Prop 8 Ruling Tuesday by 10 AM

[Ksandra]

the guy is retarded. It's like he can't decide whether to blame the supreme court or the opponents of prop 8 so he'll just blame both. Here's the rundown:

We sure do live in a perfect world.

Umm..the supreme court doesn't review a law on its constitutionality UNTIL it has passed. They couldn't have brought it to the supreme court beforehand even if they wanted to. Blame that on our system, not on those who have to follow it.

You are all awesome!

Prop 8 Has not gone to the Supreme Court... yet. Prop 8 was to make the law constitutional. The voters decided back in 2000 when they passed Prop 22. That should have been ruled unconstitutional at that time, then it would have prevented prop 8 from even rearing it's ugly head in 2008...

Prop 22 was struck down as a law by the supreme court because it was against the state's constitution. Prop 8 was an attempt to amend the state constitution, which is now in the process of being considered unconstitutional. Again, this is about the process of the supreme court. Blaming it on "one side loses and wants to cry foul" is ridiculous. If you want to blame the supreme court for dragging their feet, then fine. But guess what? Opponents of prop 22, 8 ,etc. do not control the speed or the rulings of the court. Blaming it on the people who are fighting for equality and going off on "majority should win" when it's a majority that wants inequality is NOT fine, and makes it sound like you really don't know how our system works.

[Demosthenes11]

I don't even think you get it tbh. For a case to go to court, there needs to be a plaintiff and a defendant

If there is no law, there is no lawsuit. How can a judge hear a case where there is nothing to complain about because nothing has happened lol

[Ksandra]

I don't even think you get it tbh. For a case to go to court, there needs to be a plaintiff and a defendant

If there is no law, there is no lawsuit. How can a judge hear a case where there is nothing to complain about because nothing has happened lol

No I completely understand that, how do you think I don't get it? I am trying to be kind of brief in my writing as I don't want to shit all over someone else's fb page so that might be why, and tbh it's not easy when he switches from "majority" to "they should have done it before" to "sore losers" back to "this should have happened before"

[edit] I think you might have gotten confused with my statement about the whole prop 22 thing. As far as I could tell, the idiot was trying to be like "IF IT WAS ACTUALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL IT WOULD HAVE BEEN RULED BACK WHEN THEY RULED ON PROP 22". I was just clarifying what did happen in a short amount of words.

[Apelila]

You can try and explain it to them using the equal protection claus, but people like that aren't going to listen to reason. They're just going to keep cycling through strawmen, each deflecting the reasons you bring to the table. He's already started that trend.

From what I posted to some whaaaaargarbl on my facebook (Because I dared share a george takei picture on the matter):

The equal protection clause, as a incredibly basic summary prevents a majority from arbitrarily oppressing a minority because of the fact that they are a minority. It's what prevents the south from making laws that restrict or segregate minorities. This ruling is applicable because prop 8 took away a right from a minority by a majority without justifiable reason. That's what the argument is going to come down to the SCOTUS as well - justify why this group should not be allowed to marry.

It's why this whole thing will ultimately (though not without a lot of bitter feuds and time) finally fail: the justification is either moral or religious. A moral majority cannot be allowed, through law, to impose it's morals on the population as a whole.

The hangup this person and a lot of other people seem to be having is that they think once something gets put into the states constitution it cannot possibly be unconstitutional. He probably doesn't understand that a state cannot change their states constitution to ignore parts of the federal constitution.

In this case the law (22) violated the states constitution. Once it was removed, and it allowed for a right to marry. Once the right was removed (prop 8, state constitution) the equal protection clause of the federal constitution applied.

[Andalusian girls]

reckon it's still going to The Supreme Court. though you are correct that the fundamental right to marriage between same-sex couples was not decided upon there is still potential for this to be a national issue worthy of review at the federal level. In Washington we just saw gay marriage legislated and its opponents instantly vow to seek a popular referendum to overturn the law; I imagine as more and more states legalize gay marriage either through the legislature or judiciary we will see the California experience oft repeated giving The Supreme Court enough justification to affect a ruling, if nothing else, on whether or not at the state level a popular vote is all that is required to strip homosexuals of the right to marriage should one of the branches of government decide they possess it.

and naturally the inherent weightiness of the subject make it difficult, if not impossible, for the court to ignore indefinitely.

for those who think the Supreme Court would uphold this ruling, I'm curious: why?

I really mean that. I don't know enough about the Supreme Court's current makeup to feel them out one way or the other. what makes you think they would rule against Proposition 8?

it will very likely be a 4-4 vote with the deciding vote cast by Anthony Kennedy. In both Romer v. Evans (gays cannot be treated as a protected class of citizen) and Lawrence v. Texas (sodomy is a crime) Scalia and Thomas wrote or joined impassioned dissents in which the words homosexual agenda, bigamy, incest, and bestiality made appearances. Alito is even more reactionary than those two, when on the 3rd Circuit he once ruled that a school district's anti-harassment policy was unconstitutional on behalf of the plaintiff who claimed homosexuality is a sin and the policy was a stifling of free speech on contentious issues. Chief Justice John Roberts is softer and more tolerant in tone than the other three members of the conservative bloc but they vote in unity far more often than not. he has very few rulings on homosexual rights so there remains some possibility here.

There is little reason to think the Court's four liberals would overturn this ruling, especially as has been noted they have the far stronger constitutional position. the equal protections clause is clear as day.

Ergo, Anthony Kennedy. He is a moderate Californian Republican who has been the swing vote for a long while now, he authored The Supreme Court's decisions in both Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas (overturning them) which suggests an amicability towards gay rights, but he is concurrently the man who decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in favor of unrestrained money in politics and gave Bush the presidency in Bush v. Gore.

he is also a prima donna who enjoys his status as the swing vote and likes to see himself as the arbiter of new laws and new eras. this vanity may aid supporters of gay rights if his ego paints himself as the man who could usher in a new era of civil rights for one of the last overtly oppressed groups.

The 9th Circuit judges clearly felt the same way, they quoted Kennedy's opinion in Romer v. Evans extensively throughout their ruling in a clear attempt to persuade the man.

see sooner or later whether it works.

[Milkster]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-proposition-8

As a Mormon, gay rights advocate and Californian, my corner of the internet exploded on Tuesday morning when news broke that a federal appeals court ruled Proposition 8, the California proposition that removed the right to marry from gays and lesbians, unconstitutional. My gay friends and their allies rejoiced as we talked about weddings we looked forward to attending, and many of my Latter Day Saint friends and ward members mourned a loss to their cause. The church reacted to the decision with a press release that called for civility, and included the curious statement, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regrets today's decision. California voters have twice determined in a general election that marriage should be recognised as only between a man and a woman. We have always had that view."
Anyone with a bare knowledge of Mormon history would know that's simply not true. This one statement encapsulates the bitter irony surrounding this long battle: that a religious group known for its history of polygamy would be the group bearing the standard for "traditional marriage".
As a people we're still sorting out our polygamist past. Although the practice was officially discontinued more than 100 years ago and anyone practicing polygamy today is excommunicated, many members can trace their family roots to women who were plural spouses. These relationships were not homosexual, but it in no way fit the description of "a man and a woman". Today polygamy still echoes in our doctrine as men can be "sealed", or united for eternity in a religious ordinance, to more than one woman. Whenever we ask ourselves "Does this mean there will be polygamy in heaven?", some people say yes, some people say who knows, some people, like me, emphatically say no. The real answer is that there isn't one.
At Feminist Mormon Housewives my co-blogger, Lindsay Hansen Park, has been writing a weekly series highlighting the women who married Joseph Smith. Her meticulous research has often been met with anger and skepticism from members who cannot find a way to fit the facts of our history into our current view of marriage.
"Learning for the first time that our church's founder was sealed to more than one woman registers great shock and pain," she writes. "A few refuse to believe it, although it is very well documented by Joseph Smith's wives themselves. There have been those that have had such a visceral reaction they question why I'd even write about it to begin with and would rather not talk or think about it again. Many more are left to try to reconcile this in their minds, since many of us grew up with such a focus on a 'traditional family'. And then this history forces us to reflect on current practices and policies and we begin to question the reasoning of it all. Mormons still practice polygamy posthumously in the temple? Is polygamy the law we're to expect in the afterlife? And better yet, who are we to tell the world what a traditional family looks like, when our past is far from traditional?"
In justifying the need to restrict marriage to one man and one woman, many members cite fears that federally recognized anti-discrimination laws would force religions to extend their ordinances to people not living the strictures of the faith. They fear that legal gay marriage would force churches who view homosexuality as sinful to perform marriages despite their own teachings. This argument was never logically sound, despite its widespread use. Prior to 1978 the LDS church did not allow black members to be sealed in the temple and faced no censure. Even as recently as December 2011 a Free Will Baptist church banned interracial couples from even attending services and only faced horrible press – no legal consequences.
Still, opponents to gay marriage feared that just because there hadn't been legal challenges didn't mean there wouldn't be legal challenges. But another recent court case provides affirmative proof that churches have broad freedom to enact their teachings.
In January the supreme court ruled on a case regarding employment discrimination in church employment. The decision was counted as a loss for the labour movement, but provided legal precedent that churches were not subject to the same discrimination laws as other organizations. In the ruling, chief justice John G Roberts wrote, "The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important, but so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission." While this case did not have anything to do with gay marriage, it proved that the rights of churches to practice as they see fit are weighted higher than the rights of an individual. It proved that fears about gay marriage being forced on religion are unfounded, and unfair.
Mormon pioneers crossed the American plains to escape the religious persecution they faced, in part because of their views on marriage. They were prepared to fight a war to keep the government from restricting their ability to marry as they saw fit. It is far past time we remembered our history and stopped doing to others what we fought so hard against having done to us.

