FTFA - The ruling was narrowly written and limited to California.

Wake me when the rioting starts.

Canada is watching in amazement.

The three-judge panel that heard the case ruled 2 to 1 against the voter-approved marriage ban, concluding it was unconstitutional and served no purpose other than to "lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians."

Yup, that's what it does alright.

Hence "Prop H8".

An 11 judge panel lasting up to a year sounds like fun but ultimately isn't this gonna hafta be decided by teh SCOTUS?

Mike_LowELL: The right-wing organization Southern Tax-Free Unity is reporting there is a very good chance that Taxbongo will be impeached. Crossing my fingers.

Dang you, ya crazy RW nut!

Why don't you just have yerself a great big steaming mug of STF...

*Ohhhhh*

Never mind.

/Didn't see ya there fer a sec, Mikey.

quatchi: The three-judge panel that heard the case ruled 2 to 1 against the voter-approved marriage ban, concluding it was unconstitutional and served no purpose other than to "lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians."

Yup, that's what it does alright.

Hence "Prop H8".

An 11 judge panel lasting up to a year sounds like fun but ultimately isn't this gonna hafta be decided by teh SCOTUS?

If the scope is limited to the conflict with the California state constitution, I don't see how SCOTUS could justify hearing the case. If there were larger Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment concerns, then they could. The scope of the California appellate court decisions is narrow enough that they shouldn't. Of course, with the Roberts Court, who farking knows?

Summercat: That was one of Mike's better posts, actually. Subtle to thepoint where people could take it at face value, but with a hint.

Well, better compared to his latest crop of posts.

Me, I'm rather more a fan of his ML's over-the-top stuff than his subtle stuff.

/Also a big fan of PN and SAM.

quatchi: Mike_LowELL: The right-wing organization Southern Tax-Free Unity is reporting there is a very good chance that Taxbongo will be impeached. Crossing my fingers.

Dang you, ya crazy RW nut!

Why don't you just have yerself a great big steaming mug of STF...

*Ohhhhh*

Never mind.

/Didn't see ya there fer a sec, Mikey.

That's why I have him highlighted, so that I can see his genius posts for what they are.

He really needs to teach a class at troll school, perfectly executed.

Mike_LowELL: The right-wing organization Southern Tax-Free Unity is reporting there is a very good chance that Taxbongo will be impeached. Crossing my fingers.

Is Taxbongo Fartbongo's even more evil alternate personality?

quatchi: ultimately isn't this gonna hafta be decided by teh SCOTUS?

They may decline to hear it -- the way the case has been crafted SCOTUS would have to go out of their way to render a decision that had any effect outside of California. If they decline to hear an appeal the lower court finding would remain in force. Or they may decide to hear it; SCOTUS takes or doesn't take cases entirely at the pleasure of the justices.

At least prop 8 doesn't attempt to jail already-married gays. In Wisconsin you can be imprisoned for 9 months and fined $10k for the crime of legally marrying someone in another jurisdiction. See WI 765.04 and 765.30 if you're interested in the details.

Prop 8 just needed the right corporate tagline...

NO HOMO.... By Mennen!

profplump: At least prop 8 doesn't attempt to jail already-married gays...

*click*

Oh, FFS.

[dontwanttoliveonthisplanet]

Also, Mikey is a deft artist. It doesn't have the shock and awe of T Boone trolling Drake on twitter, but well executed nonetheless.

FTFA: If the court agrees to review the ruling, a larger panel of 11 judges would be assembled. A new ruling could take several months to more than a year.

A year to assemble? Where are they coming from? Do they just not see the judge signal flashed by commissioner Gordon?

profplump: the way the case has been crafted SCOTUS would have to go out of their way to render a decision that had any effect outside of California.

You mean, much like in Citizen United where they went wildly beyond the intended scope to make a sweeping decision that altered the political landscape?

I can totally see them turning that down.

twat_waffle: An 11 judge panel lasting up to a year sounds like fun but ultimately isn't this gonna hafta be decided by teh SCOTUS?

