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.

(Politico)   John Robert's gay cousin to sit in on the Prop 8 hearings. There's a joke about Scalia in here somewhere, but I'll be damned if I know what it is   (politico.com) divider line 175
    More: Interesting, Scalia, hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts, Defense of Marriage Act, cousins, good directions  
•       •       •

1301 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Mar 2013 at 8:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-25 08:07:35 AM
"Scalia"

that's the joke
 
2013-03-25 08:10:34 AM
He sounds entitled.
 
2013-03-25 08:17:19 AM
Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.
 
2013-03-25 08:20:08 AM

hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.


How, exactly, did he announce anything....?
 
2013-03-25 08:25:21 AM

Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?


His mere proximity to gay will sway his legal reasoning.
 
2013-03-25 08:26:09 AM
FTFA: I believe he sees where the tide is going

On one hand, it's not a justice's job to be populist. They're supposed to weigh the elements of the case and make a decision based off of their interpretation of the Constitution (and precedent).

On the other hand, only a brain-dead monkey wouldn't see that Prop 8 tramples on people's 1st and 14th amendment rights. What's funny is the NOM people are claiming that gay marriage tramples on THEIR "freedom of religion" rights. Well, what about everyone ELSE'S rights?
 
2013-03-25 08:27:44 AM
Also, FTFA: While Podrasky said she doesn't know if having a lesbian family member impacts Roberts' thinking, a Pew Research Center poll released last week found 32 percent of those who became supporters of gay marriage after opposing it did so because they knew someone who was gay.

Harvey Milk was right.
 
2013-03-25 08:27:46 AM
DOMA needs to go...
 
2013-03-25 08:28:43 AM
Bet Scumbag Scalia still votes against repealing it.
 
2013-03-25 08:28:57 AM

xanadian: On the other hand, only a brain-dead monkey wouldn't see that Prop 8 tramples on people's 1st and 14th amendment rights. What's funny is the NOM people are claiming that gay marriage tramples on THEIR "freedom of religion" rights. Well, what about everyone ELSE'S rights?


right, Scalia.

but seriously, I never understood why those who demand gay marriage banned because it's affront to their Jesus, don't understand that they're demands are an affront to real Jesus and decent humanity
 
2013-03-25 08:30:32 AM

Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?



What's more likely:
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the horrible news in person?
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the good news so she can stop bugging him at every single family meal?
 
2013-03-25 08:31:47 AM

somedude210: xanadian: On the other hand, only a brain-dead monkey wouldn't see that Prop 8 tramples on people's 1st and 14th amendment rights. What's funny is the NOM people are claiming that gay marriage tramples on THEIR "freedom of religion" rights. Well, what about everyone ELSE'S rights?

right, Scalia.

but seriously, I never understood why those who demand gay marriage banned because it's affront to their Jesus, don't understand that they're demands are an affront to real Jesus and decent humanity


They probably think gay marriage will invalidate their own marriage.

In other news, they are idiots.
 
2013-03-25 08:34:39 AM

NeverDrunk23: They probably think gay marriage will invalidate their own marriage.

In other news, they are idiots.


Well the second point is a given, but how exactly, in their logic, does it invalidate their marriage? I want to hear their logic and reasoning.
 
2013-03-25 08:34:43 AM

hinten: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?


What's more likely:
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the horrible news in person?
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the good news so she can stop bugging him at every single family meal?


It doesn't say he invited her.
 
2013-03-25 08:34:54 AM
Is a cousin enough to get a Republican to change their mind about marriage equality, because I thought it usually takes a son or daughter coming out?
 
2013-03-25 08:37:11 AM

hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.


This sounds to me like they are going to rule to keep it on the books. "Even my gay cousin says it's an okay law."
 
2013-03-25 08:37:49 AM
There's a joke about Scalia in here somewhere, but I'll be damned if I know what it is

images.politico.com
This is usually the joke fluttering about justice Scalia.
 
2013-03-25 08:40:46 AM

xanadian: On one hand, it's not a justice's job to be populist. They're supposed to weigh the elements of the case and make a decision based off of their interpretation of the Constitution


Aren't we a government of the people, by the people and for the people?   If the prevailing sentiments of the people change shouldn't the courts reflect the change?


Also, shouldn't phrases like "equal protection" apply to gays?
 
2013-03-25 08:44:11 AM

xanadian: On one hand, it's not a justice's job to be populist. They're supposed to weigh the elements of the case and make a decision based off of their interpretation of the Constitution (and precedent).


Interpretations of the Constitution have pretty much always evolved right alongside (and often ahead of) the society's general values.
 
2013-03-25 08:44:45 AM
Any guess on how much Thomas is selling his ruling for?
 
2013-03-25 08:45:29 AM

overfienduglar: Any guess on how much Thomas is selling his ruling for?


I believe the asking price is, "What Scalia says."
 
2013-03-25 08:45:31 AM

HotWingConspiracy: hinten: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?


What's more likely:
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the horrible news in person?
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the good news so she can stop bugging him at every single family meal?

It doesn't say he invited her.


It actually says SHE requested the tickets through Roberts' sister and secretary.

// clearly, this means Roberts' knees have callouses like pancakes, and the miles of cock he's chugged could blanket Rhode Island
 
2013-03-25 08:46:08 AM

hinten: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?


What's more likely:
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the horrible news in person?
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the good news so she can stop bugging him at every single family meal?


What's more likely:
You reading TFA?
Or you having a knee-jerk reaction?

FTFA:
Podrasky went through Roberts' sister, Peggy, and the justice's secretary to get the tickets.
 
2013-03-25 08:49:38 AM

overfienduglar: Any guess on how much Thomas is selling his ruling for?


A reach around from Scalia?
 
2013-03-25 08:49:42 AM

hinten: What's more likely:
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the horrible news in person?
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the good news so she can stop bugging him at every single family meal?


What news? It's a hearing. The decision won't be handed down for weeks or months.
 
2013-03-25 08:50:13 AM
If I was in Law school I would be boning up on contracts and marriage/divorce laws.

In a few years there be big money, as the young dudes leave with 1/2 the family money and ancestral estate.

Sure I know it happens all the time with gold diggers and old men.

Just think there will be a whole new set of conditions given the " *infidelities and hook ups among gay men ' and the whole but "we're married and he cheated on me your honor."
Lesbians will just continue to be pissed off regardless.

Think you're Dad was a little disturbed when you came out in HS.
 Imagine the look on his face when Antonio gets the Summer House in the settlement.

//* based upon gay friends talking about weekend conquests and drive by's encounters !
///. Welcome to the club..it ain't all about the wedding.
 
2013-03-25 08:50:48 AM
Having your relationship in the hands of the Supreme Court is more than a bit stressful. These next two days are going to be HUGE, and then we will have to likely wait until June to actually hear the outcome. When your entire future is in their hands, that's a bit intense.

/partner is not American
//equal immigration rights are thus HUGELY important
 
2013-03-25 08:51:14 AM
Who is John Robert?
 
2013-03-25 08:51:58 AM

Biological Ali: xanadian: On one hand, it's not a justice's job to be populist. They're supposed to weigh the elements of the case and make a decision based off of their interpretation of the Constitution (and precedent).

Interpretations of the Constitution have pretty much always evolved right alongside (and often ahead of) the society's general values.


Well, at least ahead of the South.
 
2013-03-25 08:53:14 AM

NeverDrunk23: somedude210: xanadian: On the other hand, only a brain-dead monkey wouldn't see that Prop 8 tramples on people's 1st and 14th amendment rights. What's funny is the NOM people are claiming that gay marriage tramples on THEIR "freedom of religion" rights. Well, what about everyone ELSE'S rights?

right, Scalia.

but seriously, I never understood why those who demand gay marriage banned because it's affront to their Jesus, don't understand that they're demands are an affront to real Jesus and decent humanity

They probably think gay marriage will invalidate their own marriage.

In other news, they are idiots.


They usually claim they are afraid that if you legalize gay marriage then:

A) Churches will be forced to perform weddings for gay couples or face government retribution.
B) Children will be confused how two members of the same sex can be married and teachers and parents will have to explain how gay people have sex with each other to elementary school students.

