Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Prop8trialtracker)   Will gays be allowed to marry? Can gays legally preside over gay marriage trials? Do proponents of propositions have Federal standing? It's your official 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Prop. 8 thread (Ruling expected 10 am PST)   (prop8trialtracker.com) divider line 189
    More: Misc, 9th Circuit, California Supreme Court, same-sex marriage in California, due processes, supreme court ruling, constitutionality, judicial review, interpersonal relationship  
•       •       •

1104 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Feb 2012 at 5:58 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-07 11:51:35 AM  

fracto73: The guy I was talking with was a pretty reasonable guy and was willing to rethink his position. It was something of a dilema for him though. It was during the healthcare debate. He trotted out the typical 'We can't read the bill' and 'Let insurers sell between the states'. When I answered those showing he was wrong I know he spent some time reading the HCR bill and was at the very least rethinking his stance on interstate insurance requirements. I don't know what he eventually decided on though.


That's rare.
 
2012-02-07 12:02:08 PM  

RedPhoenix122: fracto73: I've confronted a states rights tea party type with the fact that his position demanded the federal government take away states rights. He didn't know what to think about it any more. At least he saw the moral dilema inherent in his position and didn't simply go with 'it's ok when we do it'.

It's fun when hypocrites get called on their BS, and suddenly their brains come to a screeching halt.


It really is. I've personally seen the gears grinding in my parents' heads more than once. Most recently, I managed to make this happen by questioning them on whether they thought we had a moral duty to provide people with life-saving health care even if they can't afford it. Once they did, they had a really tough time figuring out how to pay for that moral duty without a mandate or a Medicare for All system. It took a lot of willpower to not laugh my ass off as they hemmed and hawed for a few minutes.
 
2012-02-07 12:03:13 PM  

RedPhoenix122: fracto73: The guy I was talking with was a pretty reasonable guy and was willing to rethink his position. It was something of a dilema for him though. It was during the healthcare debate. He trotted out the typical 'We can't read the bill' and 'Let insurers sell between the states'. When I answered those showing he was wrong I know he spent some time reading the HCR bill and was at the very least rethinking his stance on interstate insurance requirements. I don't know what he eventually decided on though.

That's rare.



He wasn't a prick about his beliefs, neither was I when he was right. We would hang out and play chess over lunch, and politics was a frequent topic for us. We both enjoyed having a meaningful conversation about the issues.

It might add a level of complexity here that this was at a high school. There were children around. In practice this means that we kept everything very respectful and tried to set a good example for what political debate could be between adults.

These were troubled kids too, the kind who wouldn't normally have graduated high school. It was interesting to see them get into both chess, and reading about politics. At election time he hung up the bios for each candidate from the local paper and encouraged the kids to make notes under each candidate, so long as they could point out that it was true.
 
2012-02-07 12:03:16 PM  

Serious Black: It really is. I've personally seen the gears grinding in my parents' heads more than once. Most recently, I managed to make this happen by questioning them on whether they thought we had a moral duty to provide people with life-saving health care even if they can't afford it. Once they did, they had a really tough time figuring out how to pay for that moral duty without a mandate or a Medicare for All system. It took a lot of willpower to not laugh my ass off as they hemmed and hawed for a few minutes.


My favorite is quoting Jim Gaffigan. The argument was gay marriage, and my BiL said "It's just not natural", I replied "Neither is crapping indoors". That just got a blank stare for about 30 seconds.
 
2012-02-07 12:05:23 PM  

fracto73: He wasn't a prick about his beliefs, neither was I when he was right. We would hang out and play chess over lunch, and politics was a frequent topic for us. We both enjoyed having a meaningful conversation about the issues.

It might add a level of complexity here that this was at a high school. There were children around. In practice this means that we kept everything very respectful and tried to set a good example for what political debate could be between adults.