If the scope is limited to the conflict with the California state constitution, I don't see how SCOTUS could justify hearing the case. If there were larger Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment concerns, then they could. The scope of the California appellate court decisions is narrow enough that they shouldn't. Of course, with the Roberts Court, who farking knows?

Ah, ty for that. Yeah, think the case of Go Big v. Go Home applies.

/Speaking of "Big", I don't remember Barb Bush's bosom being quite so buxom before.
//Big boobies are distracting.

Okay but is fisting really the image you want to represent you in this?

quatchi: /Speaking of "Big", I don't remember Barb Bush's bosom being quite so buxom before.

It's hard to believe that something so good-looking could have come out of W's penis.

profplump: At least prop 8 doesn't attempt to jail already-married gays. In Wisconsin you can be imprisoned for 9 months and fined $10k for the crime of legally marrying someone in another jurisdiction. See WI 765.04 and 765.30 if you're interested in the details.

Wow. Just... wow. How do they expect to get that past the Full Faith and Credit clause? That's not even remotely constitutional.

rynthetyn: Karac: profplump: At least prop 8 doesn't attempt to jail already-married gays. In Wisconsin you can be imprisoned for 9 months and fined $10k for the crime of legally marrying someone in another jurisdiction. See WI 765.04 and 765.30 if you're interested in the details.

How would that jackassery even stand up in court? How could Wisconsin legally punish someone for a 'crime' not committed in their state, and for which the evidence - the marriage certificate - it doesn't even recognize?

I'll ask again; how hard is it to mind your own business and just farking ignore other people's lives? If you're poor or sick, the republicans have no problem not noticing you, why can't they just ignore gays?

Wisconsin's douchebaggery seems an awful lot like the scenario that led to Loving v. Virginia.

It's exactly the same scenario that led to Loving. All it would take is one gay couple willing to test it and you could see a decision that strikes down sexually discriminatory marriage laws just like Loving did to racially discriminatory ones. I hope the gay couple that does it are named something fantastic like the Loving couple.

I wish they'd hurry up. This bullshiat about "letting people vote" on this stuff is ridiculous. It's just a way for bigoted assholes to make themselves look "libertarian".

RyogaM: It's exactly the same scenario that led to Loving. All it would take is one gay couple willing to test it and you could see a decision that strikes down sexually discriminatory marriage laws just like Loving did to racially discriminatory ones. I hope the gay couple that does it are named something fantastic like the Loving couple.

Patrick Fitzgerald and Gerald Fitzpatrick?

rebelyell2006: quatchi: /Speaking of "Big", I don't remember Barb Bush's bosom being quite so buxom before.

It's hard to believe that something so good-looking could have come out of W's penis.

Well, I for one haven't even seen the short term paternity test, have you?

/Just askin' question is fun! ^_^

cman: ShawnDoc: If the appeals court refuses to reconsider the ruling, its pretty much done and proposition 8 will be overturned. I seriously doubt the Supreme Court will be will to hear the case, as they usually wait until there's a number of conflicting appeals decisions before wading into the waters. As far as I know, that's not the case at the moment, plus the lower courts careful wording to make the decision only apply to California limits the national scope.

SCOTUS loves unprecedented cases. They will take it up.

And they will artificially limit the scope of their decision to California alone. With a clever statement in there about how this decision is not to be used as precedence. There will be bake sales and attempts to raise awareness. Some people will make the talk show rounds. There will be two days of press coverage, one for "each side" and then we'll all go back to trying to keep our women in check.

It will be anti-climactic in ways that only Americans are used to these days.

RyogaM: I hope the gay couple that does it are named something fantastic like the Loving couple.



WI v. Pfister?

ShawnDoc: If the appeals court refuses to reconsider the ruling, its pretty much done and proposition 8 will be overturned. I seriously doubt the Supreme Court will be will to hear the case, as they usually wait until there's a number of conflicting appeals decisions before wading into the waters. As far as I know, that's not the case at the moment, plus the lower courts careful wording to make the decision only apply to California limits the national scope.