Both are BS objections though. Churches aren't forced to marry mixed race couples since anti-miscegnation laws are off the books, they won't be forced to perform same sex marriage. Meanwhile, telling kids that a man and a woman are married doesn't mean you have yo explain sex to them, why would same sex marriage require that sort of info? Kids generally blindly accept our social conventions as the way things work, and if you just say "they love each other very much and got married" that will satisfy most kids to the same degree any other answer would.
 
2013-03-25 08:54:39 AM

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: If I was in Law school I would be boning up on contracts and marriage/divorce laws.

In a few years there be big money, as the young dudes leave with 1/2 the family money and ancestral estate.

Sure I know it happens all the time with gold diggers and old men.

Just think there will be a whole new set of conditions given the " *infidelities and hook ups among gay men ' and the whole but "we're married and he cheated on me your honor."
Lesbians will just continue to be pissed off regardless.

Think you're Dad was a little disturbed when you came out in HS.
 Imagine the look on his face when Antonio gets the Summer House in the settlement.

//* based upon gay friends talking about weekend conquests and drive by's encounters !
///. Welcome to the club..it ain't all about the wedding.


The "dickhead:word" ratio in this post is phenomenal. Keep up the good work!
 
2013-03-25 08:58:03 AM

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: If I was in Law school I would be boning up on contracts and marriage/divorce laws.

In a few years there be big money, as the young dudes leave with 1/2 the family money and ancestral estate.

Sure I know it happens all the time with gold diggers and old men.

Just think there will be a whole new set of conditions given the " *infidelities and hook ups among gay men ' and the whole but "we're married and he cheated on me your honor."
Lesbians will just continue to be pissed off regardless.

Think you're Dad was a little disturbed when you came out in HS.
 Imagine the look on his face when Antonio gets the Summer House in the settlement.

//* based upon gay friends talking about weekend conquests and drive by's encounters !
///. Welcome to the club..it ain't all about the wedding.


Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if marriage equality leads to a reversal of divorces ending with the wife automatically getting half of everything  or completely hosing the husband out of everything he has. Assuming, of course, that the same laws for heterosexual marriages applies to homosexual marriages, that is.

/can't wait to see the responses to your post though.
 
2013-03-25 08:58:58 AM

macadamnut: Who is John Robert?


The unqualified English teacher of subby?
 
2013-03-25 08:59:07 AM

roadmarks: hinten: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?


What's more likely:
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the horrible news in person?
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the good news so she can stop bugging him at every single family meal?

What's more likely:
You reading TFA?
Or you having a knee-jerk reaction?

FTFA:
Podrasky went through Roberts' sister, Peggy, and the justice's secretary to get the tickets.


Strange way of using the word "guest". Apparently, she is his guest, independent of whether he actually invited her or not.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/03/25/john_roberts_jean_ po drasky_chief_justice_s_lesbian_cousin_will_attend_prop.html
 
2013-03-25 08:59:33 AM
Is she hot?
 
2013-03-25 09:00:09 AM

Muta: xanadian: On one hand, it's not a justice's job to be populist. They're supposed to weigh the elements of the case and make a decision based off of their interpretation of the Constitution

Aren't we a government of the people, by the people and for the people?   If the prevailing sentiments of the people change shouldn't the courts reflect the change?


Also, shouldn't phrases like "equal protection" apply to gays?


It all goes hand-in-hand with gay people being seen as merely second-class citizens.

In other words, pay no attention to Matthew 22:37-40, "Christians."  No attention at all.

Biological Ali: xanadian: On one hand, it's not a justice's job to be populist. They're supposed to weigh the elements of the case and make a decision based off of their interpretation of the Constitution (and precedent).

Interpretations of the Constitution have pretty much always evolved right alongside (and often ahead of) the society's general values.


Good point.

So, here's hoping!
 
2013-03-25 09:00:38 AM
In other news, former VP Dick Cheney has invited Justice Scalia to go hunting just before the ruling is issued.
 
2013-03-25 09:02:59 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-25 09:04:46 AM

imontheinternet: In other news, former VP Dick Cheney has invited Justice Scalia to go hunting just before the ruling is issued.


Whoa whoa whoa.  Just because Dick Cheney publicly supports his daughter and gay rights, let's not go so far as to think the Sith Lord would really lift a finger to thwart the position of his party.
 
2013-03-25 09:06:02 AM
I see that the Fark Misogyny Brigade is well-represented here already.
 
2013-03-25 09:06:32 AM
www.catch-arena.com
"OH, YOU DIDN'T KNOW?"
 
2013-03-25 09:07:09 AM
Aaaaaand my rhyme-themed post went to the wrong thread. 50 dumbass points, right here.
 
2013-03-25 09:10:49 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?

His mere proximity to gay will sway his legal reasoning.


There was a gay on the city bus today and I felt compelled to tidy my office this morning.
 
2013-03-25 09:11:14 AM

coeyagi: imontheinternet: In other news, former VP Dick Cheney has invited Justice Scalia to go hunting just before the ruling is issued.

Whoa whoa whoa.  Just because Dick Cheney publicly supports his daughter and gay rights, let's not go so far as to think the Sith Lord would really lift a finger to thwart the position of his party.


Cheney takes every possible opportunity to shoot people, especially now that he can't order people to do it for him..  It is known.
 
2013-03-25 09:13:39 AM
i47.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-25 09:15:26 AM
Another decision that will see Roberts as the deciding factor. That's a new trend.
 
2013-03-25 09:17:41 AM
The Gay Mafia strikes again.

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-25 09:25:18 AM

verbaltoxin: Another decision that will see Roberts as the deciding factor. That's a new trend.


I predict the scale being tipped by at least three votes in favour of gay marriage (6-3 or 7-2).
 
2013-03-25 09:26:06 AM
I'm handicapping the decision at 6-3 in favor of marriage equality.  Anyone else?
I think C.J. Roberts has a pretty keen sense of the fact that he'll live to see his decision overturned if he votes otherwise and I don't think he wants that to happen.  I'm guessing he might advocate for a more limited, but still positive, ruling.
 
2013-03-25 09:32:06 AM

mrshowrules: HotWingConspiracy: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?

His mere proximity to gay will sway his legal reasoning.

There was a gay on the city bus today and I felt compelled to tidy my office this morning.


I started wearing a buttplug just in case I encounter them. I don't want to offend anyone.
 
2013-03-25 09:32:14 AM

hinten: roadmarks: hinten: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?


What's more likely:
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the horrible news in person?
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the good news so she can stop bugging him at every single family meal?

What's more likely:
You reading TFA?
Or you having a knee-jerk reaction?

FTFA:
Podrasky went through Roberts' sister, Peggy, and the justice's secretary to get the tickets.

Strange way of using the word "guest". Apparently, she is his guest, independent of whether he actually invited her or not.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/03/25/john_roberts_jean_ po drasky_chief_justice_s_lesbian_cousin_will_attend_prop.html


Goal posts successfully moved!
How is Roberts giving anything away if he did not invite her? Yeah, she is his guest in that she is sitting in his section, but I doubt he had any say in it.
 
2013-03-25 09:32:21 AM

xanadian: FTFA: I believe he sees where the tide is going

On one hand, it's not a justice's job to be populist. They're supposed to weigh the elements of the case and make a decision based off of their interpretation of the Constitution (and precedent).

On the other hand, only a brain-dead monkey wouldn't see that Prop 8 tramples on people's 1st and 14th amendment rights. What's funny is the NOM people are claiming that gay marriage tramples on THEIR "freedom of religion" rights. Well, what about everyone ELSE'S rights?


I'm sure it's something easy like. 'Well, they have the right to not be icky gay and be good christian folks like us'
 
2013-03-25 09:42:30 AM

grchunt: I'm handicapping the decision at 6-3 in favor of marriage equality.  Anyone else?
I think C.J. Roberts has a pretty keen sense of the fact that he'll live to see his decision overturned if he votes otherwise and I don't think he wants that to happen.  I'm guessing he might advocate for a more limited, but still positive, ruling.


Seems like 5-4 has been a bit of a trend lately. Because Prop 8 is so horribly flawed, 9-0 would be more appropriate, but that's hoping for too much from the court.
 
