-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
I'm Over H8, some still aren't.
Author: Raine
Date: 08/05/2010 12:47:37
Yesterday Evening, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Proposition 8, passed by voters in 2008, which prohibited same-sex couples from marrying in California. The case is expected to go before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then onward to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Until then, and after a 2 day stay, it seems that everyone in California can get married. Some excerpts from the Judge's ruling:
There is more, But I think you get the idea. The judge who ruled on this case is a bit interesting. From his Wiki Page: Yes, he is a gay judge originally nominated by Reagan and ultimately appointed by President George H. W. Bush. He is also considered Libertarian leaning.
I fully expect the entire spectrum of conservative punditry to scream *activist* Judge, just as our dear old reliably tolerant friend Newt Gingrich has. Yes, he's right, of course. He has the right to marry one woman -- after another after another after another....
What Newt FAILS to realize, or is willfully ignoring due to his political ideology is something that the judge dealt with specifically: civil and fundamental rights of people may not be subject to a vote. Imagine how Newt would feel if we all voted for his right to marry a 6th time. People like Newt, and all the other conservatives who are yearning for the repeal of the 14th amendment ought to read it, and remember that it applies to THEM as well:
We aren't going back. From a wonderful column over at the Daily Beast:
The Constitution isn't just for some - it's for all, just like liberty and justice.
& 
Raine
Until then, and after a 2 day stay, it seems that everyone in California can get married. Some excerpts from the Judge's ruling:
On why voters cannot ban gay marriage:
That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote."
On why the state has an interest in fostering marriage:
Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple's choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents.
On whether homosexuality is a choice:
Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.
Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners.
On why domestic partnerships are an inadequate substitute for marriage:
Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
On social stigmas involved in the case:
Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents.
On the judge's response to the definition of marriage as between a man and woman:
Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.
There is more, But I think you get the idea. The judge who ruled on this case is a bit interesting. From his Wiki Page:
Walker's original nomination to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987 stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics". Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his alleged "insensitivity" to gays and the poor. Years later, the San Francisco Chronicle noted the irony of this opposition due to Walker's sexual orientation.
I fully expect the entire spectrum of conservative punditry to scream *activist* Judge, just as our dear old reliably tolerant friend Newt Gingrich has.
Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they've affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
What Newt FAILS to realize, or is willfully ignoring due to his political ideology is something that the judge dealt with specifically: civil and fundamental rights of people may not be subject to a vote. Imagine how Newt would feel if we all voted for his right to marry a 6th time. People like Newt, and all the other conservatives who are yearning for the repeal of the 14th amendment ought to read it, and remember that it applies to THEM as well:
14th Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And this isn’t just a victory for gays and lesbians. Walker’s ruling is made on explicitly feminist grounds. The restriction of marriage to heterosexual couples, he finds, “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 religious right has always known that gay rights and feminism are deeply intertwined, because both threaten the idea that gender roles are God-given, sharply delineated and immutable. Part of the brilliance of Walker’s decision is the way it roots out the premises of the anti-gay marriage argument and demolishes them.
The Constitution isn't just for some - it's for all, just like liberty and justice.
& Raine
Comments:
Order comments Newest to Oldest Refresh Comments
Comment by 
Will in Chicago on 08/05/2010 12:58:48
Will in Chicago on 08/05/2010 12:58:48
Good morning, bloggers!!!
Excellent post, Raine! I find it interesting that the 14th Amendment has come up in this case even as there is a push by Senator Lindsey Graham and others to amend or repeal the 14th Amendment. (How about stating that all the rights in the constitution only apply to biological persons and not corporations? That ought to put a damper on the GOP actions on this.)
I think that the only way that my rights can be secure is if the rights of others are secure. We are the guardians of each other's liberty, and denying rights to one segment of society diminishes us all.
Excellent post, Raine! I find it interesting that the 14th Amendment has come up in this case even as there is a push by Senator Lindsey Graham and others to amend or repeal the 14th Amendment. (How about stating that all the rights in the constitution only apply to biological persons and not corporations? That ought to put a damper on the GOP actions on this.)
I think that the only way that my rights can be secure is if the rights of others are secure. We are the guardians of each other's liberty, and denying rights to one segment of society diminishes us all.
Comment by 
Raine on 08/05/2010 13:05:45
Raine on 08/05/2010 13:05:45
Thanks Will!
BTW, I added another link to the blog, I thought that it was a particularly nice take on the judges rules as to why this was a huge step forward for ALL americans.
BTW, I added another link to the blog, I thought that it was a particularly nice take on the judges rules as to why this was a huge step forward for ALL americans.
Comment by 
velveeta jones on 08/05/2010 13:14:14
velveeta jones on 08/05/2010 13:14:14
Gooooood Morning 4Fers!
Why, that damn activist judge!
Why, that damn activist judge!
Comment by Raine on 08/05/2010 13:17:04
Raine on 08/05/2010 13:17:04
Hi Vel! Will you marry me???