That's not true at all. They wait until there are conflicting decisions in the circuits on issues such as whether you must mention specific unlawful policies in your complaint in a suit against a town government. For hot button issues like this, they almost always grant cert without waiting for split circuits to develop.

Richard Saunders: FTFA - The ruling was narrowly written and limited to California.

Wake me when the rioting redecorating starts.

Cythraul

mat catastrophe: I wish they'd hurry up. This bullshiat about "letting people vote" on this stuff is ridiculous. It's just a way for bigoted assholes to make themselves look "libertarian".

Voting on civil rights is a perfectly reasonable course of action. Just look how it turned out during the African American civil rights movement when states voted on their rights.

A lot of people say gay marriage is not a civil rights issue....because no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want.

Remember that the logic behind the prop 8 takedown isn't that gays inherently have a right to marry, it's that once a state declares a civil liberty it can't subsequently be revoked by ballot initiative. The USSC granting the appeal wouldn't just annoy some gay people, it would fark the entire legal system of the western quarter of the US, because it would legalize, effectively, ex post facto laws (a big no-no in the US legal system).

So, no, the USSC isn't even going to consider hearing this. If they want to make a gay-marriage-related ruling they'll wait for a different case with a more limited and appropriate context.

karnal: A lot of people say gay marriage is not a civil rights issue....because no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want.

Loving v Virginia: "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man."

Zagloba: karnal: A lot of people say gay marriage is not a civil rights issue....because no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want.

Loving v Virginia: "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man."

Yeah, but gays don't have rights because they're not human.

Mike_LowELL: The right-wing organization Southern Tax-Free Unity is reporting there is a very good chance that Taxbongo will be impeached. Crossing my fingers.

STFU.

/I see it

quatchi: rebelyell2006: quatchi: /Speaking of "Big", I don't remember Barb Bush's bosom being quite so buxom before.

It's hard to believe that something so good-looking could have come out of W's penis.

Well, I for one haven't even seen the short term paternity test, have you?

/Just askin' question is fun! ^_^

They definitely have a good twin/evil twin dynamic.

Zagloba


karnal: A lot of people say gay marriage is not a civil rights issue....because no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want.

Loving v Virginia: "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man."

Anyone can get married - but everyone has restrictions. Nobody has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want. For instance, a parent cannot marry their child, nor can someone marry two or more spouses....and you can't marry the husband or wife of another person. These and other restrictions have developed over centuries - based upon the accumulated wisdom of societies and cultures around the world.

karnal: Anyone can get married - but everyone has restrictions. Nobody has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want. For instance, a parent cannot marry their child, nor can someone marry two or more spouses....and you can't marry the husband or wife of another person. These and other restrictions have developed over centuries - based upon the accumulated wisdom of societies and cultures around the world.

Actually, those and other restrictions are supported by compelling governmental interests in requiring consent of parties to marriage, avoiding incest, and avoiding competing property interests. Such compelling interests are required to restrict a fundamental right, and the means to do so must be narrowly tailored so as to not further infringe the right.

Where's the compelling government interest in preventing gay marriage? And how is its complete ban a narrowly tailored means to protect said interest?

karnal: For instance, a parent cannot marry their child, nor can someone marry two or more spouses....and you can't marry the husband or wife of another person.

There are actual reasons behind these restrictions. Children cannot enter contracts (one of many reasons). Two (or more) spouses make for ugly inheritances and benefits. Polygamy also has a track record of going hand in hand with exploitation of women. Can you think of one that would pertain to gay marriage? Other than it being icky, of course.

karnal: Anyone can get married - but everyone has restrictions. Nobody has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want. For instance, a parent cannot marry their child, nor can someone marry two or more spouses....and you can't marry the husband or wife of another person. These and other restrictions have developed over centuries - based upon the accumulated wisdom of societies and cultures around the world.