These were troubled kids too, the kind who wouldn't normally have graduated high school. It was interesting to see them get into both chess, and reading about politics. At election time he hung up the bios for each candidate from the local paper and encouraged the kids to make notes under each candidate, so long as they could point out that it was true.


My point is that the level of debate in this country is so far devolved that people refuse to accept any opinion that doesn't match theirs completely. Even in the face of facts, statistics, reason, logic, and common sense, they still hold on for dear life an archaic viewpoint that doesn't have any place in this society.
 
2012-02-07 12:08:40 PM  

RedPhoenix122: Serious Black: It really is. I've personally seen the gears grinding in my parents' heads more than once. Most recently, I managed to make this happen by questioning them on whether they thought we had a moral duty to provide people with life-saving health care even if they can't afford it. Once they did, they had a really tough time figuring out how to pay for that moral duty without a mandate or a Medicare for All system. It took a lot of willpower to not laugh my ass off as they hemmed and hawed for a few minutes.

My favorite is quoting Jim Gaffigan. The argument was gay marriage, and my BiL said "It's just not natural", I replied "Neither is crapping indoors". That just got a blank stare for about 30 seconds.


That's pretty awesome. I would use that depending on who is within earshot. If there were kids around, I'd use air conditioning as my silver bullet. Especially if I were in the south.
 
2012-02-07 12:08:58 PM  

fracto73: The guy I was talking with was a pretty reasonable guy and was willing to rethink his position. It was something of a dilema for him though. It was during the healthcare debate. He trotted out the typical 'We can't read the bill' and 'Let insurers sell between the states'. When I answered those showing he was wrong I know he spent some time reading the HCR bill and was at the very least rethinking his stance on interstate insurance requirements. I don't know what he eventually decided on though.


I think you changed his mind on that point at least.
 
2012-02-07 12:09:25 PM  

Radioactive Ass: Philip Francis Queeg: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Go read California's Civil Union laws. It's already there.


It's called "Federal Law" you stupid git.

/late to the party
//don't farking care
///ashamed I don't have much to say that wasn't already
////
 
2012-02-07 12:12:02 PM  
don worry folkz

geneticists have promised a cure....

that'll shovel out the stable
 
2012-02-07 12:13:07 PM  

Serious Black: That's pretty awesome. I would use that depending on who is within earshot. If there were kids around, I'd use air conditioning as my silver bullet. Especially if I were in the south.


There's a plethora of things you can use for that example. It's not natural to buy food at a store instead of hunt or farm it, it's not natural to sit and watch tv for 8 hours a day, hell, it's not natural to have electricity.
 
2012-02-07 12:13:08 PM  

Karac: fracto73: The guy I was talking with was a pretty reasonable guy and was willing to rethink his position. It was something of a dilema for him though. It was during the healthcare debate. He trotted out the typical 'We can't read the bill' and 'Let insurers sell between the states'. When I answered those showing he was wrong I know he spent some time reading the HCR bill and was at the very least rethinking his stance on interstate insurance requirements. I don't know what he eventually decided on though.

I think you changed his mind on that point at least.



Ya, he was a reasonable guy but he had never heard of Thomas. I know for a fact that after he knew about it he looked up any bill he was having doubts about.
 
2012-02-07 12:13:45 PM  

rynthetyn: I'd be extremely surprised if the 9th Circuit would rule Prop. 8 constitutional. The only real question is whether it gets appealed to the Supreme Court or not.


The 9th Circuit could rule it very narrowly so it only applied to CA.
 
2012-02-07 12:32:21 PM  
We just legalized gay marriage here in Washington state and already Fundie support is pouring in from out of state to organize a petition drive to repeal it this Fall. I really hope one of these petitioners approaches on the street me so I can tell them to go fark themselves.

God how I loathe these people.
 
2012-02-07 12:37:14 PM  

Old enough to know better: We just legalized gay marriage here in Washington state and already Fundie support is pouring in from out of state to organize a petition drive to repeal it this Fall. I really hope one of these petitioners approaches on the street me so I can tell them to go fark themselves.