Vel! Will you marry me???
Comment by 
wickedpam on 08/05/2010 13:18:08
wickedpam on 08/05/2010 13:18:08
Morning 
Comment by Raine on 08/05/2010 13:30:36
Raine on 08/05/2010 13:30:36
I have to admit, I am just giddy about this ruling! 
Comment by 
TriSec on 08/05/2010 13:36:11
TriSec on 08/05/2010 13:36:11
Greetings, comrades.
Comment by Raine on 08/05/2010 13:42:40
Grayson made a cute little gay joke!
"Well everybody knows, Levi is a good looking guy..."
Raine on 08/05/2010 13:42:40
Grayson made a cute little gay joke! "Well everybody knows, Levi is a good looking guy..."
Comment by Raine on 08/05/2010 13:54:16
Raine on 08/05/2010 13:54:16
Debris fell in Midtown the next day.
Comment by Raine on 08/05/2010 13:59:09
Raine on 08/05/2010 13:59:09
YES! This is the other thing that I REALLY loved about this ruling. Marriage is NOT -- and has not been for a LONG -- time about procreation.
That was why I posted the article from the Daily Beast.
That was why I posted the article from the Daily Beast.
Comment by TriSec on 08/05/2010 14:04:46
TriSec on 08/05/2010 14:04:46
I have an unusally strong sense of foreboding today...feels like something bad is about to happen.
Either that, or it's my annual birthday depression, which has been rather strong the past 3 years or so.
Either that, or it's my annual birthday depression, which has been rather strong the past 3 years or so.
Comment by wickedpam on 08/05/2010 14:04:48
wickedpam on 08/05/2010 14:04:48
I wonder if that will have any effect on adoption by singles
Comment by wickedpam on 08/05/2010 14:05:33
please don't say that, I've been depressed for a week now and can't shake it
wickedpam on 08/05/2010 14:05:33
Quote by TriSec:
I have an unusally strong sense of foreboding today...feels like something bad is about to happen.
Either that, or it's my annual birthday depression, which has been rather strong the past 3 years or so.
please don't say that, I've been depressed for a week now and can't shake it
Comment by velveeta jones on 08/05/2010 14:10:53
OHHH! Can I have two wives????!!!
velveeta jones on 08/05/2010 14:10:53
Quote by Raine:
Hi
OHHH! Can I have two wives????!!!
Comment by Raine on 08/05/2010 14:25:40
Raine on 08/05/2010 14:25:40
Regarding the 9/11 responders bill...
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| I Give Up - 9/11 Responders Bill | ||||
| ||||
Comment by Raine on 08/05/2010 14:26:28
And I just want one! 
Raine on 08/05/2010 14:26:28
Quote by velveeta jones:Quote by Raine:
Hi
OHHH! Can I have two wives????!!!
Comment by Raine on 08/05/2010 14:28:22
Ok you two. 
The beatings WILL continue until morale improves.
Raine on 08/05/2010 14:28:22
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by TriSec:
I have an unusally strong sense of foreboding today...feels like something bad is about to happen.
Either that, or it's my annual birthday depression, which has been rather strong the past 3 years or so.
please don't say that, I've been depressed for a week now and can't shake it
The beatings WILL continue until morale improves.
Comment by 
BobR on 08/05/2010 14:29:42
yes, but you'll have to become a Mormon.
BobR on 08/05/2010 14:29:42
Quote by velveeta jones:Quote by Raine:
Hi
OHHH! Can I have two wives????!!!
yes, but you'll have to become a Mormon.
Comment by wickedpam on 08/05/2010 14:30:51
wickedpam on 08/05/2010 14:30:51
Jurisdiction is a place (ie the city, county, state or nation) not a person (ie law enforecment persons)
Comment by wickedpam on 08/05/2010 14:38:23
wickedpam on 08/05/2010 14:38:23
Quote by Raine:Ok you two.Quote by wickedpam:Quote by TriSec:
I have an unusally strong sense of foreboding today...feels like something bad is about to happen.
Either that, or it's my annual birthday depression, which has been rather strong the past 3 years or so.
please don't say that, I've been depressed for a week now and can't shake it
The beatings WILL continue until morale improves.
Comment by Raine on 08/05/2010 14:43:06
I want to add this addendum:
The reason why the dems called for the 2/3 vote was to make sure the GOP could not add a million amendments to water down the damn bill. I know it's a bit nuanced, and I don't know if I agree, but the reality is this: MANY progressives have been very upset about the watering down of the legislation passed in the house and the senate. HCR and Wall Street reform are 2 major examples.
In this case, the house Dems took that progressive stand -- and it failed.
Just something to ponder.
Raine on 08/05/2010 14:43:06
Quote by Raine:
Regarding the 9/11 responders bill...
