Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 10 to 18 of 44

Thread: Prop 8 - gay marraige in California overturned

  1. #10
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,935

    Default Re: Prop 8 (gay marraige in California overturned

    I knew you were not that's why I did not address it, I dont want that headache. There were some things in this decision i did not like but on the whole not a lot to argue with.

  2. #11

    Default Re: Prop 8 (gay marraige in California overturned

    Quote Originally Posted by UGLY View Post
    Here some of the decision

    58. Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against
    gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have
    intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays
    and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and
    lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of
    society.
    Not gonna argue with the decision, but you'd think a court ruling would be written more eloquently. "Gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals" is like something out of a high school English essay.
    Last edited by arm-spin; 08-05-2010 at 12:17 PM.

  3. #12

    Default Re: Prop 8 (gay marraige in California overturned

    lol -- yeah, it's called the 2nd Amendment, and it's part of our Constitution. Very clear words and 250 years of Federal, state and local legislation recognizing the individual right to own and carry weapons. The Chicago ban violated the 2nd Amendment plain and simple. So, there is a big GD difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by ODH View Post
    It is funny how this happened so soon after the Supreme Court overturned Chcago's gun ban law...
    Either or both actions could be called "legislating from the bench"... To my conservative friends, do you feel you can justify one action as the courts being activist while the other is not?

  4. #13

    Default Re: Prop 8 (gay marraige in California overturned

    Quote Originally Posted by UGLY View Post
    I do believe that this does open the door for polygamist to be legally married?
    I agree, but I bet they wouldn't get the same public support.

  5. #14

    Default Re: Prop 8 (gay marraige in California overturned

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    This isn't a suprise since the Judge is gay himself. I have no idea how issues like this get on a ballot in California, but don't they have to prove that it's constitutional to begin with? If so, I could see it getting overturned by SCOTUS, if not then you're right about unintended consequences.
    I don't think the judge's sexual orientation had any bearing on his decision.
    His original appointment to the Federal bench by Ronald Reagan was opposed in Congress by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who represents San Francisco, and other Democrats because of a perceived bias against gays. That bias was "proven" by his having represented the U.S. Olympic organization in their suit against the Special Olympics over the use of the word "Olympics". He was later re-nominated by George H. W. Bush.
    If we are to accept the argument that his sexual orientation would effect his judicial judgement, then what do we do about the "bias" of heterosexual judges? Or do we have to have every case decided by a panel of judges - a panel that would have enough members to cover all of the possibilities of personal bias? Can you imagine the bench requirement for a suit between Tiger Woods and his wife? It would take dozens of judges to "equalize" all of the potentials!

    R.I.P. Cyrano and Roxanne.

  6. #15

    Default Re: Prop 8 (gay marraige in California overturned

    [QUOTE=M Richardson;329284]I don't think the judge's sexual orientation had any bearing on his decision.[QUOTE]

    I couldn't disagree more and not because of the points you brought up. Those were good points, assuming all things were equal, but they aren't. The gay community had to live in the shadows for sooo long. They formed a bond amongst themselves that will take eons to break. Same with blacks, native americans ect....

    Let's skip the white bashing here because we all know what happened. I don't fault these groups for forming bonds like this and passing it to other generations, it happens. But, could you imagine being a gay judge and hanging out with all of your friends for years. Friends who are gay (we all hang out with like minded people) and then getting the chance to over rule this decision? We aren't robots and neither is he. He probably would have been ousted from his own friends. This was a biased decision. I can name hundreds of thousands of straight people who would've liked to over turn this decision. But can anyone name one gay person who would've? This guy had no choice but to do what he did and he shouldn't have been put in that position.

    That is not a gay-bashing position. It is reality. That is why I think it may be overturned. Not because I think it should, but because I think that others can look at it more objectively. And, BTW, I couldn't care less either way.

  7. #16

    Default Re: Prop 8 (gay marraige in California overturned

    So, if I am in a dispute with my neighbor, do we get an Anglo judge or a Hispanic? After all, a Hispanic would be rejected from his social community for ruling in my favor, and an Anglo for ruling against me. No black, hispanic, female, gay, non-northern european, etc. judge can sit on a civil rights case?
    We have to "judge" our judges by their rulings and the logic within them. To say that a case is a forgone conclusion because of the personal charactoristics of the judge is an attack on the personal integrity of that individual.
    If, in fact, this case is "no surprise since the judge is gay" he should be removed from the bench. Instead, he seems to have the high regard of those in the legal profession and his peers on the bench.

    R.I.P. Cyrano and Roxanne.

  8. #17

    Default Re: Prop 8 (gay marraige in California overturned

    Quote Originally Posted by M Richardson View Post
    So, if I am in a dispute with my neighbor, do we get an Anglo judge or a Hispanic? After all, a Hispanic would be rejected from his social community for ruling in my favor, and an Anglo for ruling against me. No black, hispanic, female, gay, non-northern european, etc. judge can sit on a civil rights case?
    We have to "judge" our judges by their rulings and the logic within them. To say that a case is a forgone conclusion because of the personal charactoristics of the judge is an attack on the personal integrity of that individual.
    If, in fact, this case is "no surprise since the judge is gay" he should be removed from the bench. Instead, he seems to have the high regard of those in the legal profession and his peers on the bench.
    I personally think most judges are biased. If they all ruled one way then there would be no vetting process to become a judge. Let's not put our heads in the sand. We are all human and that's why this case will go before many other judges. Our Founding Fathers were smart in having a checks and balance system.

    I am biased in ways and so are you. These judges are no different. They just have a different job.

  9. #18
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,968

    Default Re: Prop 8 (gay marraige in California overturned

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclone85 View Post
    lol -- yeah, it's called the 2nd Amendment, and it's part of our Constitution. Very clear words and 250 years of Federal, state and local legislation recognizing the individual right to own and carry weapons. The Chicago ban violated the 2nd Amendment plain and simple. So, there is a big GD difference.
    The 2nd amendment says:
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.. This can be interpretated many different ways by reasonable people. A logical interpretation for me is that the government can pass laws to restrict certain types of gun ownership or require registration for guns, but it cannot outright ban all gun ownership.

    The 14th amendment has the equal protetction clause:
    "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
    Again can be interpreted many ways, but to me it seems obvious that denying one group of citizens the ability to marry violates equal protection.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •