Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
so, clinton gets pass for signing it becasue he knew that what, 15, 17 years later the SC would see it partially his way? Thats some pretty specious get out of jail free card, you could apply that to anything.
He was Slick Willy indeed. He pulled the same with DADT. And I (and many others) predicted it back then. As to applying it to "anything"...not really...only very obviously badly written law.
the ole 'flexible' yardstick, available at stores that cater to democrats only......
The short form: If your vote really mattered, you probably wouldn't have one in the first place.OK all you asshats, who I have supported over my few years here, can't bother yourselves to respond to my questions?
How fkn rude of you all!!
I wasted my time going back and forth between the live blog, which was wicked fast trying to post rulings as they came out here, while this page was whipping by at the same.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court cleared the way Wednesday for same-sex marriages to resume in California as the justices, in a procedural ruling, turned away the defenders of Proposition 8.
Chief Justice John Roberts, speaking for the 5-4 majority, said the private sponsors of Prop. 8 did not have legal standing to appeal after the ballot measure was struck down by a federal judge in San Francisco.
"We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to," he said. "We decline to do so for the first time here."
Prop. 8: Supreme Court clears way for gay marriage in California - latimes.com
some folks don't read well, they are referring back to the state, and as seen above they didn't grant anything to anyone, they followed precedent and the law, I think they did the right thing.
Wish they would just get the hell out of marriage period. This I hope is a step towards that by telling the government to take a flying leap off a cliff in trying to tell people who they can marry but I doubt it sometimes...just let people marry who they want for christ sakes.
OK all you asshats, who I have supported over my few years here, can't bother yourselves to respond to my questions?
How fkn rude of you all!!
I wasted my time going back and forth between the live blog, which was wicked fast trying to post rulings as they came out here, while this page was whipping by at the same.
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court cleared the way Wednesday for same-sex marriages to resume in California as the justices, in a procedural ruling, turned away the defenders of Proposition 8.
Chief Justice John Roberts, speaking for the 5-4 majority, said the private sponsors of Prop. 8 did not have legal standing to appeal after the ballot measure was struck down by a federal judge in San Francisco.
"We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to," he said. "We decline to do so for the first time here."
Prop. 8: Supreme Court clears way for gay marriage in California - latimes.com
some folks don't read well, they are referring back to the state, and as seen above they didn't grant anything to anyone, they followed precedent and the law, I think they did the right thing.
so, clinton gets pass for signing it becasue he knew that what, 15, 17 years later the SC would see it partially his way? Thats some pretty specious get out of jail free card, you could apply that to anything.
He was Slick Willy indeed. He pulled the same with DADT. And I (and many others) predicted it back then. As to applying it to "anything"...not really...only very obviously badly written law.
And if he hadn't passed DOMA and DADT back then, he wouldn't have had a 2nd term.
......so what obama does now, if in 10-15 years its a bomb he gets a pass because it was politically expedient at the time?
Watch the far right reactionaries now talk about marrying one's goldfish, age consent laws, bestiality, polygamy, and other things.
Watch the far right reactionaries now talk about marrying one's goldfish, age consent laws, bestiality, polygamy, and other things.
There's already a thread about a woman marrying her grandmother for benefits.
He was Slick Willy indeed. He pulled the same with DADT. And I (and many others) predicted it back then. As to applying it to "anything"...not really...only very obviously badly written law.
And if he hadn't passed DOMA and DADT back then, he wouldn't have had a 2nd term.
I have to bookmark this thread
I see, do you extend this "flexible" yardstick to republican executives too?
Watch the far right reactionaries now talk about marrying one's goldfish, age consent laws, bestiality, polygamy, and other things.
There's already a thread about a woman marrying her grandmother for benefits.
He was Slick Willy indeed. He pulled the same with DADT. And I (and many others) predicted it back then. As to applying it to "anything"...not really...only very obviously badly written law.
And if he hadn't passed DOMA and DADT back then, he wouldn't have had a 2nd term.
I have to bookmark this thread
I see, do you extend this "flexible" yardstick to republican executives too?
Indeed. I don't see anything wrong with Polygamy personally...but you are right..they are already having meltdowns! Quite humorous.Watch the far right reactionaries now talk about marrying one's goldfish, age consent laws, bestiality, polygamy, and other things.
DOMA is gone and my life as a straight man goes on without change, congrats on gaining equality to Gay Americans.
OK all you asshats, who I have supported over my few years here, can't bother yourselves to respond to my questions?
How fkn rude of you all!!
I wasted my time going back and forth between the live blog, which was wicked fast trying to post rulings as they came out here, while this page was whipping by at the same.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court cleared the way Wednesday for same-sex marriages to resume in California as the justices, in a procedural ruling, turned away the defenders of Proposition 8.
Chief Justice John Roberts, speaking for the 5-4 majority, said the private sponsors of Prop. 8 did not have legal standing to appeal after the ballot measure was struck down by a federal judge in San Francisco.
"We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to," he said. "We decline to do so for the first time here."
Prop. 8: Supreme Court clears way for gay marriage in California - latimes.com
some folks don't read well, they are referring back to the state, and as seen above they didn't grant anything to anyone, they followed precedent and the law, I think they did the right thing.
They did. Prop 8 was already ruled unconstitutional. By not hearing the case, marriage is "granted" in CA...by the lower court ruling.
'Zactly...A boon to the bureaucrats who shuffle the papers and issue the licenses, along with the divorce bar.Wish they would just get the hell out of marriage period. This I hope is a step towards that by telling the government to take a flying leap off a cliff in trying to tell people who they can marry but I doubt it sometimes...just let people marry who they want for christ sakes.
No this is just a step closer to empower the government to regulate same sex relationships like they regulate our marriages.
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court cleared the way Wednesday for same-sex marriages to resume in California as the justices, in a procedural ruling, turned away the defenders of Proposition 8.
Chief Justice John Roberts, speaking for the 5-4 majority, said the private sponsors of Prop. 8 did not have legal standing to appeal after the ballot measure was struck down by a federal judge in San Francisco.
"We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to," he said. "We decline to do so for the first time here."
Prop. 8: Supreme Court clears way for gay marriage in California - latimes.com
some folks don't read well, they are referring back to the state, and as seen above they didn't grant anything to anyone, they followed precedent and the law, I think they did the right thing.
They did. Prop 8 was already ruled unconstitutional. By not hearing the case, marriage is "granted" in CA...by the lower court ruling.
you are comprehension challenged;
tjhey didn't make one remark as to the validity/legality or legal machinations by virtue of of prop 8, they said that they would not deal with it becasue there was no complainant they would recognize to argue the case in front of them......
We'll have to bookmark this one for the next time a state decides to ignore one of the left's pet laws and regulations.Not arguing that, but by not hearing the case and since it was already ruled unconstitutional...it's over. Prop 8 is DONE.
That's a dumb libertarian talking point.
Marriage (dissolution of marriage) is about property.
Government's main function is to protect property (boundaries, ownership, possessions).
Lol...wrong. Marriage is a CONTRACT between 2 people absolutely no reason the government needs to be involved if its a divorce and only then the civil court needs involved.
There is no logical reason to limit it to two people.
I doubt that bigamy laws will stand, if challenged.
If a cluster wants a contract, the government should allow them to craft it, and register it at the courthouse.
if a cluster can find a church to marry them, then they can do that to.
Totally separate issues.