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c I Give Up - 9/11 Responders Bill
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party
I want to add this addendum:
The reason why the dems called for the 2/3 vote was to make sure the GOP could not add a million amendments to water down the damn bill. I know it's a bit nuanced, and I don't know if I agree, but the reality is this: MANY progressives have been very upset about the watering down of the legislation passed in the house and the senate. HCR and Wall Street reform are 2 major examples.
In this case, the house Dems took that progressive stand -- and it failed.
Just something to ponder.
Comment by velveeta jones on 08/05/2010 14:45:25
Like Glenn Beck?
Oh.... damn.
velveeta jones on 08/05/2010 14:45:25
Quote by BobR:Quote by velveeta jones:Quote by Raine:
Hi
OHHH! Can I have two wives????!!!
yes, but you'll have to become a Mormon.
Like Glenn Beck?
Oh.... damn.
Comment by TriSec on 08/05/2010 14:48:05
:shuffles off obediently:
TriSec on 08/05/2010 14:48:05
Quote by Raine:
Ok you two.
The beatings WILL continue until morale improves.
:shuffles off obediently:
Comment by TriSec on 08/05/2010 14:48:56
Is he really ? That's going to move him up a few clicks on my enemies list.
TriSec on 08/05/2010 14:48:56
Quote by velveeta jones:
Like Glenn Beck?
Oh.... damn.
Is he really ? That's going to move him up a few clicks on my enemies list.
Comment by Raine on 08/05/2010 14:57:03
He is.
Raine on 08/05/2010 14:57:03
Quote by TriSec:Quote by velveeta jones:
Like Glenn Beck?
Oh.... damn.
Is he really ? That's going to move him up a few clicks on my enemies list.
In 1999, Beck married his second wife, Tania. After they went looking for a faith on a church tour together, they "settled on Mormonism", and joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in October 1999, partly at the urging of his daughter Mary. Beck would be baptized by his old friend, and current-day co-worker Pat Gray, in an emotional ceremony. In 2008, Beck created the CD/DVD An Unlikely Mormon: The Conversion Story of Glenn Beck, detailing how he was transformed by the "healing power of Jesus Christ."
The couple have two children, Raphe (who is adopted) and Cheyenne. Beck currently resides in a $4.2 million dollar colonial mansion in New Canaan, Connecticut, with his wife and four children.
Beck announced in July 2010 that he had been diagnosed with macular dystrophy, saying "A couple of weeks ago I went to the doctor because of my eyes, I can't focus my eyes." The disorder can make it difficult to read, drive or recognize faces.
Comment by BobR on 08/05/2010 14:58:02
really? He wasn't already at the top of the list?
BobR on 08/05/2010 14:58:02
Quote by TriSec:Quote by velveeta jones:
Like Glenn Beck?
Oh.... damn.
Is he really ? That's going to move him up a few clicks on my enemies list.
really? He wasn't already at the top of the list?
Comment by Raine on 08/05/2010 14:58:13
and now this must happen...
Raine on 08/05/2010 14:58:13
Quote by TriSec:Quote by Raine:
Ok you two.
The beatings WILL continue until morale improves.
:shuffles off obediently:
Comment by Will in Chicago on 08/05/2010 14:59:05
Will in Chicago on 08/05/2010 14:59:05
Some good news.
First, I have a screening interview on Monday for a middle school teaching position. Mind you, if I get the job it will be a haul from where I am living, but I would not have a problem with that at all. (I can always move closer to the job.)
Secondly, some of you may know that Nicole Sandler is still broadcasting at 6 PM to 8 PM Eastern at Radio or Not from Monday through Thursday. Kenneth Picklesimer, along with Danielle "the Left Nick Check" and Shane-O will be on "Turn Up the Night With Kenny Pick" at that time on Friday. I will be on the show sometime between 6:30 PM and 7:30 PM Central commenting on the issues.
First, I have a screening interview on Monday for a middle school teaching position. Mind you, if I get the job it will be a haul from where I am living, but I would not have a problem with that at all. (I can always move closer to the job.)
Secondly, some of you may know that Nicole Sandler is still broadcasting at 6 PM to 8 PM Eastern at Radio or Not from Monday through Thursday. Kenneth Picklesimer, along with Danielle "the Left Nick Check" and Shane-O will be on "Turn Up the Night With Kenny Pick" at that time on Friday. I will be on the show sometime between 6:30 PM and 7:30 PM Central commenting on the issues.
Comment by Raine on 08/05/2010 14:59:27
Raine on 08/05/2010 14:59:27
What the hell was that? NYEAHNNNNNNNN AAAHHHHH
Comment by Raine on 08/05/2010 15:03:03
That is great, Will! Shane-O has asked me to be on his show, I said yes, but I am still quite nervous about it.
More importantly, I SO very much want for you to get the job. You have worked so hard to find a gig, I really want this for you.
Raine on 08/05/2010 15:03:03
Quote by Will in Chicago:
Some good news.