2013-03-25 09:45:33 AM
I agree completely about Roberts's motivations, but I think he's going to unequivocally strike it down.  Upholding prop 8 would be overturned, and soon.  There will be a historic decision, and it will be either be The Roberts Court upholding equal rights with regard to marriage equality, or it will be a court 15 years down the road that upholds marriage equality.  I think Roberts will side with Ginsberg, Kagen, Bryer, and Sotamayor.  Of course Scalia, Thomas, Alito will vote to uphold prop 8.  I don't think Prop 8 is the hill Roberts wants to die on.  I think this will be a clear, historic decision.   This won't be the hill Roberts is going to die on.
 
2013-03-25 09:46:59 AM

phenn: 9-0 would be more appropriate, but that's hoping for too much from the court.


Could you imagine the collective head explosions if that actually happened though? Oh man, that would be amazing

/8-1 maybe, Scalia isn't gonna rule against Prop 8 no matter what
//9-0 maybe on DOMA with Scalia striking it down solely because it's an overreach of federal power
 
2013-03-25 09:47:49 AM

hinten: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?


What's more likely:
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the horrible news in person?
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the good news so she can stop bugging him at every single family meal?


I think it's more likely he didn't invite her at all
 
2013-03-25 09:48:53 AM

phenn: grchunt: I'm handicapping the decision at 6-3 in favor of marriage equality.  Anyone else?
I think C.J. Roberts has a pretty keen sense of the fact that he'll live to see his decision overturned if he votes otherwise and I don't think he wants that to happen.  I'm guessing he might advocate for a more limited, but still positive, ruling.

Seems like 5-4 has been a bit of a trend lately. Because Prop 8 is so horribly flawed, 9-0 would be more appropriate, but that's hoping for too much from the court.


I honestly think it will be 7-2
 
2013-03-25 09:50:41 AM
I'm predicting Roberts going the popular way on this, not so much because it is the popular way as because he actually seems to swing small-c conservative in his assessments rather than party-line, so "there is no valid reason for this law outside of religious arguments which are not permissible" is actually an argument he's likely to buy into, Republican-nominated or not.

That said, that's just my personal guess based on how he's behaved in office so far.  His decision regarding the ACA case, particularly, pretty well reeked of barely-restrained sarcastic disapproval with politicking bullshiat over practical concerns.

//My overall guess is going to be something like 7-2 or 6-3 upholding the lower court's decision to strike down the amendment, though I suspect the reasoning is going to be pretty divergent in the assent and the majority opinion isn't going to be outright in favor of gay marriage as stating firmly that you can't pass a law limiting something that you've previously declared an un-limited civil right on grounds of gender.
 
2013-03-25 09:54:41 AM

somedude210: /8-1 maybe, Scalia isn't gonna rule against Prop 8 no matter what


Very sad. A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you. Maybe that's just me.
 
2013-03-25 09:54:59 AM

rufus-t-firefly: The Gay Mafia strikes again.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 361x328]



Dammit, I was gonna post that pic
 
2013-03-25 09:57:57 AM
This is groundbreaking.

Gay people haven't been allowed to see the court in session before.
 
2013-03-25 09:58:39 AM

phenn: somedude210: /8-1 maybe, Scalia isn't gonna rule against Prop 8 no matter what

Very sad. A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you. Maybe that's just me.


That's what happens when you put an Originalist on the court. He interprets the law based on what the imaginary Constitution in his head says.
 
2013-03-25 09:59:43 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?

His mere proximity to gay will sway his legal reasoning.



I wouldn't be surprised if a rash of gay marriages broke out in the courtroom.
 
2013-03-25 10:01:37 AM

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: If I was in Law school I would be boning up on contracts and marriage/divorce laws.

In a few years there be big money, as the young dudes leave with 1/2 the family money and ancestral estate.

Sure I know it happens all the time with gold diggers and old men.

Just think there will be a whole new set of conditions given the " *infidelities and hook ups among gay men ' and the whole but "we're married and he cheated on me your honor."
Lesbians will just continue to be pissed off regardless.

Think you're Dad was a little disturbed when you came out in HS.
 Imagine the look on his face when Antonio gets the Summer House in the settlement.

//* based upon gay friends talking about weekend conquests and drive by's encounters !
///. Welcome to the club..it ain't all about the wedding.


Pretty sure this is a troll post, but just to make sure everyone understands that the decision for a gay couple to wed will likely result from the same factors that lead a straight couple to wed: they feel that they want to form a stable lifelong bond with, and want to have that partnership recognized by the community at large.

Sex and marriage aren't the same thing: gay guys who are only interested in hooking up with each other aren't going to be getting married on a whim any more often than a guy and a girl who had a one-night stand after last call. Plus you need to study up on no-fault divorce and monogamy as a necessary factor in marriage today anyway. "Open marriages" are fairly normalized among straight couples: in the minority, but definitely something that exists. To say that gay people are inherently less committed to their partners has very little firm evidence, comes from observing a society where there is little benefit to commitment for gays, assumes the people getting married would include those not interested in commitment, and assumes that sexual monogamy is integral to modern civil marriage.
 
2013-03-25 10:06:53 AM

somedude210: Scalia isn't gonna rule against Prop 8 no matter what


Is the opinion Scalia writes going to be an embarrassment to history the same way his opinions to AZ immigration and ACA were?
 
2013-03-25 10:09:25 AM

Muta: somedude210: Scalia isn't gonna rule against Prop 8 no matter what

Is the opinion Scalia writes going to be an embarrassment to history the same way his opinions to AZ immigration and ACA were?


Oh, it'll be an embarrassment to history, the Court, the legal profession as a whole...  Typical Scalia opinion, in other words.
 
2013-03-25 10:09:33 AM

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: Just think there will be a whole new set of conditions given the " *infidelities and hook ups among gay men ' ...

//* based upon gay friends talking about weekend conquests and drive by's encounters !



So ... gay men are exactly like straight men, then?
 
2013-03-25 10:10:20 AM

Muta: somedude210: Scalia isn't gonna rule against Prop 8 no matter what

Is the opinion Scalia writes going to be an embarrassment to history the same way his opinions to AZ immigration and ACA were?


Book it.  Done.
 
2013-03-25 10:11:33 AM

verbaltoxin: phenn: somedude210: /8-1 maybe, Scalia isn't gonna rule against Prop 8 no matter what

Very sad. A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you. Maybe that's just me.

That's what happens when you put an Originalist on the court. He interprets the law based on what the imaginary Constitution in his head says.


I'd almost make the argument that an originalist would side with me on this one. It's not within the purview of government to create separate and unequal classes and that, I think, is precisely what Prop 8 did.

Irrespective of what he may think about same-gender marriage, it can't be debated that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

Traditionalist. Maybe that's the proper description for him as opposed to originalist. Either way, the boy makes me quite angry.
 
2013-03-25 10:14:32 AM

xanadian: Harvey Milk was right.


No shiat.  It's why coming out is (still) so vitally important.
 
2013-03-25 10:16:41 AM

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: //* based upon gay friends talking about weekend conquests and drive by's encounters !


Ah, anecdotal evidence, the best kind of "fact."
 
2013-03-25 10:19:40 AM

hinten: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?


What's more likely:
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the horrible news in person?
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the good news so she can stop bugging him at every single family meal?


How, exactly, did he invite her?

HotWingConspiracy: mrshowrules: HotWingConspiracy: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?

His mere proximity to gay will sway his legal reasoning.

There was a gay on the city bus today and I felt compelled to tidy my office this morning.

I started wearing a buttplug just in case I encounter them. I don't want to offend anyone.


I saw a gay guy at the grocery store last week so this weekend I hid pastel colored plastic eggs filled with pastel colored M&Ms all over the office this weekend.
 
2013-03-25 10:21:29 AM

Hobodeluxe: phenn: grchunt: I'm handicapping the decision at 6-3 in favor of marriage equality.  Anyone else?
I think C.J. Roberts has a pretty keen sense of the fact that he'll live to see his decision overturned if he votes otherwise and I don't think he wants that to happen.  I'm guessing he might advocate for a more limited, but still positive, ruling.

Seems like 5-4 has been a bit of a trend lately. Because Prop 8 is so horribly flawed, 9-0 would be more appropriate, but that's hoping for too much from the court.

