Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

Who wants to marry me? I flip a mean ham omelet.

― Gucci Mane hermeneuticist (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, August 12, 2010 4:13 PM (41 minutes ago)

THATS JUST WRONG

beck killing it there! add it to the examples i said upthread

esp. love when he says abortion is killing <3 <3 <3

well yeah he is a atrocious human being you won't get an argument from me; my point is it's weirdly gratifying to watch someone who's wrong about everything be otm about something you care about

yeah i get u

I... God help me but I kinda like it when he says, "Will the gays come to get us??"

haha no shame needed that was just objectively hilarious

O'Reilly didn't like that "Thomas Jefferson" business.

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/08/i_love_having_non-marital_sex_with_you.php

I like your comment there.

this is how i roll

aaand... they're blocked again in California

i'm glad someone is finally thinking of the children in this debate (children = sexless middle aged adults)

opposing arguments need more SCARY SPONTANEOUS CAPITALIZATION if they want to up their cred imo

btw this is a lot of reading (and it is referring to Ireland, not the US), but the comments section underneath is totally amazing and altogether this is pretty much the best thing I have ever read about Gay Marriage

http://theantiroom.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/not-the-marrying-kind-ready

except when noted dumbass una mu11aly shows up at the end

hmmm. this is v. interesting

Of the many smart moves Judge Walker made in his 136-page opinion last week, the smartest was his unveiling of a central hiding-in-plain-sight fact: the change in society’s expectations about what partnership in a marriage entails. “Marriage between a man and a woman was traditionally organized based on presumptions of a division of labor along gender lines” until recently, he said. “Men were seen as suited for certain types of work and women for others. Women were seen as suited to raise children and men were seen as suited to provide for the family.”

Judge Walker cited the advent of no-fault divorce (which New York is about to become the 50th state to adopt) as a marker of how the legal system no long prescribes roles for marriage partners based on their sex. Evidence at the trial, he said, showed “the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles.” As a result, the judge continued, “gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents,” and “gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”

Judge Walker’s conclusion was that Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment confining marriage to opposite-sex couples, “thus enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civil life.” Proposition 8 “mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender.”

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/hiding-in-plain-sight/

Walker is better than me.

Well, I mean he's among the large crowd of those who are better than me, but he's better than them too.

looks like Prop 8 is doomed

If you presume that Protect Marriage will be found not to have standing, but is that such a sure thing?

not a rhetorical question, necessarily

I'll defer to the more experienced legal scholars around here, but I'm unaware of any precedent where private citizens have been authorized to represent the State in court. Can't really conceive of a feasible legal argument that would allow that.

although to be clear I would prefer that this case went to court and Prop 8 was rejected on constitutional grounds, which would be better in the long-run for establishing a legal precedent against this kind of thing

Absolutely. From what I've seen, the 9th Circuit would surely affirm Judge Walker's decision, and then it would be off to the SCOTUS, which would be nice.

not gay marriage, but this is a big deal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/us/10gays.html?_r=1

lol @ 10gays.html

My girlfriend's college-age cousin wrote this:
http://iowaindependent.com/42714/same-sex-marriage-in-iowano-harm-to-traditional-marriage-study-finds

:D

ok, i totally missed the whole maine going back on it thing :(

bumping to link my #1 bro J's blog post re gay marriage and the church

http://presweldevotional.blogspot.com/2010/08/being-on-left-side-of-history-same-sex.html

not exactly a timely bump but

Ladies and gentlemen, bring on the roffles:

http://unicornbooty.com/2011/04/nom-leader-announces-support-of-marriage-equality/

INSPIRGAYTION

Full statement here:

http://louisjmarinelli.com/politics/i-now-support-full-marriage-equality

The comments alternate between really sweet and hilarious

Key quote from early in the second link:

the lesbian and gay people whom I made a profession out of opposing became real people for me almost instantly. For the first time I had empathy for them and remember asking myself what I was doing.

Well, congratulations for his making this discovery, fella, but what kind of people did you think they were? This quote however, does give clarity and insight into the typical anti-gay mindset.

My mom (now 86 years old) used to claim she didn't know any actual gay people and also was very resistent to gay rights. Suddenly, she got turned around because she met an openly lesbian woman with kids and got to talk to her about some thorny child-rearing problems. She was flabbergasted to discover the woman was a perceptive, intelligent, caring mother. Gays went from mysterious perverts to real people in nothing flat.

can I just...

hmmm maybe we should throw out the straight judges too then because this issue effects them not in the slightest??

are there any asexual judges out there who can help with this case??

Imagine if these people spent the time and energy they are putting into to enshrining prejudice into law into projects like fixing roads.

seriously one of the shittiest excuses for legal reasoning I have ever seen in that brief wtf

"Only if Chief Judge Walker had unequivocally disavowed any interest in marrying his partner could the parties and the public be confident that he did not have a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case," the motion said.

this is so incredibly moronic

I dunno Shakey, more power to them I guess. Like, I can just imagine some guy in his house, losing sleep over this, staring at his wife in bed, thinking "what if...?", believing with all his heart that his commitment is about to be tarnished, getting up, searching furiously on his computer, thinking "there's got to be a way to keep them down!" and finding this, shocked that "the gays are not playing fair", and returning to bed with a new sense of righteous indignation.

that doesn't change the fact that, in terms of legal reasoning, this is a very stupid argument that opens their appeal up to a slam-dunk counter appeal if it is accepted

not at all, but the idea that someone cares so much about this that they'd argue something that so obviously fails on every level but one is pretty amusing

it just seems like a weird thing to oppose on this level since it's going to happen at some point no matter what anyone does about it

it displays a fundamental misunderstanding of jurisprudence. the principle they are arguing simply cannot be applied to the law. extend the reasoning for a bit - should the white justices that struck down segregation laws have recused themselves because they were white? should married hetero judges recuse themselves from cases regarding gay marriage because they have an interest in "preserving" the institution of marriage? it's idiotic.

I mean sure it's FUNNY, but they're also wasting my hard-earned tax dollars with this nonsense that any half-witted first year law student could demolish

First year law student? How about, say, a 7th grader? I'm guessing even the Prop 8 supporters know how stupid this is!

they're also wasting my hard-earned tax dollars

Actually not entirely, in that the state via Brown and Harris aren't defending this thing, it's Pugno and his band of lunkheads. (In that they're taking up state/federal court time, yes, but personally I've been enjoying watching them stretch themselves even thinner.)

In that they're taking up state/federal court time, yes

yeah this is what I was referring to