First, I have a screening interview on Monday for a middle school teaching position. Mind you, if I get the job it will be a haul from where I am living, but I would not have a problem with that at all. (I can always move closer to the job.)
Secondly, some of you may know that Nicole Sandler is still broadcasting at 6 PM to 8 PM Eastern at Radio or Not from Monday through Thursday. Kenneth Picklesimer, along with Danielle "the Left Nick Check" and Shane-O will be on "Turn Up the Night With Kenny Pick" at that time on Friday. I will be on the show sometime between 6:30 PM and 7:30 PM Central commenting on the issues.
That is great, Will! Shane-O has asked me to be on his show, I said yes, but I am still quite nervous about it.
More importantly, I SO very much want for you to get the job. You have worked so hard to find a gig, I really want this for you.
Comment by TriSec on 08/05/2010 15:10:59
TriSec on 08/05/2010 15:10:59
I'm sorry to say that Mormons are among my few remaining prejudices...
I've had limited experience with them, but the few that I do personally know are as batshit crazy as Michelle Bachmann. Nothing in my experience has changed my predetermined opinion of them.
And no, Beck might not even be in my personal top ten...I've maintained an enemies list since about 1985. (Politically, he's up there, though.)
I've had limited experience with them, but the few that I do personally know are as batshit crazy as Michelle Bachmann. Nothing in my experience has changed my predetermined opinion of them.
And no, Beck might not even be in my personal top ten...I've maintained an enemies list since about 1985. (Politically, he's up there, though.)
Comment by wickedpam on 08/05/2010 15:11:11
wickedpam on 08/05/2010 15:11:11
That's great news Will 
Comment by wickedpam on 08/05/2010 15:22:55
wickedpam on 08/05/2010 15:22:55
I do enjoy George Takai(sp) he even makes me laugh doing those commercials for that HDTV
Comment by Raine on 08/05/2010 15:23:33
Raine on 08/05/2010 15:23:33
I wish Clint were around for the George Takei interview.
He seriously does the best , "My O My" EVER! (aside from George Takei )
He seriously does the best , "My O My" EVER! (aside from George Takei )
Comment by 
livingonli on 08/05/2010 15:24:31
livingonli on 08/05/2010 15:24:31
Good morning folks.
Nice to hear Sulu's take on gay marriage. The heatwave is back with a chance of thunderstorms and I am pondering seeing Lizz's birthday show at Comix tonight.
Nice to hear Sulu's take on gay marriage. The heatwave is back with a chance of thunderstorms and I am pondering seeing Lizz's birthday show at Comix tonight.
Comment by BobR on 08/05/2010 15:28:43
BobR on 08/05/2010 15:28:43
Quote by Will in Chicago:
Some good news.
First, I have a screening interview on Monday for a middle school teaching position. Mind you, if I get the job it will be a haul from where I am living, but I would not have a problem with that at all. (I can always move closer to the job.)
Secondly, some of you may know that Nicole Sandler is still broadcasting at 6 PM to 8 PM Eastern at Radio or Not from Monday through Thursday. Kenneth Picklesimer, along with Danielle "the Left Nick Check" and Shane-O will be on "Turn Up the Night With Kenny Pick" at that time on Friday. I will be on the show sometime between 6:30 PM and 7:30 PM Central commenting on the issues.
Comment by BobR on 08/05/2010 15:32:05
BobR on 08/05/2010 15:32:05
I think the "he went against the will of the people" complaint is the most specious of all. 100 years ago, the will of the people in the south was to keep blacks "in their place". The will of the people can't override the guarantees of equal treatment written into the Constitution.
Comment by TriSec on 08/05/2010 15:33:36
TriSec on 08/05/2010 15:33:36
I've got an eye to the sky today....it's feeling like I just pulled a not-dry-enough wool blanket out of the dryer and threw it over my shoulders. We're expecting more violent storms as the front goes through later today. (It looks like it's back around the Adirondacks now.)
But, there's no climate change, right?
(I think I'm the most northerly blogger here, but has anyone tried to see the Northern Lights? We've had thick clouds the last 2 nights. They may be visible further south, if the solar storm is as powerful as they say it is.)
But, there's no climate change, right?
(I think I'm the most northerly blogger here, but has anyone tried to see the Northern Lights? We've had thick clouds the last 2 nights. They may be visible further south, if the solar storm is as powerful as they say it is.)
Comment by Raine on 08/05/2010 15:39:18
Raine on 08/05/2010 15:39:18
Just put this up on my FB page. I would appreciate a little love. The video:
My Comment:
My Comment:
Don't think for one minute this approach hasn't changed from the RW. If you Do think it has, show me proof.
I believe that EVERYONE should vote. EVERYONE. I believe Every vote should be counted, and that everyone should get off their ass and make use of their constitutional rights.
When progressives say they aren't going to vote because they aren't getting everything they wanted, remember one thing: you are doing the Right Wings work.