I honestly think it will be 7-2



Agreed--- Alito is a conservative, but even in spite of that, I don't think he's dumb(Scalia) and he's no lapdog Thomas)
 
2013-03-25 10:23:01 AM

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: If I was in Law school I would be boning up on contracts and marriage/divorce laws.

In a few years there be big money, as the young dudes leave with 1/2 the family money and ancestral estate.

Sure I know it happens all the time with gold diggers and old men.

Just think there will be a whole new set of conditions given the " *infidelities and hook ups among gay men ' and the whole but "we're married and he cheated on me your honor."
Lesbians will just continue to be pissed off regardless.

Think you're Dad was a little disturbed when you came out in HS.
 Imagine the look on his face when Antonio gets the Summer House in the settlement.

//* based upon gay friends talking about weekend conquests and drive by's encounters !
///. Welcome to the club..it ain't all about the wedding.


So is it your opinion that equal rights for gays is just too complicated for our legal system?
 
2013-03-25 10:23:25 AM

phenn: Irrespective of what he may think about same-gender marriage, it can't be debated that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.


Eh, it  can, the arguments in question just aren't very convincing in their analogies and logic to most people raised with the standard Hobbes/Locke mashup philosophy that the constitution and supporting documentation (federalist papers, etc) sort of embody.

But that doesn't mean such arguments can't be made and turned into formal votes on the court.  Just look at the last time marijuana came up-- a couple judges blatantly ignored their  own precedents and used arguments they'd explicitly derided in previous opinions in order to go with the "drugs bad" ruling.

//Albeit I apparently need to specify that I include the anti-federalist papers in "federalist papers", since they argue from the same philosophical underpinnings and the two are generally published in the same volume as "the federalist papers" nowadays, dissenting and assenting alike.  Been called out for using the term inclusively before.
 
2013-03-25 10:24:15 AM

phenn: It's not within the purview of government to create separate and unequal classes


Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
 
2013-03-25 10:25:59 AM
If the courts overturn Prop 8, the loudest bigots among us are going to say she tainted the proceedings and they aren't valid.

Oh, and what's that going to do to places like Oregon that have banned it?

//Last I knew, Oregon is primed to repeal their ban.  Enough old farts have died off I guess.
 
2013-03-25 10:27:42 AM

phenn: verbaltoxin: phenn: somedude210: /8-1 maybe, Scalia isn't gonna rule against Prop 8 no matter what

Very sad. A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you. Maybe that's just me.

That's what happens when you put an Originalist on the court. He interprets the law based on what the imaginary Constitution in his head says.

I'd almost make the argument that an originalist would side with me on this one. It's not within the purview of government to create separate and unequal classes and that, I think, is precisely what Prop 8 did.

Irrespective of what he may think about same-gender marriage, it can't be debated that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

Traditionalist. Maybe that's the proper description for him as opposed to originalist. Either way, the boy makes me quite angry.


"Crank" is the word you seek. He's proof that you can, in fact, know the right fools to put you in a powerful place. Scalia is a huge black mark on the integrity of the Supreme Court.
 
2013-03-25 10:29:59 AM

Theaetetus: phenn: It's not within the purview of government to create separate and unequal classes

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.


True.
 
2013-03-25 10:35:52 AM

meat0918: If the courts overturn Prop 8, the loudest bigots among us are going to say she tainted the proceedings and they aren't valid.

Oh, and what's that going to do to places like Oregon that have banned it?

//Last I knew, Oregon is primed to repeal their ban.  Enough old farts have died off I guess.


It all depends on how the Supremes structure their rulings on the two cases in front of them, but if they overturn Prop 8, they overturn ALL anti-same sex marriage state laws and amendments.  And if they do that, they have to rule DOMA unconstitutional as well, I believe.
 
2013-03-25 10:38:48 AM

somedude210: phenn: 9-0 would be more appropriate, but that's hoping for too much from the court.

Could you imagine the collective head explosions if that actually happened though? Oh man, that would be amazing

/8-1 maybe, Scalia isn't gonna rule against Prop 8 no matter what
//9-0 maybe on DOMA with Scalia striking it down solely because it's an overreach of federal power


Honestly, heard very compelling arguments from both opponents and supporters that the Supreme Court overruling Prop 8/DOMA is the best result for opponents of gay marriage. Oh, the conservatives on the court will try to vote against it, but they might want it to win because it allows Republicans to avoid legalization of gay marriage as a potential cudgel against them now that it has public support while still raising money off of opposing it with "activist judge" campaigning. It also cuts off the grassroots campaigning for it at the knees: history will remember it as a way the judiciary shifted public opinion rather than the other way around.

This sounds more like peoples egos than real complaints and I don't think it would end up playing out like Roe V. Wade like some Republicans hope it would, but it's technically possible.
 
2013-03-25 10:41:31 AM
Someone on the news this weekend suggested a strong likelihood the cases would be decided on something procedural and the Supreme Court would even reach the merits of Prop 8 or DOMA, choosing instead to send it back to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. I'm not sure what this "procedural" issue is, but if it exists, you can bet your sweet ass the Supreme Court will use it as a way out if at all possible.

And Scalia will still say something mind-numbingly stupid.
 
2013-03-25 10:46:18 AM
There are plenty of gay rumors about Roberts himself. I have no idea if there's any truth to them.
 
2013-03-25 10:48:41 AM

tnpir: Someone on the news this weekend suggested a strong likelihood the cases would be decided on something procedural and the Supreme Court would even reach the merits of Prop 8 or DOMA, choosing instead to send it back to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. I'm not sure what this "procedural" issue is, but if it exists, you can bet your sweet ass the Supreme Court will use it as a way out if at all possible.

And Scalia will still say something mind-numbingly stupid.


Highly unlikely. SCOTUS picks the cases they want to here and it would be just plain stupid of them to grab a hot potato like Prop 8 just to bounce it back to a lower court for additional review.

A lot could happen with this ruling. The court could quash every Federal/State law as well as the numerous state amendments in a single ruling. That is unlikely, but still possible. My guess is either a 9-0 or 6-3 (if Alito, Scalia, and Thomas can't get over their homophobia). Prop 8, DOMA, and the other ilk are just bad law and only there out of spite.
 
2013-03-25 10:50:18 AM

phenn: grchunt: I'm handicapping the decision at 6-3 in favor of marriage equality.  Anyone else?
I think C.J. Roberts has a pretty keen sense of the fact that he'll live to see his decision overturned if he votes otherwise and I don't think he wants that to happen.  I'm guessing he might advocate for a more limited, but still positive, ruling.

Seems like 5-4 has been a bit of a trend lately. Because Prop 8 is so horribly flawed, 9-0 would be more appropriate, but that's hoping for too much from the court.


It will be either 6-3 (Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissenting) or 7-2 (Scalia and Thomas dissenting).  I don't think Roberts wants to be linked to the kind of decision that reminds people of Chief Justice Roger Taney.

Let Scalia, Thomas and Alito dissent on this.  They can be seen in recorded history as the justices that ignored the constitution and decided to slobber on Taney's crusty cock instead.
 
2013-03-25 10:52:41 AM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-25 10:56:03 AM

Rann Xerox: It will be either 6-3 (Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissenting) or 7-2 (Scalia and Thomas dissenting). I don't think Roberts wants to be linked to the kind of decision that reminds people of Chief Justice Roger Taney.


I'm guessing 7-2.  What people forget is that as conservative as the current Court is, they're very pro-individual rights.  This is (basically) the same Court who finally struck down state sodomy laws.
 
2013-03-25 11:00:24 AM

rufus-t-firefly: The Gay Mafia strikes again.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 361x328]


douggoff.com
 
2013-03-25 11:04:40 AM

phenn: A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you.


Why is Prop 8 "so obviously unconstitutional"?
 
2013-03-25 11:05:05 AM

Rann Xerox: It will be either 6-3 (Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissenting) or 7-2 (Scalia and Thomas dissenting). I don't think Roberts wants to be linked to the kind of decision that reminds people of Chief Justice Roger Taney.


I think you're exactly right. Kennedy has already shown where he is on this issue by shooting down Colorado's Amendment 2 15 years ago (Romer v. Evans).  Roberts tends to look at social issues through more of a traditional conservative lens and will not vote to uphold a limitation of rights (he also won't buy the horseshiat freedom of religion argument).  Scalia and Thomas will definitely dissent, and the only question there is whether or not Thomas has the stones to author his own opinion or just hook onto Scalia's garbage.  Alito, well, that's anyone's guess.
 
2013-03-25 11:07:38 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?

His mere proximity to gay will sway his legal reasoning.


It's funny, but freepers actually believe that.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3000403/posts?page=1
 
2013-03-25 11:08:21 AM

CrackpipeCardozo: phenn: A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you.

Why is Prop 8 "so obviously unconstitutional"?


Equal protection clause is the obvious answer.
 
2013-03-25 11:08:50 AM

raatz01: There are plenty of gay rumors about Roberts himself. I have no idea if there's any truth to them.


Facially he's a DILF but I gotta see more than a face and a black robe; need to see much more bod before I can decide if I would hit or not.
 
2013-03-25 11:12:24 AM

USCLaw2010: HotWingConspiracy: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?

His mere proximity to gay will sway his legal reasoning.

It's funny, but freepers actually believe that.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3000403/posts?page=1


"
Yes--it is to destroy Freedom of Religion--make religion meaningless-without sexual morality in religion--there can be no morality in religion.
With anal sex = Good, there is no Christian Ethics allowed. Just paganism/Atheism/Islam, since sodomy is fine in that religion.
This will normalize sodomy for children like in Afghanistan, even if they are Christians--because whatever is legal becomes "normal" to young kids. It takes an Amish-type society to keep kids protected from accepting evil ideas that are generated inside a culture. Toxic athiest/pagan cultures-like the Weimar Republic creates a hell on earth."

ok, which farker troll account is this?
 
2013-03-25 11:16:44 AM

dumbobruni: USCLaw2010: HotWingConspiracy: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?

His mere proximity to gay will sway his legal reasoning.

It's funny, but freepers actually believe that.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3000403/posts?page=1

"
Yes--it is to destroy Freedom of Religion--make religion meaningless-without sexual morality in religion--there can be no morality in religion.
With anal sex = Good, there is no Christian Ethics allowed. Just paganism/Atheism/Islam, since sodomy is fine in that religion.
This will normalize sodomy for children like in Afghanistan, even if they are Christians--because whatever is legal becomes "normal" to young kids. It takes an Amish-type society to keep kids protected from accepting evil ideas that are generated inside a culture. Toxic athiest/pagan cultures-like the Weimar Republic creates a hell on earth."

ok, which farker troll account is this?


I hope it's not a troll, I'm quite looking forward to this anal sex filled hellscape.
 
2013-03-25 11:17:28 AM

CrackpipeCardozo: phenn: A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you.

Why is Prop 8 "so obviously unconstitutional"?


Well, it created three separate classes of people. Heterosexuals can marry, divorce, remarry, etc. Homosexuals who were already married could stay married, but not remarry after a death or divorce. Unmarried homosexuals could not marry, period.

So, I could be wrong. But, that sounds like a law that creates separate and unequal classes of people. Someone already corrected me that the government slipped that into the 14th, so my argument may be invalid.

Even if it's not unconstitutional, I would assess any rational individual would call it immoral.
 
2013-03-25 11:19:13 AM
9-0 striking down DOMA as an overreach of federal power.  Expect a socially liberal result with from conservative reasoning which pulls all 9 on-board.

9-0 vacating the ruling on prop 8 and remanding the case for consideration in light of DOMA being struck down.  With discrimination at the federal level being banned, and with CA state officials refusing to enforce prop 8, the trial court is then free to dismiss the prop 8 case for lack of standing.  Prop 8 will be left intact on a technicality, but be functionally meaningless.

SCOTUS doesn't like to decide thorny issues unless they have to, and if the judges get a chance to punt part of a case on a technicality, I think they will.  Remember the first Bush v. Gore type ruling was a 9-0 "we don't have to decide this right now, so we won't" ruling...I'm betting on the same on prop 8.
 
2013-03-25 11:19:56 AM

USCLaw2010: HotWingConspiracy: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?

His mere proximity to gay will sway his legal reasoning.

It's funny, but freepers actually believe that.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3000403/posts?page=1


A comment from the forum:

And to utterly destroy the natural family, which in turn utterly destroys the fabric of normal society. It means total ruin.

This poster may be issuing a valid warning, if the smoking wasteland that was once Canada is any indication.
 
2013-03-25 11:20:25 AM

Dwight_Yeast: Rann Xerox: It will be either 6-3 (Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissenting) or 7-2 (Scalia and Thomas dissenting). I don't think Roberts wants to be linked to the kind of decision that reminds people of Chief Justice Roger Taney.

I'm guessing 7-2.  What people forget is that as conservative as the current Court is, they're very pro-individual rights.  This is (basically) the same Court who finally struck down state sodomy laws.


Good point.  In Lawrence v. Texas, Scalia and Thomas, along with Chief Justice Rehnquist, were the dissenting votes for the 6-3 decision.  I still think Alito will join them.
 
2013-03-25 11:26:33 AM
My bet is DOMA is struck Down and same sex marriage bans will be deemed unconstitutional
/ straight ally
 
2013-03-25 11:32:24 AM

Dwight_Yeast: CrackpipeCardozo: phenn: A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you.

Why is Prop 8 "so obviously unconstitutional"?

Equal protection clause is the obvious answer.


There goes all the affirmative action programs and government set asides.
Ever apply for government contract ?

.
 
2013-03-25 11:33:02 AM

phenn: Well, it created three separate classes of people. Heterosexuals can marry, divorce, remarry, etc. Homosexuals who were already married could stay married, but not remarry after a death or divorce. Unmarried homosexuals could not marry, period.


Even if the Court were to recognize that Prop. 8 created these three classes of people, it doesn't mean that the law will be ruled per se unconstitutional.

There's a pretty good chance that Hollingsworth will be decided without even reaching the question of "can states deny gay couples the benefits offered to hetero couples," a holding which would only affect those states that have and/or will allow same-sex marriage.
 
2013-03-25 11:33:47 AM

HotWingConspiracy: mrshowrules: HotWingConspiracy: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?

His mere proximity to gay will sway his legal reasoning.

There was a gay on the city bus today and I felt compelled to tidy my office this morning.

I started wearing a buttplug just in case I encounter them. I don't want to offend anyone.



Okay, this is really weird. I cleaned up my butt plug in my office just this morning.
 
2013-03-25 11:39:00 AM

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: Dwight_Yeast: CrackpipeCardozo: phenn: A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you.

Why is Prop 8 "so obviously unconstitutional"?

Equal protection clause is the obvious answer.

There goes all the affirmative action programs and government set asides.
Ever apply for government contract ?

.


Perhaps I'm not following what you are saying here but are you using programs that favor minorities and/or protected classes as a reason AGAINST homosexuals demanding equal rights?
 
2013-03-25 11:42:12 AM
There was an interesting piece this morning about conservatives (especially the Mormon Church) walking back their position on gay marriage and gay rights in general.  It sounds like a lot of smart, middle of the road conservatives are finally seeing that they're on the wrong side of history on this one:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/25/us-usa-gaymarriage-idUSBRE 92 O05G20130325
 
2013-03-25 11:45:06 AM

tnpir: Rann Xerox: It will be either 6-3 (Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissenting) or 7-2 (Scalia and Thomas dissenting). I don't think Roberts wants to be linked to the kind of decision that reminds people of Chief Justice Roger Taney.

I think you're exactly right. Kennedy has already shown where he is on this issue by shooting down Colorado's Amendment 2 15 years ago (Romer v. Evans).  Roberts tends to look at social issues through more of a traditional conservative lens and will not vote to uphold a limitation of rights (he also won't buy the horseshiat freedom of religion argument).  Scalia and Thomas will definitely dissent, and the only question there is whether or not Thomas has the stones to author his own opinion or just hook onto Scalia's garbage.  Alito, well, that's anyone's guess.


I'm thinking it will go 6-3 the OTHER way, with one of the liberal judges flipping.  Why? Don't know. Who? Also don't know.  I just like to scare people.  And I make no expectations other than to be disappointed by the ruling.  If they strike down Prop 8, it'll be a pleasant surprise, then.
 
2013-03-25 11:45:19 AM

Dwight_Yeast: There was an interesting piece this morning about conservatives (especially the Mormon Church) walking back their position on gay marriage and gay rights in general.  It sounds like a lot of smart, middle of the road conservatives are finally seeing that they're on the wrong side of history on this one:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/25/us-usa-gaymarriage-idUSBRE 92 O05G20130325


Or the GOP finally realizes that maybe all the anti gay sentiment is kinda pissing people off and they are losing elections because of it
 
2013-03-25 11:48:58 AM

meat0918: If the courts overturn Prop 8, the loudest bigots among us are going to say she tainted the proceedings and they aren't valid.



Do you really think the Right's solution would be to suggest the Cheif Justice can be swayed by mere attendance in the court room?
 
2013-03-25 11:53:49 AM

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: Dwight_Yeast: CrackpipeCardozo: phenn: A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you.

Why is Prop 8 "so obviously unconstitutional"?

Equal protection clause is the obvious answer.

There goes all the affirmative action programs and government set asides.
Ever apply for government contract ?

.


Ever hear of the standards of review?  The equal protection clause doesn't automatically prohibit all disparate treatment, it simply means that the government must meet a certain threshold of scrutiny.  Racial treatment, as you describe, is subject to the highest level of scrutiny, which requires both a compelling government interest and a solution narrowly tailored to meet that interest.  "Narrowly tailored" means that the law isn't appreciably over- or under-inclusive, and that is has a substantial likelihood of aiding in the desired effect.  Gender discrimination puts a slightly less onerous burden on the state, but still has fairly high hurdles, and last I heard, Prop 8 and DOMA's opponents are arguing the gender discrimination angle.

People who want to keep these laws are arguing that sexual preference should be subject only to the lowest level, "rational basis" scrutiny.  Just like it sounds, this standard means that the government need only prove that they have a rational basis goal for enacting a given law, and that the law is narrowly tailored to suit that goal.  The rational basis test is almost always successful when it's employed.  In the current case, though, what basis is used, and how are these laws narrowly tailored to suit that basis?  They might try to argue that the goal is "to protect the sanctity of marriage" or similar, but that's EXTREMELY broad, and these laws only bear an ancillary connection unless the proponents can actually show that same-sex marriage does any harm to marriage.

tl;dr:  Even IF advocates for DOMA/Prop 8 get the rational basis test they want (which is conceivably possible, but by no means certain), they likely still can't meet their burden to show that the law is narrowly tailored to accomplish their goal.
 
2013-03-25 11:53:54 AM

Dwight_Yeast: There was an interesting piece this morning about conservatives (especially the Mormon Church) walking back their position on gay marriage and gay rights in general.  It sounds like a lot of smart, middle of the road conservatives are finally seeing that they're on the wrong side of history on this one:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/25/us-usa-gaymarriage-idUSBRE 92 O05G20130325


This article is awesome and you're awesome.  I don't care what the other fellas say.
 
2013-03-25 11:54:39 AM

Lord_Baull: meat0918: If the courts overturn Prop 8, the loudest bigots among us are going to say she tainted the proceedings and they aren't valid.


Do you really think the Right's solution would be to suggest the Cheif Justice can be swayed by mere attendance in the court room?


remember, social conservatives insist that being gay is a choice. all day long they face a relentless struggle to be straight. the mere presence of gay people around them serves as a temptation to turn gay.
 
2013-03-25 11:55:48 AM

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: Dwight_Yeast: CrackpipeCardozo: phenn: A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you.

Why is Prop 8 "so obviously unconstitutional"?

Equal protection clause is the obvious answer.

There goes all the affirmative action programs and government set asides.
Ever apply for government contract ?


??  What is this I don't even?
 
2013-03-25 11:56:24 AM

tnpir: Scalia and Thomas will definitely dissent, and the only question there is whether or not Thomas has the stones to author his own opinion or just hook onto Scalia's garbage.


Scalia, I'd agree on. However, I think there's a slim chance (maybe about 10%) that Justice Thomas might find the Howard University amicus brief persuasive.
images.politico.com
 
2013-03-25 11:57:24 AM

soupafi: Or the GOP finally realizes that maybe all the anti gay sentiment is kinda pissing people off and they are losing elections because of it



*snerk*
 
2013-03-25 12:00:58 PM

dumbobruni: USCLaw2010: HotWingConspiracy: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?

His mere proximity to gay will sway his legal reasoning.

It's funny, but freepers actually believe that.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3000403/posts?page=1

"
Yes--it is to destroy Freedom of Religion--make religion meaningless-without sexual morality in religion--there can be no morality in religion.
With anal sex = Good, there is no Christian Ethics allowed. Just paganism/Atheism/Islam, since sodomy is fine in that religion.
This will normalize sodomy for children like in Afghanistan, even if they are Christians--because whatever is legal becomes "normal" to young kids. It takes an Amish-type society to keep kids protected from accepting evil ideas that are generated inside a culture. Toxic athiest/pagan cultures-like the Weimar Republic creates a hell on earth."

ok, which farker troll account is this?


That's 100% pure Grade A derp straight from the source, not that crap troll derp we get over here.
 
2013-03-25 12:01:39 PM

dumbobruni: Lord_Baull: meat0918: If the courts overturn Prop 8, the loudest bigots among us are going to say she tainted the proceedings and they aren't valid.


Do you really think the Right's solution would be to suggest the Cheif Justice can be swayed by mere attendance in the court room?

remember, social conservatives insist that being gay is a choice. all day long they face a relentless struggle to be straight. the mere presence of gay people around them serves as a temptation to turn gay.



Then I would suggest their faith isn't very strong. I believe they need to pray harder to keep themselves from giving in to impure thoughts.
 
2013-03-25 12:02:44 PM

meat0918: That's 100% pure Grade A derp straight from the source, not that crap troll derp we get over here.



This is true. All we've been getting lately is Wal-Mart brand derp.
 
2013-03-25 12:03:35 PM
"I'm not knocking you posting it.... Just saying it was better when they were quietly gay and in the closet and you could still tell homo jokes. How was life worse for them back then? Some of the gay guys even got married and produced children for society. But today that kind of gay dude will pursue that joke called the gay lifestyle.
These days a kid will get booted from first grade for calling another kid a homo and his parents will be investigated because he that word from them. I am sick of hearing how they want to marry, it is obviously an abomination and I am no bible thumper. These freakazoids and their liberal (and conservative) fellow travelers want to void out 5000+ years of Judeo-Christian culture and religion"


.....Just.....just goddammitsomuch
 
2013-03-25 12:05:31 PM
This BS that "family values" people spout about having to explain same-sex partners to your kids kills me.  My eldest child was 5 when he heard the term "gay" (overheard on FoxNews while grandma was watching it, ironically) and asked me what it means.  I told him some boys don't want to marry and kiss girls, they want to kiss other boys, and some girls want to kiss other girls and some people don't like that because it's different.  He shrugged and moved on, no apparent harm to him.  What was so hard about that?  These fundies act like they are expected to draw a diagram about dick-sucking for their toddler.
 
2013-03-25 12:07:24 PM

xanadian: tnpir: Rann Xerox: It will be either 6-3 (Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissenting) or 7-2 (Scalia and Thomas dissenting). I don't think Roberts wants to be linked to the kind of decision that reminds people of Chief Justice Roger Taney.

I think you're exactly right. Kennedy has already shown where he is on this issue by shooting down Colorado's Amendment 2 15 years ago (Romer v. Evans).  Roberts tends to look at social issues through more of a traditional conservative lens and will not vote to uphold a limitation of rights (he also won't buy the horseshiat freedom of religion argument).  Scalia and Thomas will definitely dissent, and the only question there is whether or not Thomas has the stones to author his own opinion or just hook onto Scalia's garbage.  Alito, well, that's anyone's guess.

I'm thinking it will go 6-3 the OTHER way, with one of the liberal judges flipping.  Why? Don't know. Who? Also don't know.  I just like to scare people.  And I make no expectations other than to be disappointed by the ruling.  If they strike down Prop 8, it'll be a pleasant surprise, then.


Why does the voice in my head have its own Fark account?

// more importantly, how did I not know this before now?
 
2013-03-25 12:33:42 PM

Dr Dreidel: Why does the voice in my head have its own Fark account?