God how I loathe these people.


"I don't have a problem with God, it's his fan club I can't stand"
 
2012-02-07 12:40:36 PM  

Old enough to know better: We just legalized gay marriage here in Washington state and already Fundie support is pouring in from out of state to organize a petition drive to repeal it this Fall. I really hope one of these petitioners approaches on the street me so I can tell them to go fark themselves.


You haven't legalized it yet.

/in Minnesota - newly elected GOP majorities sucked the tit of the evangelical right and shoved through a vote on defining marriage in November
//the hearings were disgusting - on one side republicans and democrats alike talked against the measure - on the other side were extremists talking about god's law - the vote came down exactly along party lines
 
2012-02-07 12:53:15 PM  
9th Circuit site is so farked.
 
2012-02-07 01:01:27 PM  
Unconstitutional.
 
2012-02-07 01:02:17 PM  
 
2012-02-07 01:03:14 PM  
Breaking: Ninth Circuit Rules Prop 8 Is Unconstitutional!
2-1 vote
 
2012-02-07 01:07:27 PM  
 
2012-02-07 01:07:29 PM  

roadmarks: eddiesocket:

Ah. Well, good luck! I'm sure you're not the only NY married couple trying this out this year. (As an aside, our socials indicate our gender? Where?)

I sure hope we aren't, but we are seriously hoping one of the other court cases finishes off DOMA before we have to file.


Not likely. You have to file by April 15.
 
2012-02-07 01:13:11 PM  
OK, that's one more step out of the way. Yes, a narrow ruling, and yes, it'll get appealed, but it's another step out of the way.

Suck it, haters.
 
2012-02-07 01:14:33 PM  
Awesome, but was there any way they could have not limited it to just California or does the lack of ballot iniatives in the other states put the kibosh on that?
 
2012-02-07 01:17:44 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: Awesome, but was there any way they could have not limited it to just California or does the lack of ballot iniatives in the other states put the kibosh on that?


Election year. Nuff said.
 
2012-02-07 01:25:15 PM  
Well, it's pretty farking narrow. Basically, they said "if a state confers all the rights of marriage on gay couples, lets them marry, then takes that right away, it's unconstitutional. Left alone the entire issue of whether it's constitutional to ban gay marriage at all.
 
2012-02-07 01:25:24 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: Awesome, but was there any way they could have not limited it to just California or does the lack of ballot iniatives in the other states put the kibosh on that?


Sure, but they chickened out. They noted that there were three arguments - due process, equal protection, and the stripping away of an established right - and said that since the last one is the narrowest, "judicial restraint" dictates that they should start there.

It also means that SCOTUS could reasonably deny cert on the grounds that it's only of interest to one state.
 
2012-02-07 01:29:28 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: Awesome, but was there any way they could have not limited it to just California or does the lack of ballot iniatives in the other states put the kibosh on that?


They went with the narrow framing of the case, that Proposition 8 explicitly took away the right for same-sex couples to get married, because courts generally decide on the narrowest framing possible.
 
2012-02-07 01:31:21 PM  

Theaetetus: YoungSwedishBlonde: Awesome, but was there any way they could have not limited it to just California or does the lack of ballot iniatives in the other states put the kibosh on that?

Sure, but they chickened out. They noted that there were three arguments - due process, equal protection, and the stripping away of an established right - and said that since the last one is the narrowest, "judicial restraint" dictates that they should start there.

It also means that SCOTUS could reasonably deny cert on the grounds that it's only of interest to one state.


Question, law-talking-guy: the article mentioned that plaintiffs had already sued in federal court with a direct constitutional challenge. Will that case go away since this one (at this moment) removes the impediment that they sued over?
 
2012-02-07 01:33:16 PM  

dahmers love zombie: Theaetetus: YoungSwedishBlonde: Awesome, but was there any way they could have not limited it to just California or does the lack of ballot iniatives in the other states put the kibosh on that?