Progress only promises one thing: moving forward.
Comment by Raine on 08/05/2010 15:46:46
Not for nothing, but the will of the people is quite interesting.
We had a revolution for our freedoms that went against the will of the people. In that case it was the the British people.
Think about that for a minute. EVERYTHING that made this country great was against the will of the so called "people" --
In this country, I believe this -- the meek shall inherit the earth. It's taking a little longer than I thought, I suppose.
IT always seems to.
We have always been fighting against those that would take this nation down. Somehow, we have risen above. I will remain a part of that fight. I believe our greatest fights still remain ahead of us.
Raine on 08/05/2010 15:46:46
Quote by BobR:
I think the "he went against the will of the people" complaint is the most specious of all. 100 years ago, the will of the people in the south was to keep blacks "in their place". The will of the people can't override the guarantees of equal treatment written into the Constitution.
We had a revolution for our freedoms that went against the will of the people. In that case it was the the British people.
Think about that for a minute. EVERYTHING that made this country great was against the will of the so called "people" --
In this country, I believe this -- the meek shall inherit the earth. It's taking a little longer than I thought, I suppose.
IT always seems to. We have always been fighting against those that would take this nation down. Somehow, we have risen above. I will remain a part of that fight. I believe our greatest fights still remain ahead of us.
Comment by livingonli on 08/05/2010 15:58:02
livingonli on 08/05/2010 15:58:02
Cross posted the Weyrich clip on my FB page.
I've seen Mondo on facebook even if he hasn't been on the blog much.
I've seen Mondo on facebook even if he hasn't been on the blog much.
Comment by Raine on 08/05/2010 16:11:16
Thanks Liv and Mala.
Raine on 08/05/2010 16:11:16
Quote by livingonli:
Cross posted the Weyrich clip on my FB page.
I've seen Mondo on facebook even if he hasn't been on the blog much.
Thanks Liv and Mala.
Comment by wickedpam on 08/05/2010 16:14:19
your welcome
wickedpam on 08/05/2010 16:14:19
Quote by Raine:Quote by livingonli:
Cross posted the Weyrich clip on my FB page.
I've seen Mondo on facebook even if he hasn't been on the blog much.
Thanks Liv and Mala.
your welcome
Comment by BobR on 08/05/2010 16:19:33
BobR on 08/05/2010 16:19:33
Comment by Al from WV on 08/05/2010 17:56:25
It appears to me that nothing stops you now, if this decision stands. The words range much farther than a man marrying a man and a woman marrying a woman and only that.
The sad part is that he just relegated the Constitution to be subject to prevailing perceived public opinion. Ergo, the words written on paper that are cited and referred to herein mean little, unless perceived public opinion of the day (or hour) back it up. We have long been a nation abandoning her founding charter bit by bit, and this decision is a little bit farther along that path.
There are real reasons to make this decision, reasons that preserve the Constitution, but he chose to chink away at the strength and validity of the words of the Constitution as he decided it. He has lost my respect in total, for whatever that's worth. If I had my way, he'd be removed for violation of his oath, and the decision vacated and reconsidered by another judge.
Quote by velveeta jones:Quote by Raine:
Hi
OHHH! Can I have two wives????!!!
It appears to me that nothing stops you now, if this decision stands. The words range much farther than a man marrying a man and a woman marrying a woman and only that.
The sad part is that he just relegated the Constitution to be subject to prevailing perceived public opinion. Ergo, the words written on paper that are cited and referred to herein mean little, unless perceived public opinion of the day (or hour) back it up. We have long been a nation abandoning her founding charter bit by bit, and this decision is a little bit farther along that path.
There are real reasons to make this decision, reasons that preserve the Constitution, but he chose to chink away at the strength and validity of the words of the Constitution as he decided it. He has lost my respect in total, for whatever that's worth. If I had my way, he'd be removed for violation of his oath, and the decision vacated and reconsidered by another judge.
Comment by TriSec on 08/05/2010 18:00:53
TriSec on 08/05/2010 18:00:53
So, you're saying homophobia and discrimination is constitutional?
You're way off base, Al.
Since you seem to be playing that card, why don't you tell me why a certain set of religious and moral beliefs has to be the law of the land, even when it is obviously discriminatory and hateful to an entire class of citizens?
You're way off base, Al.
Since you seem to be playing that card, why don't you tell me why a certain set of religious and moral beliefs has to be the law of the land, even when it is obviously discriminatory and hateful to an entire class of citizens?
Comment by BobR on 08/05/2010 18:06:35
the word "marriage" exists nowhere in the Constitution. However, the words "equal protection of the laws" DO (14th Amendment).
BobR on 08/05/2010 18:06:35
Quote by Al from WV:Quote by velveeta jones:Quote by Raine:
Hi
OHHH! Can I have two wives????!!!