The voice in your head is now telling you to get it some of the stuff on its Amazon wish list.

....

I wonder if I... uh I mean the voice in your head still has its Amazon wish list up... Well, if not, a case of good beer will do.
 
2013-03-25 12:37:56 PM

grchunt: I'm handicapping the decision at 6-3 in favor of marriage equality.  Anyone else?
I think C.J. Roberts has a pretty keen sense of the fact that he'll live to see his decision overturned if he votes otherwise and I don't think he wants that to happen.  I'm guessing he might advocate for a more limited, but still positive, ruling.


I agree. Scalia is a no-go no matter what, Thomas made it clear in his Lawrence dissent that he doesn't think the 14th Amendment applies to gay rights cases, the only question is what Alito will do.

Then again, I'm way too invested in this whole thing because of all the work I put in on an amicus brief in both cases so I'm not sure if this is just wishful thinking because I never want to deal with either case ever again.
 
2013-03-25 12:44:24 PM

dumbobruni: USCLaw2010: HotWingConspiracy: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?

His mere proximity to gay will sway his legal reasoning.

It's funny, but freepers actually believe that.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3000403/posts?page=1

"
Yes--it is to destroy Freedom of Religion--make religion meaningless-without sexual morality in religion--there can be no morality in religion.
With anal sex = Good, there is no Christian Ethics allowed. Just paganism/Atheism/Islam, since sodomy is fine in that religion.
This will normalize sodomy for children like in Afghanistan, even if they are Christians--because whatever is legal becomes "normal" to young kids. It takes an Amish-type society to keep kids protected from accepting evil ideas that are generated inside a culture. Toxic athiest/pagan cultures-like the Weimar Republic creates a hell on earth."

ok, which farker troll account is this?


This person honestly believes that morality, concepts of good and evil and right and wrong, it all springs from proper sexual activity. Not prevention of harm, killing, or theft, not loyalty to your people. All ethics rise from making sure making sure that people are doing the right things with each other in the bedroom.

How can someone twist their head so terribly that sexual conduct is THE most important aspect of humanity? That they see the Christian message ultimately as one about making sure you don't have the wrong kinds of sex?
 
2013-03-25 01:00:54 PM
Gay mafia has happened before and it will happen again.

media.screened.com
 
2013-03-25 01:07:30 PM
Grungehamster:
A) Churches will be forced to perform weddings for gay couples or face government retribution.
B) Children will be confused how two members of the same sex can be married and teachers and parents will have to explain how gay people have sex with each other to elementary school students.


I've occasionally pointed out that the reason the anti-gay forces seem so powerful, even in tiny little states like mine, is because they associate themselves with huge national groups wallowing in money and power. For instance, when there was an attempt at a gay rights repeal in 2009, the television airwaves in Maine were suddenly inundated with high-quality ads showing "concerned people" of all races worried about what would happen to the children, the children, and the children if this law were to go through. It occurred to me, watching those ads, that they could have run in any state - all they had to do was erase "Utah Commission for Family and Freedom" from the bottom and type in "Maine Traditional Family Association" under "paid for by." Mostly, it was awfully suspect how the referendum they were fighting directly addressed some of the concerns of the advertisers - there were exemptions all over the place for religious organizations, which you'd never know if you listened only to the ads.

Meanwhile, their opposition didn't seem to have access to similar tactics. They certainly didn't have a steady flow of money from midwestern megachurches. The punchline was that when gay marriage was finally approved in 2011, there were loud and aggressive accusations from the opposition that out-of-state money had tipped the scales.

It makes me wonder if there's even such a thing as a grassroots organization anymore, or just co-opts by larger and more powerful interests.
 
2013-03-25 01:24:47 PM

soupafi: Or the GOP finally realizes that maybe all the anti gay sentiment is kinda pissing people off and they are losing elections because of it


No, that's the funny thing: this isn't coming from the party leadership or the major religious PACs; it's coming from individual Congressman who have gay kids/relatives, and (surprisingly) from the Mormon leadership, who apparently realized how much damage to their image supporting Prop 8 did, and the fact that they're constantly losing young (generally hot, generally male) members, who leave the church because of its position on homosexuality.

Apparently, they recently set up a website which says being gay isn't a choice.  That's the first step on the road to acceptance, and the Mormons are one faith where the leaders can completely rewrite the whole religion whenever they feel like it.
 
2013-03-25 01:28:54 PM

Generation_D: Bet Scumbag Scalia still votes against repealing it.


Don't forget his pet, Oreo Thomas.
 
2013-03-25 01:31:44 PM

peasandcarrots: Grungehamster:
A) Churches will be forced to perform weddings for gay couples or face government retribution.
B) Children will be confused how two members of the same sex can be married and teachers and parents will have to explain how gay people have sex with each other to elementary school students.

I've occasionally pointed out that the reason the anti-gay forces seem so powerful, even in tiny little states like mine, is because they associate themselves with huge national groups wallowing in money and power. For instance, when there was an attempt at a gay rights repeal in 2009, the television airwaves in Maine were suddenly inundated with high-quality ads showing "concerned people" of all races worried about what would happen to the children, the children, and the children if this law were to go through. It occurred to me, watching those ads, that they could have run in any state - all they had to do was erase "Utah Commission for Family and Freedom" from the bottom and type in "Maine Traditional Family Association" under "paid for by." Mostly, it was awfully suspect how the referendum they were fighting directly addressed some of the concerns of the advertisers - there were exemptions all over the place for religious organizations, which you'd never know if you listened only to the ads.

Meanwhile, their opposition didn't seem to have access to similar tactics. They certainly didn't have a steady flow of money from midwestern megachurches. The punchline was that when gay marriage was finally approved in 2011, there were loud and aggressive accusations from the opposition that out-of-state money had tipped the scales.

It makes me wonder if there's even such a thing as a grassroots organization anymore, or just co-opts by larger and more powerful interests.


It just depends on how you define "grassroots" the money for those campaigns are definitely coming from a large number of small donations rather than a handful of influential donors which is how most people would define grassroots, but the people involved are not citizens of the area in question and thus have no personal stake in the law in question.

Speaking of those commercials: what percent of kids when finding out gay marriage has been legalized will want their parents to explain to them how how gay people have sex? What percent of kids when seeing an ad that gay marriage being legalized will lead to you having to explain to kids how gay people have sex will want you to explain to them how gay people have sex? Total Catch-22: by broadcasting "small children will want to know about the gay version of something they likely have no clue about if you tell them about the gay version of something they are familiar with" you're making small children aware that there is something they have no clue about that adults are actively trying to keep them ignorant of.
 
2013-03-25 01:35:35 PM

Lord_Baull: Dr.Mxyzptlk.: Dwight_Yeast: CrackpipeCardozo: phenn: A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you.

Why is Prop 8 "so obviously unconstitutional"?

Equal protection clause is the obvious answer.

There goes all the affirmative action programs and government set asides.
Ever apply for government contract ?

??  What is this I don't even?


He's either an idiot or trolling; either way, it's why the Ignore feature exists.
 
2013-03-25 01:37:47 PM

Dwight_Yeast: soupafi: Or the GOP finally realizes that maybe all the anti gay sentiment is kinda pissing people off and they are losing elections because of it

No, that's the funny thing: this isn't coming from the party leadership or the major religious PACs; it's coming from individual Congressman who have gay kids/relatives, and (surprisingly) from the Mormon leadership, who apparently realized how much damage to their image supporting Prop 8 did, and the fact that they're constantly losing young (generally hot, generally male) members, who leave the church because of its position on homosexuality.

Apparently, they recently set up a website which says being gay isn't a choice.  That's the first step on the road to acceptance, and the Mormons are one faith where the leaders can completely rewrite the whole religion whenever they feel like it.


It really does boil down to gay people coming out and putting a human face to the debate.

You've even got things like the rather notorious ex-gay group Exodus International admitting that it's not possible to change your orientation and trying to move in a new direction. Even the people I know full well are bigots are trying their hardest to seem like they're loving and welcoming because openly ostracizing gay people has become such a taboo.
 
2013-03-25 01:46:00 PM

teto85: Generation_D: Bet Scumbag Scalia still votes against repealing it.

Don't forget his pet, Oreo Thomas.