[Ksandra]

My favorite gay continuing to be awesome:



and umm...never thought I'd say this but errr...go Bill O'Reilly....

[Zetanio]

That women is fucking idiot.

"Not acceptable" You are a bigoted fucking retard.

[Stumblingdrunk]

Aside from the bigotry i agree with the woman, and Bill's argument is kind of ridiculous. People should support the things they approve of, and not support the things that they don't approve of. Again, aside from her views on gay people, i agree with her. They have just as much right to refuse to shop at jc penny as i do to never pay to see a movie starring tom cruise. The company will make a decision based on its beliefs (profits) and will reap the benefits or suffer the consequences.

Edit: hopefully we're at a point where bigotry isn't profitable and standing up to bigotry is

[Ksandra]

Aside from the bigotry i agree with the woman, and Bill's argument is kind of ridiculous. People should support the things they approve of, and not support the things that they don't approve of. Again, aside from her views on gay people, i agree with her. They have just as much right to refuse to shop at jc penny as i do to never pay to see a movie starring tom cruise. The company will make a decision based on its beliefs (profits) and will reap the benefits or suffer the consequences.

I don't think you watched the video as O'Reilly said exactly this. He said if you don't want to shop at JCPenny because of it, he's completely fine with that.

He's upset they tried to get Ellen fired over it.

[Stumblingdrunk]

I'm not opposed to them trying to get her fired. If they had made a page that said "We will never shop at jcpenny again if you keep paying ellen" it would be the exact same thing as demanding she be fired. seriously, its a distinction without a difference, which makes bill's argument retarded. He deserves no credit for standing up for anything meaningful in that video

[Ksandra]

I definitely oppose it, not that it should be made a law, but I agree with O'Reilly that they were stupid to try and bully JCPenny into firing her. I'm glad he stood up for her considering how much the Christian right watches his show. Maybe some who breathe every word he says will go to JCP because of it.

[Stumblingdrunk]

I definitely oppose it, not that it should be made a law, but I agree with O'Reilly that they were stupid to try and bully JCPenny into firing her. I'm glad he stood up for her considering how much the Christian right watches his show. Maybe some who breathe every word he says will go to JCP because of it.

Except that he never once stood up for ellen, he stood up for himself. His entire argument was "No one should demand that controversial media figures be fired" He even ended the interview talking about himself being persecuted by lefties. No one should be giving him any credit for this. For fuck's sake he didn't even once address a single bigoted sentence the woman uttered.

[Ksandra]

His entire argument was "No one should demand that controversial media figures be fired" .

exactly? I don't think that only homosexuals should be protected from people demanding someone getting fired. His general stance is a good one, the fact he uses Ellen as a talking point just helps her in the long run.

So many people are supporting her and JCP, and this is just helping to spread the word even if he didn't make it all about her.

[Stumblingdrunk]

exactly?

...is that really what you think, that no one should ever be fired for the things they say?

[Ksandra]

...is that really what you think, that no one should ever be fired for the things they say?

what in the...I don't think companies should get bullied in that way...not that they can't get fired for shit they say wtf...where did you get that from...

[Stumblingdrunk]

"No one should demand that controversial media figures be fired"

exactly?

^

[Ksandra]

you realize your own statement =/= people shouldn't get fired over the shit they say, right?

[Stumblingdrunk]

Perhaps i'm just being cynical, but all i hear in that video clip is bill o'reilly defending himself

[Zetanio]

She tried to push the argument perspective to him being attacked by the left (He didn't stop her). It's pretty much a wash as an interview. She is a special kind of asshole. He wouldn't call her out on it.