It appears to me that nothing stops you now, if this decision stands. The words range much farther than a man marrying a man and a woman marrying a woman and only that.
The sad part is that he just relegated the Constitution to be subject to prevailing perceived public opinion. Ergo, the words written on paper that are cited and referred to herein mean little, unless perceived public opinion of the day (or hour) back it up. We have long been a nation abandoning her founding charter bit by bit, and this decision is a little bit farther along that path.
There are real reasons to make this decision, reasons that preserve the Constitution, but he chose to chink away at the strength and validity of the words of the Constitution as he decided it. He has lost my respect in total, for whatever that's worth. If I had my way, he'd be removed for violation of his oath, and the decision vacated and reconsidered by another judge.
the word "marriage" exists nowhere in the Constitution. However, the words "equal protection of the laws" DO (14th Amendment).
Comment by 
Scoopster on 08/05/2010 18:24:56
Scoopster on 08/05/2010 18:24:56
Afternoon all!
How so? The initative should never have been on the ballot since it not only violates the 14th Amendment, but also doesn't even meet the CA Constitution's standard for a ballot initiative that significantly amends the text of the state constitution (meaning a 2/3 majority vote, not the 52% it got!)
This ruling STRENGTHENS the founding charter of this country.
Quote by Al from WV:
The sad part is that he just relegated the Constitution to be subject to prevailing perceived public opinion. Ergo, the words written on paper that are cited and referred to herein mean little, unless perceived public opinion of the day (or hour) back it up. We have long been a nation abandoning her founding charter bit by bit, and this decision is a little bit farther along that path.
How so? The initative should never have been on the ballot since it not only violates the 14th Amendment, but also doesn't even meet the CA Constitution's standard for a ballot initiative that significantly amends the text of the state constitution (meaning a 2/3 majority vote, not the 52% it got!)
This ruling STRENGTHENS the founding charter of this country.
Comment by Raine on 08/05/2010 19:13:17
Specifically, how did he chip away at the constitution? What are those reasons that you see that preserve the constitution?
You are aware, that Vel and I are joking. I know speaking for myself, I have enough faith in marriage to joke about something like that. I suspect most people do.
Marriage equality has nothing to do with marital plurality. The 2 issues should not be treated as the same. They are not.
The judge made a strong argument. I see in no way it is unconstitutional.
Raine on 08/05/2010 19:13:17
Quote by Al from WV:
It appears to me that nothing stops you now, if this decision stands. The words range much farther than a man marrying a man and a woman marrying a woman and only that.
The sad part is that he just relegated the Constitution to be subject to prevailing perceived public opinion. Ergo, the words written on paper that are cited and referred to herein mean little, unless perceived public opinion of the day (or hour) back it up. We have long been a nation abandoning her founding charter bit by bit, and this decision is a little bit farther along that path.
There are real reasons to make this decision, reasons that preserve the Constitution, but he chose to chink away at the strength and validity of the words of the Constitution as he decided it. He has lost my respect in total, for whatever that's worth. If I had my way, he'd be removed for violation of his oath, and the decision vacated and reconsidered by another judge.
You are aware, that Vel and I are joking. I know speaking for myself, I have enough faith in marriage to joke about something like that. I suspect most people do.
Marriage equality has nothing to do with marital plurality. The 2 issues should not be treated as the same. They are not.
The judge made a strong argument. I see in no way it is unconstitutional.
Comment by TriSec on 08/05/2010 19:14:15
TriSec on 08/05/2010 19:14:15
I thought the judge's ruling was a masterful interpretation of the constitution, and justifies something we've been saying all along....Freedom OF religion is also Freedom FROM religion.
Not to mention that same-sex marriage is legal in my Commonwealth, so it ought to be the law of the land anyway...under Article 4, Section 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Not to mention that same-sex marriage is legal in my Commonwealth, so it ought to be the law of the land anyway...under Article 4, Section 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Comment by livingonli on 08/05/2010 19:19:47
livingonli on 08/05/2010 19:19:47
I'm heading out. Going to see Lizz do stand-up at Comix tonight.
Comment by wickedpam on 08/05/2010 19:22:43
wickedpam on 08/05/2010 19:22:43
Have fun Liv :)
Comment by Raine on 08/05/2010 19:28:28
Tell Lizz I said HI!
Raine on 08/05/2010 19:28:28
Quote by livingonli:
I'm heading out. Going to see Lizz do stand-up at Comix tonight.
Tell Lizz I said HI!
Comment by Raine on 08/05/2010 19:32:49
Raine on 08/05/2010 19:32:49
From the Judge's ruling:
Who knew Carrie Prejean was right about the term "opposite marriage"
Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex.
Who knew Carrie Prejean was right about the term "opposite marriage"
Comment by 
clintster on 08/05/2010 20:23:00
I'm here and listening on delay right now. Haven't gotten to the Takei interview yet, but I'm waiting for it.
