PROP 8 OVERTURNED- Page 7

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 11:24am

I just wonder if the Concerned Women of America (and similar harpies of hate) are so concerned about redefining words, why haven't they come after Facebook? "Friend" wasn't a verb until Facebook came on the scene, but people aren't up in arms about that.

[romantico]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 11:37am

LOL! This is just adorable!

Christians Respond: "We Live in a Secular Dictatorship"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZnVlD5y7_Y&feature=

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 11:37am

"Concerned Women of America" - what a crock of sh*t!!

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 11:46am

That Chris Matthews interview (as well as the judge's ruling itself) just proves that there is no basis behind any of this except to discriminate against gay people.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 1:14pm

I just received this message from the Courage Campaign which helped fund the defense against Prop 8.

The American Family Association, part of the coalition of right-wing religious groups that spearheaded Proposition 8 in 2008, is asking its 2.3 million supporters to pressure Congress to impeach Judge Vaughn Walker.

Shockingly, AFA is using Judge Walker's sexual orientation to attack him as a "black-robed tyrant whose own lifestyle choices make it impossible to believe he could be impartial." Like the National Organization for Marriage, the AFA is rallying religious extremists to build a national backlash against Judge Walker's historic ruling striking down Prop 8.

These particular bat-sh*t crazy douche bags are not satisfied unless they have someone to hate.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 1:17pm

I love the notion that because he's gay he shouldn't have been to one trying this.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 2:02pm

Again...it shows that they have no logic except hatred and homophobia. Using that logic a straight jude would be biased too if he ruled in favor of Prop 8. Thinking like that the only judge qualified to preside over the case would be a eunich.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 2:35pm

"black-robed tyrant whose own lifestyle choices make it impossible to believe he could be impartial"

They shouldn' ought to talk about Clarence Thomas that way.

[shameless]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 2:40pm

Let them keep spouting this crap and exposing how ignorant and scared they are.

From the NY Times.

“Since those days, several published reports have stated that the judge is himself gay. In February, The San Francisco Chronicle called it an “open secret.” Critics have argued that his sexual orientation was a source of bias that should have disqualified him from hearing the Proposition 8 case. Judge Walker has declined to discuss the matter.

Monroe H. Freedman, an expert in legal ethics at Hofstra Law School, said that while bias could lead to recusal in rare cases, “you could say, ‘If a gay judge is disqualified, how about a straight judge?’ There isn’t anybody about whom somebody might say, ‘You’re not truly impartial in this case.’ ”

Mr. Freedman cited a 1975 opinion by Judge Constance Baker Motley of Federal District Court, an African-American jurist who was asked to disqualify herself from a lawsuit alleging unlawful discrimination. “If background or sex or race of each judge were, by definition, sufficient grounds for removal, no judge on this court could hear this case, or many others,” she wrote.

Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University Law School, said the time to raise such a challenge to Judge Vaughn had passed: if an issue is not brought up at trial, it is considered waived. “You can’t wait to see how a judge will rule and then say he’s the wrong judge,” Mr. Gillers said. “

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/us/06walker.html?_r=1&ref=us

[madbrian]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 2:42pm

I know facts are irrelevant to some, but Walker was originally nominated to the Federal bench in 1987 by Reagan. His nomination stalled due to backlash from Walker representing the US Olympic Committee in their suit to stop the Gay Olympics from using the word 'Olympics' (hence, the current 'Gay Games'). Dems considered him too insensitive to gay rights to sit on the bench.

[CountA]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 2:47pm

Oh, you're so very right. Without the democratic party, we would all be in hell on earth. Thank God that they tried to stop his nomination.

[romantico]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 2:57pm

Updated On: 8/6/10 at 02:57 PM

[romantico]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 2:58pm

Updated On: 8/6/10 at 02:58 PM

[romantico]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 3:00pm

Speaking of hateful Morons......

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/08/hate-groups-react.html

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 3:04pm

Just curious - what happens if the Supreme Court so-called "splits the baby" (which some commentators think Kennedy will do).

He says it is unconstitutional to deny gay unions all of the same rights and benefits of straight unions, but reserves the use of the word "marriage" for religious ceremonies.

So, everyone gets the same exact rights (including federal and state benefits)when a civil wedding is performed, but the word "marriage" is still reserved to straight couples who have a religious ceremony.

I know the word "marriage" is important - but is it really the word, or the rights, that are at issue here.

Just curious.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 3:10pm

I think that's fine, as long as "marriage" is simply a religious ceremony. It should then confer no more rights than a baptism or christening--have one or don't, but you have no rights or privileges till you stand in line with the gays down at City Hall.

Let's see how many "marriage preservationists" will get on board with that.

[madbrian]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 3:10pm

Honestly, I don't see that as a realistic outcome. Walker was very clear and thorough in his decision, pointing out the inherent inequity by denying MARRIAGE. It's not (just) about rights, it's about equality. Plus, five votes are needed, so it's not entirely just about Kennedy. I can't see the liberal justices going for what you describe. Plus, Kennedy is very concerned about his legacy, and he has written two previous major decisions regarding gay rights. I don't see him hesitating about a third.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 3:16pm

I wasn't really talking about a valid legal decision. I was more fantasizing about saying to all the protect-traditional-marriage folks, "Fine. You win. Marriage goes back into the church and has no validity outside of it."

I imagine it would instantly make it abundantly clear how it's about power, and not about tradition or anything else they pretend.

[madbrian]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 3:20pm

Here would be my 'compromise': marriage is civil, and available to all, equally. Churches can then come up with their own new word(s) for the religious aspect.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 3:27pm

That's fine, too.

Or everyone who opposes marriage equality can just go f*ck themselves. That's probably simplest.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 3:28pm

MB - I hope you are right.

Kennedy is one jurist, but the Perry Opinion seemed to be specifically written for him.

Here is the discussion. I am not sure if I agree with it, but it is worth reading.

Further Thoughts on Perry

[shameless]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 3:43pm

YWIW, before I started following the Prop 8 trial and reading the blogged transcripts everyday, I was one of the people that said, “I really don’t care what you call it as long as you give me my rights. The same rights as everyone else. After all, it’s just a word.”

Now, I realize that it’s much more than a word. If I have to settle for a civil union or civil partnership, my commitment to the person I love is never going to be treated equally or given the same value, in society, as the commitments of people who are allowed to marry.

My union will be treated as less important and less meaningful. If they're truly the same, then why do they need different names?

Edit: And that last question wasn't specifically aimed at you, YWIW.

Updated On: 8/6/10 at 03:43 PM

[D2]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 3:52pm

"Or everyone who opposes marriage equality can just go f*ck themselves. That's probably simplest."

I'm with Reg. Will you "civil union" me, Reg?

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 3:53pm

Shameless, I completely get that.

I am playing a bit of devil's advocate here.

But, I could see a scenario that when you get a license, it is a license for a civil union - which confers the same rights to all couples, gay or straight. When you enter into a civil union, you receive the rights and benefits that we had traditionally associate with a marriage and marriage license.

If your house of worship wants to bless the ceremony, that is up to you and your religion. But, by taking the religious component out of the discussion, I think it becomes far more black and white.

Ideally, marriage is marriage, gay or straight. But, I think there is a case to distinguish between the religious ceremony of marriage, and the civil act of recognizing the union.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 3:54pm

Also, unless I'm crazy, can't "marriage" also mean the joining of ANY two things? "The marriage of peanut butter and jelly revolutionized brown bag lunches" or whatever.