Post: |
08-04-2010, 03:49 PM | #272 |
Infamous Member
How Do You Identify?:
Human Preferred Pronoun?:
He Relationship Status:
Very Married Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Where I want to be
Posts: 8,155
Thanks: 47,491
Thanked 29,299 Times in 6,640 Posts
Rep Power: 21474859 |
If DOMA from the Mass ruling doesn't make it first, this still has to through the Appeals of the 9th Circuit Court, but it should then go to the Supreme Court.
__________________
"Many proposals have been made to us to adopt your laws, your religion, your manners and your customs. We would be better pleased with beholding the good effects of these doctrines in your own practices, than with hearing you talk about them".
~Old Tassel, Chief of the Tsalagi (Cherokee) |
08-04-2010, 03:58 PM | #273 | |
Junior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Humanlike Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: In the South
Posts: 53
Thanks: 87
Thanked 120 Times in 41 Posts
Rep Power: 347 |
Here's a statement from Governor Schwarzenegger:
Quote:
__________________
No matter who you are... |
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Manul For This Useful Post: |
08-04-2010, 04:05 PM | #274 |
Timed Out
How Do You Identify?:
Permanently Banned 10/24/2010 Preferred Pronoun?:
She. Relationship Status:
Married (one of 18,000) Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Atascadero, CA
Posts: 4,933
Thanks: 2,309
Thanked 7,109 Times in 2,327 Posts
Rep Power: 0 |
page 135
Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to
deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples. FF 76, 79-80; Romer, 517 US at 634 (“[L]aws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.”). Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. CONCLUSION Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite- sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. |
08-04-2010, 04:08 PM | #275 |
Timed Out - TOS Drama
How Do You Identify?:
... Preferred Pronoun?:
... Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: ...
Posts: 6,573
Thanks: 30,737
Thanked 22,958 Times in 5,020 Posts
Rep Power: 0 |
Not language I normally use, but FUCK the Morman Church
Mormon church `regrets' Calif. gay marriage ruling
Associated Press Writer Brock Vergakis, Associated Press Writer – 16 mins ago SALT LAKE CITY – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says it regrets a federal judge's ruling overturning a ban on gay marriage in California. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling Wednesday in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, violated their civil rights. In 2008, church leaders urged Mormons to give their time and money to support Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote. Church members were among the campaign's most vigorous volunteers and by some estimates contributed tens of millions of dollars to the effort. In a statement, the church said the decision reopens a vigorous debate about over the right of the people to define marriage. |
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to MsTinkerbelly For This Useful Post: |
08-04-2010, 04:32 PM | #276 |
Timed Out - TOS Drama
How Do You Identify?:
... Preferred Pronoun?:
... Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: ...
Posts: 6,573
Thanks: 30,737
Thanked 22,958 Times in 5,020 Posts
Rep Power: 0 |
FROM THE PROP 8 TRIAL TRACKER
UPDATE (2:40): Back to the presser: Olson is at the press conference praising Walker for presiding with “meticulous care, sensitivity, with concern for the rights of every party in that courtroom, listening to the evidence.” Questions coming.