... and up until Loving vs. Virginia, the "common wisdom" restricted marriage to being between people of the same race.

And you are wrong. I cannot get married. Unless I base the marriage on a lie - which last time I checked, "common wisdom" says that it not what marriage is about.

rynthetyn: Cythraul: Serious Black: Zagloba: karnal: A lot of people say gay marriage is not a civil rights issue....because no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want.

Loving v Virginia: "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man."

Yeah, but gays don't have rights because they're not human.

We're not?! Are we aliens?

Being an alien might be kind of nifty.

I was going for monsters personally, but hey, go with what you like, man!

Remember, we need to keep marriage between a man and a woman for the children. Because kids of single parents do so much better. Also its natural. Because there is no homosexuality in nature (aside from the 100+ species it has been observed in) and we need to keep everything natural, which is why you can, for example, legally marry your second cousins or have sex with animals in Texas.

Nature.

Theaetetus

karnal: Anyone can get married - but everyone has restrictions. Nobody has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want. For instance, a parent cannot marry their child, nor can someone marry two or more spouses....and you can't marry the husband or wife of another person. These and other restrictions have developed over centuries - based upon the accumulated wisdom of societies and cultures around the world.

Actually, those and other restrictions are supported by compelling governmental interests in requiring consent of parties to marriage, avoiding incest, and avoiding competing property interests. Such compelling interests are required to restrict a fundamental right, and the means to do so must be narrowly tailored so as to not further infringe the right.

Where's the compelling government interest in preventing gay marriage? And how is its complete ban a narrowly tailored means to protect said interest?
Sabyen91

karnal: For instance, a parent cannot marry their child, nor can someone marry two or more spouses....and you can't marry the husband or wife of another person.

There are actual reasons behind these restrictions. Children cannot enter contracts (one of many reasons). Two (or more) spouses make for ugly inheritances and benefits. Polygamy also has a track record of going hand in hand with exploitation of women. Can you think of one that would pertain to gay marriage? Other than it being icky, of course.


No - I can not think of any....maybe the spread of AIDS...but allowing same sex marriage would probably actually help with stopping the spreading of AIDS....and the only other thing would be the Christian's argument about their inability to procreate. So - I really have nothing.

karnal: No - I can not think of any....maybe the spread of AIDS...but allowing same sex marriage would probably actually help with stopping the spreading of AIDS....

Yep. Plus, it's not a narrowly tailored response: banning all marriages because some people have a disease would be unconstitutional, particularly when (even if it mattered) other means were available. For example, in many states, you used to have to get a blood test, and if you had syphilis (or sometimes other STDs), you were not allowed to marry.
That's since been done away with (since they realized that stopping people from marrying doesn't stop people from farking), but even still, if that was your concern, you could just require a blood test.

and the only other thing would be the Christian's argument about their inability to procreate.

Again, many heterosexual couples lack that, but I don't see the Christians arguing that heterosexual marriages that require IVF or marriages to post-menopausal women should be annulled. So again, even if that was a legitimate reason, restricting all gays from marrying would not be narrowly tailored.
Plus, again, marriage has little relationship to childbirth. This isn't the Victorian era - we know that people fark without being married, and the lack of a marriage certificate doesn't stop people from farking or bearing children. Although the two life events - marriage and childbirth - are frequently correlated, neither is required for the other.

So - I really have nothing.

Not so... For admitting that, you have my respect.

Cythraul: Can I be a cute and adorable muppet type monster? I want to be like a gay version of the cookie monster.

karnal: No - I can not think of any....maybe the spread of AIDS...but allowing same sex marriage would probably actually help with stopping the spreading of AIDS....and the only other thing would be the Christian's argument about their inability to procreate. So - I really have nothing.

What the hell is this?

/Did I go to some alternate universe Fark?
//So confused!

karnal:

No - I can not think of any....maybe the spread of AIDS...

Is this you?



So - I really have nothing.

You don't say.

