Ca Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[RightNorLeft]

The judge himself was a homo...he should be disbarred and thrown off the bench for not excusing himself from the case DUE TO BIAS

 

[Dr Grump]

We need Woody Harrelson's dad now more than ever.

You really are in the Ghetto...loser....

 

[Dr Grump]

The judge himself was a homo...he should be disbarred and thrown off the bench for not excusing himself from the case DUE TO BIAS

Why do you even give a fuck, homophobe....

 

[jillian]

The judge himself was a homo...he should be disbarred and thrown off the bench for not excusing himself from the case DUE TO BIAS

nice lie...

you know he was one of daddy bush's appointees, right?

as for 'being disbarred'... federal judges have a lifetime appointment just so they won't be subjected to the political pressures and prejudices of idiots like you.

 

[R.C. Christian]

And you're a degenerate piece of filth grump. Looks like I'll have to spam your visitor page again, perhaps even on an hourly basis. I'm surprised you actually had the guts to participate in this thread. Usually you're content with hanging out on the fringes and giving bad rep to the little popularity contest you have going on this site.

 

[Steerpike]

nice lie...

No...the judge is gay.

 

[Dr Grump]

And you're a degenerate piece of filth grump. Looks like I'll have to spam your visitor page again, perhaps even on an hourly basis. I'm surprised you actually had the guts to participate in this thread. Usually you're content with hanging out on the fringes and giving bad rep to the little popularity contest you have going on this site.

Stop your whining Dick head. You're just another Islamophobe, homophobe, right-wing whackjob who was dropped on his head as a baby...

Now fuck off, so adults can talk....

 

[Cuyo]

The judge himself was a homo...he should be disbarred and thrown off the bench for not excusing himself from the case DUE TO BIAS

Ya? Should not then a heterosexual judge have recused himself for having the opposite bias?

 

[Steerpike]

The judge himself was a homo...he should be disbarred and thrown off the bench for not excusing himself from the case DUE TO BIAS

Ya? Should not then a heterosexual judge have recused himself for having the opposite bias?

I don't think you can assume bias just because the judge is either gay or straight.

 

[DavidS]

How odd..the left can even make homosexuality a race issue.

How do they do that? It's like a weird gift.

Actually, they're making it a civil rights issue, not a race issue. They are comparing it to a race issue, because the race issue was a civil rights issue. Try using your brain next time you post.

 

[R.C. Christian]

And you're a degenerate piece of filth grump. Looks like I'll have to spam your visitor page again, perhaps even on an hourly basis. I'm surprised you actually had the guts to participate in this thread. Usually you're content with hanging out on the fringes and giving bad rep to the little popularity contest you have going on this site.

Stop your whining Dick head. You're just another Islamophobe, homophobe, right-wing whackjob who was dropped on his head as a baby...

Now fuck off, so adults can talk....

On the contrary. My posts clearly demonstrate that I'm neither an Islamaphobe, a homophobe or a rigtwinger. However, you're just a run of the mill liberal, democratic party shill, and not a very intelligent one at that. You don't see anyone else here defending polygamy, unless of course they're closet boy fondlers. You probably walk naked in your berkinstocks in gay pride parades. The fact is Grump, I can run intellectual hurdles around your uneducated ass in seconds flat so give it your best shot or sulk and see how many four letter words your single celled brain can substitute for the English language or how many pussy points you can rep me from the sidelines. Come on smart guy, be a man, if you can.

 

[DavidS]

The judge himself was a homo...he should be disbarred and thrown off the bench for not excusing himself from the case DUE TO BIAS

By your logic, no white judge should ever be allowed to rule on a case that effects white people, because of bias.

Come on, guys - are you even trying? I've posed this question for a few hours now and no one has even answered it: HOW DOES GAY MARRIAGE HARM YOU? HOW DOES IT DIRECTLY IMPACT YOUR LIVES?

Can anyone who is not gay, living in Califorinia and wanting to get married answer this?

 

[Oddball]

So what?

What's to stop the next federal judge from deciding that state polygamy statutes violate the "rights" of the parties who wish to freely involve themselves in it?