UPDATE (2:50): WSJ asks why they can win at the SCOTUS given the conservative nature. Boies makes a joke about Bush v. Gore/split of justices. Goes onto note that the fundamental right to marry is established… this case does not ask the court to establish a new right (Adam: see the excerpt I pasted in from this decision above). Boies: We challenged this case based on three issues. Fundamental right to marry? Already established. Does fundamental right to marry help children? No dispute. And does depriving gays and lesbians the right to marry establish any compelling government interest? We know that not to be true. UPDATE (2:56): Notable on the stay issue: Question: Reports that a couple is trying to be married right now at City Hall. What’s the likelihood that marriages can occur given the stay, and will the plaintiffs go get married? Olson: Judge stayed effect of his decision until he can hear our side on the stay. The case is going to go up to the Court of Appeals. We will fight hard so the constitutional rights vindicated by the 138-page, careful, analytical opinion will be brought to fruition as soon as possible. We will say to the Court of Appeals that if there is going to be any delay at all, it should be exremely short. We need an appellate court decision right away, and a Supreme Court decision right away… we’re going to fight to vindicate these rights as quickly as we possibly can. Question: Did Judge rule on suspect class? Boies: Yes. Judge ruled that even if it was not a suspect class, and strict scrutiny was not required, no rational basis for depriving gay couples of the right to marry. Yes, judge held it was a suspect class, but did so under even the most deferential standard of review. Question: Anything that will come out of this decision that will affect professional gay advocacy groups? Griffin: We would not be here today without for the advocates over the past decades. Question: On impact generally Olson: This trial has helped to educate the people of this state and people of the US. People of the US who will read this opinion and teach it in law schools and civics classes will begin to appreciate the harm this has done to our citizenry. Not giving advice to advocacy groups, but we feel very good about the fact that people watching this trial have said “oh, that’s what it’s all about. Why would we withhold the opportunity for loving couples to be married?” Question: On witnesses and trial generally Olson: Judge pointed out that two of the witnesses our opponents put on ended up agreeing with most of the propositions advanced by the plaintiffs… judge carefully examined interests and evidence on each side of the case… placed very little value on the evidence brought by proponents of Proposition 8… even found that one witness was not qualified to testify as an expert witness. Very careful examination of not just the legal but factual issues as well. UPDATE (3:08): Question: NOM says this ruling jeopardizes the marriage laws of 45 states. How would you respond? Boies: This decision grants rights to be married. As the court held, there is no harm to anyone’s rights as a result of this decision. In fact, it increases the stability and value of marriage for our society. No legitimate interest of the state in discriminating against a group of our citizens. That’s what even the defendant’s witnesses admitted, and that’s what the judge found. Everyone oughta read this opinion. It’s long but clear and sets the facts forth that everyone in this country might think a bout. I’d challenge anyone putting out those kinds of press releases (speaking to NOM) to read this opinion and tell me what they disagree with and what they have left to say. Shouldn’t just ignore this opinion, but take a look at this opinion. The press conference has now concluded. Olson and Boies will fly to LA to speak at a rally there. |
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to MsTinkerbelly For This Useful Post: |
08-04-2010, 04:36 PM | #277 |
Infamous Member
How Do You Identify?:
femme Relationship Status:
attached Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,896
Thanks: 29,046
Thanked 13,118 Times in 3,391 Posts
Rep Power: 21474857 |
UPDATE (2:02 PST): Reading through the decision, Walker is quoting the Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut decisions in ruling that the freedom to marry is protected under the Due Process clause, and generally goes on at length to discuss how restrictions with regard to race have been swept away, and and for a woman, “a woman’s legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as a union of equals.”
He goes onto write: The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. FF 21. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed. The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. FF 19-20, 34-35. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. FF 33. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals. [...] Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages. |
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Soon For This Useful Post: |
08-04-2010, 04:45 PM | #278 |
Infamous Member
How Do You Identify?:
Woman Preferred Pronoun?:
HER - SHE Relationship Status:
Relating Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: CA & AZ I'm a Snowbird
Posts: 5,408
Thanks: 11,826
Thanked 10,830 Times in 3,200 Posts
Rep Power: 21474856 |
|
The Following User Says Thank You to AtLast For This Useful Post: |
08-04-2010, 04:59 PM | #279 |
Timed Out
How Do You Identify?:
Permanently Banned 10/24/2010 Preferred Pronoun?:
She. Relationship Status:
Married (one of 18,000) Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Atascadero, CA
Posts: 4,933
Thanks: 2,309
Thanked 7,109 Times in 2,327 Posts
Rep Power: 0 |
we are headed to a rally in a few hours.
Help! I need sign ideas. |
08-04-2010, 05:01 PM | #280 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
pervert butch feminist woman Preferred Pronoun?:
see above Relationship Status:
independent entity Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oakland
Posts: 1,826
Thanks: 4,068
Thanked 7,656 Times in 1,522 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852 |
Well...........it's certainly an interesting read......damn.....
Judge Walker certainly made it absolutely clear Prop 8 is unconstitutional (due process and equal protection). He found no merit in anything about Prop 8. CONCLUSION Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Shepard Smith on Fake News is going to do a segment now.
__________________
We are everywhere We are different I do not care if resistance is futile I will not assimilate |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Toughy For This Useful Post: |
|
|