Cythraul: Serious Black: rynthetyn: Cythraul: Serious Black: Zagloba: karnal: A lot of people say gay marriage is not a civil rights issue....because no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want.

Loving v Virginia: "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man."

Yeah, but gays don't have rights because they're not human.

We're not?! Are we aliens?

Being an alien might be kind of nifty.

I was going for monsters personally, but hey, go with what you like, man!

Can I be a cute and adorable muppet type monster? I want to be like a gay version of the cookie monster.

Sure, why not? I think you'd have to be called the Sausage Monster.

quatchi: twat_waffle: An 11 judge panel lasting up to a year sounds like fun but ultimately isn't this gonna hafta be decided by teh SCOTUS?

If the scope is limited to the conflict with the California state constitution, I don't see how SCOTUS could justify hearing the case. If there were larger Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment concerns, then they could. The scope of the California appellate court decisions is narrow enough that they shouldn't. Of course, with the Roberts Court, who farking knows?

Ah, ty for that. Yeah, think the case of Go Big v. Go Home applies.

/Speaking of "Big", I don't remember Barb Bush's bosom being quite so buxom before.
//Big boobies are distracting.

Jenna is the blond one, Barb is the brunette. I see no bosoms on Barb in the photo.

/she's still the hotter one.

karnal: Zagloba

karnal: A lot of people say gay marriage is not a civil rights issue....because no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want.

Loving v Virginia: "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man."

Anyone can get married - but everyone has restrictions. Nobody has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want. For instance, a parent cannot marry their child, nor can someone marry two or more spouses....and you can't marry the husband or wife of another person. These and other restrictions have developed over centuries - based upon the accumulated wisdom of societies and cultures around the world.

But those are arbitrary and nonsensical restrictions. Back in the day a man wanted to ensure that his children were his and not the children of some other guy, so no polyandry. Today we have DNA tests.

Polygyny is legal in something like 50 countries.

The only one I agree with you on is the 'no marrying children' one - because children are not deemed mature enough to make such a decision and any child/adult marriage is pretty much guaranteed to be exploiting the child.

The one man/one woman marriage is pretty much a Judeo-Christian concept. Even then, plenty of men in the Bible and Torah had multiple wives.

So, why, in this day and age, is marriage state-regulated rather than letting each individual religion marry its practitioners to whomever they want?

/Yes yes, I know 'we must force people to conform to our own outdated morals'.

Doak: quatchi: twat_waffle: An 11 judge panel lasting up to a year sounds like fun but ultimately isn't this gonna hafta be decided by teh SCOTUS?

If the scope is limited to the conflict with the California state constitution, I don't see how SCOTUS could justify hearing the case. If there were larger Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment concerns, then they could. The scope of the California appellate court decisions is narrow enough that they shouldn't. Of course, with the Roberts Court, who farking knows?

Ah, ty for that. Yeah, think the case of Go Big v. Go Home applies.

/Speaking of "Big", I don't remember Barb Bush's bosom being quite so buxom before.
//Big boobies are distracting.

Jenna is the blond one, Barb is the brunette. I see no bosoms on Barb in the photo.

/she's still the hotter one.

That is because she looks more like mom than dad. Jenna is good looking but you can see a lot of Dubya and that is...off-putting.

Commander Lysdexic: Polygyny is legal in something like 50 countries.

Coincidentally, the same 50 countries are at the bottom of the rankings for women's rights.

Oh, wait, that's not a coincidence at all.

Commander Lysdexic: So, why, in this day and age, is marriage state-regulated rather than letting each individual religion marry its practitioners to whomever they want?

Because reasonable people understand that marriage is about property rights, and so the state has to be involved, and each individual religion may perform any weddings they like without any interference from the state?

karnal: A lot of stupid people say gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.

FTFY.

Zagloba: Loving

The quote in Loving vs Virginia comes from Skinner vs Oklahoma and is as thus:

"But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause, though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, farreaching and devastating effects."