Ohhhhhhh myyyyyyyyy...
clintster on 08/05/2010 20:23:00
Quote by Raine:
I wish Clint were around for the George Takei interview.
He seriously does the best , "My O My" EVER! (aside from George Takei )
I'm here and listening on delay right now. Haven't gotten to the Takei interview yet, but I'm waiting for it.
Ohhhhhhh myyyyyyyyy...
Comment by Al from WV on 08/05/2010 20:23:54
I don't know Tri. Since what is Constitutional is more about what is popular now than it is about what the words on the paper SAY, then I don't know what's constitutional.
As for my post, I never even REMOTELY said anything like that. What I said is that it's a shame that the words on the Constitution's paper mean FAR LESS than public opinion.
If you would convict me, convict me for what I DID or SAID, not what you think it might sort of kind of maybe mean.
Quote by TriSec:
So, you're saying homophobia and discrimination is constitutional?
You're way off base, Al.
Since you seem to be playing that card, why don't you tell me why a certain set of religious and moral beliefs has to be the law of the land, even when it is obviously discriminatory and hateful to an entire class of citizens?
I don't know Tri. Since what is Constitutional is more about what is popular now than it is about what the words on the paper SAY, then I don't know what's constitutional.
As for my post, I never even REMOTELY said anything like that. What I said is that it's a shame that the words on the Constitution's paper mean FAR LESS than public opinion.
If you would convict me, convict me for what I DID or SAID, not what you think it might sort of kind of maybe mean.
Comment by Al from WV on 08/05/2010 20:31:23
You are precisely correct. The word marriage never occurs, and the words "equal protection of the laws" do occur in the 14th amendment.
That, of course is not, nor was it ever the point of my post. I said that he could have arrived at the same decision by a better route if you read my post again. What is NOT in the Constitution is his rambling about what is or is not the accepted order of the day and the establishment of it as law via precedent. THAT is what I addressed, and THAT is the shame here, that he would take this opportunity to not only provide equal protection under the law, but to equally soften the Constitution, addressing it as though it were (except that it's becoming) whatever feels good today.
Quote by BobR:Quote by Al from WV:Quote by velveeta jones:Quote by Raine:
Hi
OHHH! Can I have two wives????!!!
It appears to me that nothing stops you now, if this decision stands. The words range much farther than a man marrying a man and a woman marrying a woman and only that.
The sad part is that he just relegated the Constitution to be subject to prevailing perceived public opinion. Ergo, the words written on paper that are cited and referred to herein mean little, unless perceived public opinion of the day (or hour) back it up. We have long been a nation abandoning her founding charter bit by bit, and this decision is a little bit farther along that path.
There are real reasons to make this decision, reasons that preserve the Constitution, but he chose to chink away at the strength and validity of the words of the Constitution as he decided it. He has lost my respect in total, for whatever that's worth. If I had my way, he'd be removed for violation of his oath, and the decision vacated and reconsidered by another judge.
the word "marriage" exists nowhere in the Constitution. However, the words "equal protection of the laws" DO (14th Amendment).
That, of course is not, nor was it ever the point of my post. I said that he could have arrived at the same decision by a better route if you read my post again. What is NOT in the Constitution is his rambling about what is or is not the accepted order of the day and the establishment of it as law via precedent. THAT is what I addressed, and THAT is the shame here, that he would take this opportunity to not only provide equal protection under the law, but to equally soften the Constitution, addressing it as though it were (except that it's becoming) whatever feels good today.
Comment by BobR on 08/05/2010 20:37:34
BobR on 08/05/2010 20:37:34
EMERGENCY BLOG REQUEST
I have gotten word from the homefront that the hellacious storm that blew through our area knocked out our power, and took down cable wire. That means that even if power is restored, we'll still have no internet until Comcast can come out and fix the wire.
That means we need a fill in for tomorrow morning. Any volunteers?
I have gotten word from the homefront that the hellacious storm that blew through our area knocked out our power, and took down cable wire. That means that even if power is restored, we'll still have no internet until Comcast can come out and fix the wire.
That means we need a fill in for tomorrow morning. Any volunteers?
Comment by Al from WV on 08/05/2010 20:58:08
How does it strengthen the Constitution for him to say with his ruling what the Constitution does not say marriage is, but yet, in his ruling (which is supposed to be totally interpreting that same Constitution) say "Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple's choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents" and thus create a Constitutional standard for what marriage is.
He thus did NOT reject that the Constitution does not define marriage (which it does not, and which other posters here have astutely pointed out), he simply inserted his own personal idea of what the Constitution should define marriage as.
However, he contradicted himself. In one case, he restricts marriage to a union of committed individuals "to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents" then he later opens marriage under law" to any "union of equals" (whether previously or currently so bound to anyone else, by the way).
His decision is partly based on the success of non-man/woman marriages ("Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners") rather than on the Constitution.
His decision is partly based on social acceptance ("Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States") rather than on the Constitution.
