Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

Is some couple suing the state civilly for discrimination?

yes gay couples are suing the state for violating their civil rights under the Constitution - no matter what happens this is the case that will go to the Supreme Court

Can't wait for embittered Scalia dissent.

maybe he'll get so bent-out-of-shape he'll just, you know, die already.

"So am I to understand that homosexualists, you know, what to stick penile objects yay big into their anuses? They're not the only ones who'll be asking for protection."

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2009/10/scalia.jpg

I imagine he finds gays about as confusing as non-Christians (cf. his whole "the cross is not a religious symbol" argument)

"the penis goes WHERE?"

^^^^ this would be a question to a lesbian couple

btw this is a good book.

Nino Scalia can probably imagine lots of positions for lesbians.

Ha ha, I read the most apopleptic review of that book not long ago.

the title's the worst part.

My post is a little misleading. The reviewer basically said that she outed him as a highly partisan judge in very bad faith.

i think people who read that book and don't think scalia is a highly partisan judge are only fooling themselves

Yeah, um, if anyone's been hoodwinked it's readers. I mean, Scalia doesn't equivocate or "clarify" public statements. He doesn't give a damn.

http://cbs2.com/local/cindy.mccain.gay.2.1439011.html

cindy.mccain.gay

;)

Defection at the fringes ain't a trend. People currently under 40 were overwhelmingly against 8; people currently over 60 were overwhlemingly against.

The difference was 300,000 votes. Next year a whole bunch of under 40s will be old enough to vote for the first time, and a whole bunch of over 60s will be dead. You do the math.

― Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Monday, November 17, 2008

The math is gettin' done: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/50-of-californians-now-support-gay-marriage-poll-finds.html

yeah this is gonna get overturned

"Say I Do" is a great slogan btw

some friends are getting married in dc this weekend <3

from Laura Bush's memoir:

"In 2004 the social question that animated the campaign was gay marriage. Before the election season had unfolded, I had talked to George about not making gay marriage a significant issue. We have, I reminded him, a number of close friends who are gay or whose children are gay. But at that moment I could never have imagined what path this issue would take and where it would lead."

We have, I reminded him, a number of close friends who are gay

lindsey graham?

Charlie Crist.

Worrying about hurting people is so like a woman. GWB had his eyes on the REAL prize: the power to fuck over everyone you don't like.

whereas Bill Clinton had his eyes on a different prize: the power to fuck everyone

Obama, thankfully, has his eyes on what really counts: scaring the shit out of white people.

YES

The article is weird, the comments...weirder.

And here we go, it seems.

so how many more appeals before this gets to the SC...? just the 9th Circuit?

Yup.

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.

oh man that second sentence

Some more language here

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

awe man :)

IT IS SO ORDERED <3

ENGAGE

Can't wait for Maggie Gallagher's response.

I'd be fine if it was alcohol poisoning.

Ted Olson is probably not a popular man at the Heritage Foundation right now.

In deciding the case, Walker offered a variety of findings that may be as important as the ruling itself. Among them were the following:

* "Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person's identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents' assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."

* "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."

* "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."

* "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

* "Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive."

* "The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

* "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."

Similarly via Ambinder:

Walker, in his decision, writes that "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gays and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." He evaluates as credible witnesses the panel of experts who testified against Proposition 8, and finds fault with the credentials of several witnesses who testified against same-sex marriage, including David Blankenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values.

"Blankenhorn's testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight," Walker writes. "Blankenhorn gave absolutely no explanation why
manifestations of the deinstitutionalization of marriage would be exacerbated (and not, for example, ameliorated) by the presence of marriage for same-sex couples. His opinion lacks reliability, as there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion Blankenhorn proffered."

Here are the relevant facts he finds:

1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.
2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate
3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.
4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender
5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human
history."
6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.
7. Prop 8 proponents' "assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence"
8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed.
9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population
10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union."
11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."
12. "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.
The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."
13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages."

Remember, these are the FACTS that Walker has determined from the testimony and evidence. These facts will serve as the grounding for the legal arguments yet to come.

yeah, but, see, none of those things are in the Constitution, therefore homosexual marriage is not a fundamental right.

strike one for heteronormativity u guys!

yeah, but, see, none of those things are in the Constitution, therefore homosexual marriage is not a fundamental right

Holy shit, they don't say anything about my owning a CD collection in the Constitution either. I throw myself on the mercy of the court.

http://lawdork.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/clarence-thomas.jpg

lol I went to the AFA site to see if they'd thrown a fit yet - not yet, but they're pretty busy boycotting EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD

:)

I do like how Walker basically said Blankenhorn was a useless dumbass.

those 13 FACTS! bam, bam, bam.