So procreation is the basic civil right that is referred to.

snarfyboy: karnal: Anyone can get married - but everyone has restrictions. Nobody has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want. For instance, a parent cannot marry their child, nor can someone marry two or more spouses....and you can't marry the husband or wife of another person. These and other restrictions have developed over centuries - based upon the accumulated wisdom of societies and cultures around the world.

... and up until Loving vs. Virginia, the "common wisdom" restricted marriage to being between people of the same race.



No, actually it did not. There were many mixed race marriages prior to Loving vs Virginia. The outlawing of mixed races didn't occur until the 1900's. Basically - interracial couples could marry and then suddenly their marriages were taken away. There were about 50 years where interracial couples could not marry and infinity on either side of that.

kukukupo: Zagloba: Loving

The quote in Loving vs Virginia comes from Skinner vs Oklahoma and is as thus:

"But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause, though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, farreaching and devastating effects."

So procreation is the basic civil right that is referred to... in Skinner. In Loving, it was not procreation, but marriage, and that's why they did not quote all of Skinner, but just "marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.'"
Furthermore, in that same citation, they cited Maynard v. Hill, which stated, marriage creates "the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution". Maynard also had nothing to do with children, but rather was solely about property rights.
Thus, Loving was explicitly saying that marriage was a fundamental right, and not merely a badge coincident to a fundamental right to procreation.

[Myth Busted]

Cythraul: Can I be a cute and adorable muppet type monster? I want to be like a gay version of the cookie monster.

I, for one, welcome our new, gay, adorable, alien, muppet overlords.

/Can't do much worse than the current system.
//Also interstellar cookies are probably awesome.

kukukupo: No, actually it did not. There were many mixed race marriages prior to Loving vs Virginia. The outlawing of mixed races didn't occur until the 1900's. Basically - interracial couples could marry and then suddenly their marriages were taken away. There were about 50 years where interracial couples could not marry and infinity on either side of that.

Depends on where and when you are talking about if you extend your counter-argument globally and throughout history. Many societies have banned interracial marriage throughout history and others have been accepting of it. I was making a point about the idea that common wisdom hardly ever has any permanence. You are just reinforcing that point. I could also point out that not everywhere outlaws gay marriage today, and that same-sex marriages were being performed in America long before Europeans settled here.

Karac: Theaetetus: Commander Lysdexic: Polygyny is legal in something like 50 countries.

Coincidentally, the same 50 countries are at the bottom of the rankings for women's rights.

Oh, wait, that's not a coincidence at all.

Well, gay marriage is legal in...

Not the same thing.

cman: SCOTUS loves unprecedented cases. They will take it up.

Unlikely. Not only does SCOTUS have to address the issue of Prop 8 but it would have to take up the issue of a gay judge recusing themselves from marriage equality cases and the issue of whether backers of a proposition can appeal a decision at the federal level (IIRC, never has a ballot initiative defended by the backers made it to SCOTUS)

Not every state has a ballot initiative system. SCOTUS wants to rule on cases that affect everyone. This case is limited to a ballot initiative in a state.

Also, the plantiffs in prop 8 have appealed on the grounds of hate and they threw whatever they could at the courts. While many people are on the fence about gay marriage, justices are unlikely to rule that a gay judge has to recuse themselves from a marriage equality trial. Why, one would ask? Because that would limit a judge's power and SCOTUS doesn't like that.

abb3w: The former might be difficult, as the counter-question can be raised that since the defendant-intervenors are claiming heterosexuals will be harmed, doesn't that equally imply that the straight judges must recuse themselves

Yes that's basically dividing by zero. I guess people do that when grasping at straws.

The way the 9th handles the latter question makes it seem very unlikely to be challenged by the SCOTUS: the 9th asked the California Supreme Court whether California law let the defendant-intervenors represent the interest of the state. The California Supreme Court says "yes"; federal courts are bound to accept the State's determination of who has the authority to act on behalf of the State, as (bizarrely) a question of state's sovereign rights to run the state government any whacky way they want.