Sure, but they chickened out. They noted that there were three arguments - due process, equal protection, and the stripping away of an established right - and said that since the last one is the narrowest, "judicial restraint" dictates that they should start there.

It also means that SCOTUS could reasonably deny cert on the grounds that it's only of interest to one state.

Question, law-talking-guy: the article mentioned that plaintiffs had already sued in federal court with a direct constitutional challenge. Will that case go away since this one (at this moment) removes the impediment that they sued over?


Technically, yes, it could... Or, rather, the judge could immediately grant them summary judgement based on this case as precedent.
 
2012-02-07 01:35:22 PM  
I'm already reading about people freaking out over this, most of them Republican.

Hmmm .. aren't Republicans usually for states' rights?
 
2012-02-07 01:44:00 PM  

zarberg: I'm already reading about people freaking out over this, most of them Republican.

Hmmm .. aren't Republicans usually for states' rights?


Yes, states' rights to limit the rights of an individual.
 
2012-02-07 04:02:13 PM  

Theaetetus: Yes, states' rights to limit the rights of an individual.


Unless it's guns, then don't you dare limit their rights.
 
2012-02-07 04:45:48 PM  

muck4doo: Government shouldn't be involved in marriage, period. Civil unions for everyone.


End of the day the government part is the legal contract between two people to share their stuff.

The stuff at the church, mosque or synagogue is nice and all but it's really the cherry on top of the cake and not the cake itself.

/And some people just don't like cherries.
 
2012-02-07 04:58:00 PM  
A Feb. 7 ruling by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that found Prop. 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees Americans equal protection under the law. The ban was struck down in a vote of 2-1 by the three-judge panel.

Suck it, haters!

/Wait, does this mean the LDS guys get a refund?
 
2012-02-07 08:08:31 PM  

RedPhoenix122: Serious Black: That's pretty awesome. I would use that depending on who is within earshot. If there were kids around, I'd use air conditioning as my silver bullet. Especially if I were in the south.

There's a plethora of things you can use for that example. It's not natural to buy food at a store instead of hunt or farm it, it's not natural to sit and watch tv for 8 hours a day, hell, it's not natural to have electricity.


Another kid safe one is that it isn't natural to cook food. Or live past an average age of 9 (or whatever the current estimates of pre-civilized mortality were).
 
2012-02-08 07:36:20 AM  

muck4doo: Government shouldn't be involved in marriage, period. Civil unions for everyone.


Annnnnnd we're done.

Leave it to the churches to do the "marrying". Just like we leave it to the churches to do all of the rest of the sacraments/ordinances of the various churches.
 
2012-02-08 11:14:52 AM  

mauricecano: You might want to learn your history before you make such bold statements. In Roman society, having same sex lovers and preferring men of the same sex was absolutely allowed and not frowned upon. This is the same for the Greeks, both cultures were open about it and the Greeks more so with their rules. There was not a ban by the Greeks, they preferred sex with boys as well.


Bad facts don't help anyone's case.

The Roman's certainly did not approve of homosexuality. Charges of homosexuality against senators was always a source of scandal (which is why the muckraker Suetonius loved to insinuate it for the early emperors), and one of the acts that could lead to a legion being decimated was buggery in the ranks.

As for the Greeks, you need to realize that there was more to the Hellenic states than just Sparta, and one of the reasons that the other Greek states often looked down on the Spartan's was precisely because of their man/boy love.

We can make a good case for gay rights without having to use pop history myths to do it.
 
2012-02-08 11:18:05 AM  

TheDumbBlonde: The norm and the average are two different things. You know this, I know this, and GOD forbid you corraberate any comment I made. Meh. Let's all have anal sex in support of this judicial decision.


In all fairness, it might help to dislodge that stick in your ass.
 
2012-02-10 02:03:15 PM  
gay people make me sick...

...of conservative christians.
 
Displayed 39 of 189 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report