Nothing, and why should it. What's wrong with polygamy?

Nothing...If the state wants to pass legislation or the people of the state want to pass a ballot issue making it so.

However, deeming it so or not so by judicial fiat is one of the reasons my ancestors overthrew the British Crown....Why put up with it now?

 

[jillian]

The judge himself was a homo...he should be disbarred and thrown off the bench for not excusing himself from the case DUE TO BIAS

Ya? Should not then a heterosexual judge have recused himself for having the opposite bias?

I don't think you can assume bias just because the judge is either gay or straight.

i haven't seen anything saying he's gay. and the ijit's contention that he should be disbarred for not recusing is just nuts.

but i agree...either way it shouldn't matter.

it's a great decision, though.

 

[Steerpike]

Ya? Should not then a heterosexual judge have recused himself for having the opposite bias?

I don't think you can assume bias just because the judge is either gay or straight.

i haven't seen anything saying he's gay. and the ijit's contention that he should be disbarred for not recusing is just nuts.

but i agree...either way it shouldn't matter.

it's a great decision, though.

He is gay.

But the argument for recusal is a bad one. And the argument for disbarring him, impeaching him, or anything else is just absurd.

 

[jillian]

So what?

What's to stop the next federal judge from deciding that state polygamy statutes violate the "rights" of the parties who wish to freely involve themselves in it?

Nothing, and why should it. What's wrong with polygamy?

Nothing...If the state wants to pass legislation or the people of the state want to pass a ballot issue making it so.

However, deeming it so or not so by judicial fiat is one of the reasons my ancestors overthrew the British Crown....Why put up with it now?

rights aren't subject to a majority vote. if they're rights, they exist whether someone votes for it or not.

that's what courts are for. our government was not structured to trust the unwashed masses with such issues...and, in fact, was specifically constructed to PROHIBIT oppression of a minority by the majority.

 

[Oddball]

A license isn't a right...It's a privilege...You can look it up.

And don't give me any of that swill about Loving...Gays are still free to make up legally binding private and common law marriage arrangements.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Nothing, and why should it. What's wrong with polygamy?

Nothing...If the state wants to pass legislation or the people of the state want to pass a ballot issue making it so.

However, deeming it so or not so by judicial fiat is one of the reasons my ancestors overthrew the British Crown....Why put up with it now?

rights aren't subject to a majority vote. if they're rights, they exist whether someone votes for it or not.

that's what courts are for. our government was not structured to trust the unwashed masses with such issues...and, in fact, was specifically constructed to PROHIBIT oppression of a minority by the majority.

The obvious Rhetorical Questions.....

Why even have a proposition 8 in the first place? Why have a vote? Why not just let unelected judges decide in the first place what's good for the American people?

 

[Steerpike]

The obvious Rhetorical Questions.....

Why even have a proposition 8 in the first place? Why have a vote? Why not just let unelected judges decide in the first place what's good for the American people?

Because until it gets through the process (i.e. ruled on by SCOTUS) we don't know whether this is a "right" or not. If it is found not to be, then the Prop 8 vote is effective.

 

[jillian]

Nothing...If the state wants to pass legislation or the people of the state want to pass a ballot issue making it so.

However, deeming it so or not so by judicial fiat is one of the reasons my ancestors overthrew the British Crown....Why put up with it now?

rights aren't subject to a majority vote. if they're rights, they exist whether someone votes for it or not.

that's what courts are for. our government was not structured to trust the unwashed masses with such issues...and, in fact, was specifically constructed to PROHIBIT oppression of a minority by the majority.

The obvious Rhetorical Questions.....

Why even have a proposition 8 in the first place? Why have a vote? Why not just let unelected judges decide in the first place what's good for the American people?

that's not how the process works. there has to be an actual case and controversy for a court to exercise jurisdiction.

and it's not about a court deciding what's 'good' for you. it's about a court not allowing the torch and pitchfork crowd to take away the rights of the people they don't like. if it were something the majority liked, it would never be an issue.

and no, that's not an obvious rhetorical question. sorry.

but i'm sure the pretend constitutionalists will love it.