All he needed was "Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment" and DONE. All the rest is indeed chipping away at the Constitution, as it equates social success and social acceptance with Constitutionality, and because his decision establishes a Constitutional definition of marriage which is neither approved by 3/4 of the states as it should be nor consistent enough to enforce even if he WERE authorized to add to the Constitution because he felt like it.
Hence, it does not strengthen the Constitution, it weakens it, substituting social prettiness for what was (some years ago) Constitutional guarantee.
And if anybody gets from this that I think he should have decided the other way, do yourself a favor and go back and read what I actually wrote.
Quote by Scoopster:
Afternoon all!Quote by Al from WV:
The sad part is that he just relegated the Constitution to be subject to prevailing perceived public opinion. Ergo, the words written on paper that are cited and referred to herein mean little, unless perceived public opinion of the day (or hour) back it up. We have long been a nation abandoning her founding charter bit by bit, and this decision is a little bit farther along that path.
How so? The initative should never have been on the ballot since it not only violates the 14th Amendment, but also doesn't even meet the CA Constitution's standard for a ballot initiative that significantly amends the text of the state constitution (meaning a 2/3 majority vote, not the 52% it got!)
This ruling STRENGTHENS the founding charter of this country.
How does it strengthen the Constitution for him to say with his ruling what the Constitution does not say marriage is, but yet, in his ruling (which is supposed to be totally interpreting that same Constitution) say "Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple's choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents" and thus create a Constitutional standard for what marriage is.
He thus did NOT reject that the Constitution does not define marriage (which it does not, and which other posters here have astutely pointed out), he simply inserted his own personal idea of what the Constitution should define marriage as.
However, he contradicted himself. In one case, he restricts marriage to a union of committed individuals "to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents" then he later opens marriage under law" to any "union of equals" (whether previously or currently so bound to anyone else, by the way).
His decision is partly based on the success of non-man/woman marriages ("Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners") rather than on the Constitution.
His decision is partly based on social acceptance ("Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States") rather than on the Constitution.
All he needed was "Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment" and DONE. All the rest is indeed chipping away at the Constitution, as it equates social success and social acceptance with Constitutionality, and because his decision establishes a Constitutional definition of marriage which is neither approved by 3/4 of the states as it should be nor consistent enough to enforce even if he WERE authorized to add to the Constitution because he felt like it.
Hence, it does not strengthen the Constitution, it weakens it, substituting social prettiness for what was (some years ago) Constitutional guarantee.
And if anybody gets from this that I think he should have decided the other way, do yourself a favor and go back and read what I actually wrote.
Comment by Al from WV on 08/05/2010 21:02:01
I'm sorry Raine, while they are not the same issue, the same judge's ruling establishes principle that affect them both. See my response to Scoopster. Just because the ruling feels good does not make it Constitutional. The judge made a social argument addition to a legal one. Don't concentrate only on the outcome. It's a lie that "all's well that ends well." It ended well, but the Constitution took several shots that weakened it in the process.
Quote by Raine:Specifically, how did he chip away at the constitution? What are those reasons that you see that preserve the constitution?Quote by Al from WV:
It appears to me that nothing stops you now, if this decision stands. The words range much farther than a man marrying a man and a woman marrying a woman and only that.
The sad part is that he just relegated the Constitution to be subject to prevailing perceived public opinion. Ergo, the words written on paper that are cited and referred to herein mean little, unless perceived public opinion of the day (or hour) back it up. We have long been a nation abandoning her founding charter bit by bit, and this decision is a little bit farther along that path.
There are real reasons to make this decision, reasons that preserve the Constitution, but he chose to chink away at the strength and validity of the words of the Constitution as he decided it. He has lost my respect in total, for whatever that's worth. If I had my way, he'd be removed for violation of his oath, and the decision vacated and reconsidered by another judge.
You are aware, that Vel and I are joking. I know speaking for myself, I have enough faith in marriage to joke about something like that. I suspect most people do.
Marriage equality has nothing to do with marital plurality. The 2 issues should not be treated as the same. They are not.
The judge made a strong argument. I see in no way it is unconstitutional.
I'm sorry Raine, while they are not the same issue, the same judge's ruling establishes principle that affect them both. See my response to Scoopster. Just because the ruling feels good does not make it Constitutional. The judge made a social argument addition to a legal one. Don't concentrate only on the outcome. It's a lie that "all's well that ends well." It ended well, but the Constitution took several shots that weakened it in the process.
Comment by clintster on 08/05/2010 21:17:01
Me?
clintster on 08/05/2010 21:17:01
Quote by BobR:
EMERGENCY BLOG REQUEST
I have gotten word from the homefront that the hellacious storm that blew through our area knocked out our power, and took down cable wire. That means that even if power is restored, we'll still have no internet until Comcast can come out and fix the wire.
That means we need a fill in for tomorrow morning. Any volunteers?
Me?