See part III of the 9th circuit ruling (starting about p. 20).

Yeah, that pissed me off royally. When you write a weird discrimination law it sets weird precedent that has numerous implications. The 9th found the backers had standing but they didn't have to do that. Who knows how this would affect future cases.

Britney Spear's Speculum: The 9th found the backers had standing but they didn't have to do that.

Which would have set a different untenable situation into motion.

9th Circuit says NO

rynthetyn: Well, I guess that all we have to do now is wait and see whether they do decide to appeal to the SCOTUS, and whether the supremes decide to hear the case.

You think the anti-gay folks might not appeal to SCOTUS? Seriously? When have you ever known a bunch of ideological warriors to give up on a fight?

karnal: No - I can not think of any....maybe the spread of AIDS...

When will those gays stop infecting all those African women?

12349876


karnal: No - I can not think of any....maybe the spread of AIDS...

When will those gays stop infecting all those African women?


My biggest problem with this forum is this....how someone will take one sentence of something you posted and use it out of context. If you would have bothered to read on you would have seen the point I was trying to make.

/brings me back to the whole DIM thing.

The Supreme Court won't hear Prop 8. The law is too specific to one state and doesn't demand an urgent constitutional review. Maybe if the 9th Circuit wrote the opinion to apply to the entire 9th Circuit rather than the state of California, the Supreme Court would take it up.

On one end a Supreme Court ruling for Prop 8 would say states can take away rights that were given to people, and then gay marriage wouldn't be allowed just in California.
On the other end a ruling against Prop 8 would say states can't take away rights once given, and then gay marriage would be allowed in California.

Either way, only California is affected until another group of anti-gay marriage people successfully outlaw it in a state that already has allowed it. That is pretty narrow and it is why I don't think it will be reviewed by the supremes.


There has been talk of combing it with DOMA but that is unlikely. That would be like combining an appeal of a bank robbery conviction with an appeal of a banking regulation. They are two separate issues asking two separate questions. DOMA is more likely to be taken up by the supremes because affects way more people, not just one state.

quatchi: rebelyell2006: quatchi: /Speaking of "Big", I don't remember Barb Bush's bosom being quite so buxom before.

It's hard to believe that something so good-looking could have come out of W's penis.

Well, I for one haven't even seen the short term paternity test, have you?

/Just askin' question is fun! ^_^

If you're referring to the Bushtit picture on the right side of every Fark page, I believe you should recognize that it is Jenna's rack, not Barbara's, that is catching your attention.

Crapinoleum: quatchi: rebelyell2006: quatchi: /Speaking of "Big", I don't remember Barb Bush's bosom being quite so buxom before.

It's hard to believe that something so good-looking could have come out of W's penis.

Well, I for one haven't even seen the short term paternity test, have you?

/Just askin' question is fun! ^_^

If you're referring to the Bushtit picture on the right side of every Fark page, I believe you should recognize that it is Jenna's rack, not Barbara's, that is catching your attention.

Then the caption is wrong.

Former President George W. Bush's daughters Jenna (L) and Barbara attend the official White House portrait unveiling ceremony of their father in the East Room at the White House in Washington on May 31, 2012. UPI/Kevin Dietsch

That means Jenna is on the viewer's left, with brunette hair, which of course, she is not. Jenna is the blond. So yeah, the UPI screwed up the caption, leading those who are not intimately familiar with the Bush twins to believe that Babs is the one with the amazing rack.

"Then the caption is wrong." Unpossible!

"... leading those who are not intimately familiar..." Mmmm, intimately familiar.

Crapinoleum: If you're referring to the Bushtit picture on the right side of every Fark page, I believe you should recognize that it is Jenna's rack, not Barbara's, that is catching your attention.

Yeah, the whole Jenna (L) thing was confusing.

And now we got a pic of Tom "i can't believe I lost to Walker" Barrett?

Feh, I want Sophia Vergara brought back.

/Or bathed, perfumed and brought to my bunk on a palanquin. Wotevs.