No matter what you think of Clarence Thomas, calling someone an Oreo is not cool.
 
2013-03-25 01:57:50 PM

meat0918: If the courts overturn Prop 8, the loudest bigots among us are going to say she tainted the proceedings and they aren't valid.

Oh, and what's that going to do to places like Oregon that have banned it?

//Last I knew, Oregon is primed to repeal their ban.  Enough old farts have died off I guess.


Californians are more than prepared to rip up Prop 8 and burn the pieces, through the legislative/proposition process, if SCOTUS manages to drop the ball on this one.  I think even the Mormon and Catholic Churches (together, majority funders of pro-Prop 8) are bruised enough that they would sit out the subsequent legalization-of-same-sex marriage proposition in California.

As a Californian, I remain embarrassed by Prop 8, and more than a little sad that it's taken the courts, and not the will of the people, to fix the law that was voted in (by a quite slim margin).  But . . . if SCOTUS acts on Prop 8 in a way that effects the same-sex marriage bans in 30 states . . . well, then something would have come from the whole debacle, albeit in a ass-backward (so to speak) way.
 
2013-03-25 02:00:33 PM

OrangeSnapper: 9-0 vacating the ruling on prop 8 and remanding the case for consideration in light of DOMA being struck down. With discrimination at the federal level being banned, and with CA state officials refusing to enforce prop 8, the trial court is then free to dismiss the prop 8 case for lack of standing. Prop 8 will be left intact on a technicality, but be functionally meaningless.


No, because the standing argument is about the appeal.  Thus if it gets kicked on standing (and it will - its the only interesting thing about Perry) then the D. Court opinion which invalidated Prop 8 stands.
 
2013-03-25 02:01:47 PM

rynthetyn: It really does boil down to gay people coming out and putting a human face to the debate.


Yeah, I've been saying that since I helped run the gay group at a large university 15 years ago: enrollment was something like 15K and we were lucky if we got 20 people at our meetings, no matter what we did.
 
2013-03-25 02:02:20 PM

soupafi: Dwight_Yeast: There was an interesting piece this morning about conservatives (especially the Mormon Church) walking back their position on gay marriage and gay rights in general.  It sounds like a lot of smart, middle of the road conservatives are finally seeing that they're on the wrong side of history on this one:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/25/us-usa-gaymarriage-idUSBRE 92 O05G20130325

Or the GOP finally realizes that maybe all the anti gay sentiment is kinda pissing people off and they are losing elections because of it


Weaver95 put it well. He said (paraphrasing) the GOP knows anti-gay marriage is a loser, but they have to talk their base back from it without appearing the GOP approves of gay marriage. They have to put up the show that they're against it, while not stopping anyone from allowing it.

So expect a ton of ass-backwards, weasel-worded language coming from the conservative parts of the bench. Roberts, Alito, and Thomas will probably take the, "Well I still think it should be decided by the states, but, grumbe, grumble..." tack, while Scalia will write his ruling based solely on the color of his bowel movement that day.
 
2013-03-25 02:08:28 PM

Dwight_Yeast: rynthetyn: It really does boil down to gay people coming out and putting a human face to the debate.

Yeah, I've been saying that since I helped run the gay group at a large university 15 years ago: enrollment was something like 15K and we were lucky if we got 20 people at our meetings, no matter what we did.


I'm the VP of the gay group at my top tier law school, even today it's well nigh impossible to get more than a dozen people to show up to anything. Only way we can get people to show is if we partner with the ultra-libertarian Federalist Society for debates/discussions because then people don't have to worry about being seen at the gay group's event.
 
2013-03-25 02:09:24 PM

rynthetyn: teto85: Generation_D: Bet Scumbag Scalia still votes against repealing it.

Don't forget his pet, Oreo Thomas.

No matter what you think of Clarence Thomas, calling someone an Oreo is not cool.


Not even this guy?
 
2013-03-25 02:20:41 PM

rynthetyn: teto85: Generation_D: Bet Scumbag Scalia still votes against repealing it.

Don't forget his pet, Oreo Thomas.

No matter what you think of Clarence Thomas, calling someone an Oreo is not cool.


Yeah I thought oreos were only Mixed race children and a threesome with 2 black dudes and a white man/woman.
 
2013-03-25 02:21:08 PM

rynthetyn: Only way we can get people to show is if we partner with the ultra-libertarian Federalist Society for debates/discussions because then people don't have to worry about being seen at the gay group's event.


So the Federalist Society gets used as a beard.  Amusing but annoying.
 
2013-03-25 02:35:52 PM

carpbrain: meat0918: If the courts overturn Prop 8, the loudest bigots among us are going to say she tainted the proceedings and they aren't valid.

Oh, and what's that going to do to places like Oregon that have banned it?

//Last I knew, Oregon is primed to repeal their ban.  Enough old farts have died off I guess.

Californians are more than prepared to rip up Prop 8 and burn the pieces, through the legislative/proposition process, if SCOTUS manages to drop the ball on this one.  I think even the Mormon and Catholic Churches (together, majority funders of pro-Prop 8) are bruised enough that they would sit out the subsequent legalization-of-same-sex marriage proposition in California.

As a Californian, I remain embarrassed by Prop 8, and more than a little sad that it's taken the courts, and not the will of the people, to fix the law that was voted in (by a quite slim margin).  But . . . if SCOTUS acts on Prop 8 in a way that effects the same-sex marriage bans in 30 states . . . well, then something would have come from the whole debacle, albeit in a ass-backward (so to speak) way.


If this case results in al gay marriage bans being overturned, if it is the watershed case for gay marriage like Loving v. Virginia is for inter-racial marriage, then you have the Prop 8 proponents to thank for it. It will be because of them that gay marriage is legal. They will have to spend the rest of their lives with the knowledge that their actions led to gay marriage being legal for everyone.

If that's what happens, you should send them thank-you cards. (And one of those giant, novelty cards to the LDS church, because they provided the financial backing.)
 
2013-03-25 02:38:56 PM

Dwight_Yeast: rynthetyn: Only way we can get people to show is if we partner with the ultra-libertarian Federalist Society for debates/discussions because then people don't have to worry about being seen at the gay group's event.

So the Federalist Society gets used as a beard.  Amusing but annoying.


I hadn't thought of it that way, but I guess so. I think that's going to change when people decide that associating with us is good for their future political careers, which, being Fark's favorite state, is probably going to be a while.
 
2013-03-25 02:42:04 PM

soporific: carpbrain: meat0918: If the courts overturn Prop 8, the loudest bigots among us are going to say she tainted the proceedings and they aren't valid.

Oh, and what's that going to do to places like Oregon that have banned it?

//Last I knew, Oregon is primed to repeal their ban.  Enough old farts have died off I guess.

Californians are more than prepared to rip up Prop 8 and burn the pieces, through the legislative/proposition process, if SCOTUS manages to drop the ball on this one.  I think even the Mormon and Catholic Churches (together, majority funders of pro-Prop 8) are bruised enough that they would sit out the subsequent legalization-of-same-sex marriage proposition in California.

As a Californian, I remain embarrassed by Prop 8, and more than a little sad that it's taken the courts, and not the will of the people, to fix the law that was voted in (by a quite slim margin).  But . . . if SCOTUS acts on Prop 8 in a way that effects the same-sex marriage bans in 30 states . . . well, then something would have come from the whole debacle, albeit in a ass-backward (so to speak) way.

If this case results in al gay marriage bans being overturned, if it is the watershed case for gay marriage like Loving v. Virginia is for inter-racial marriage, then you have the Prop 8 proponents to thank for it. It will be because of them that gay marriage is legal. They will have to spend the rest of their lives with the knowledge that their actions led to gay marriage being legal for everyone.

If that's what happens, you should send them thank-you cards. (And one of those giant, novelty cards to the LDS church, because they provided the financial backing.)


verbaltoxin above posted an insightful article

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/25/us-usa-gaymarriage-idUSBRE 92 O05G20130325

about how having the courts take down same-sex marriage bans is probably doing a favor to a growing number of Republicans.  Another state-wide proposition would probably be difficult politically for many Republicans here in California.  If SCOTUS resolves the issue in a broadband fashion, GOPers can choose to shake their fists at SCOTUS while being secretly relieved of being taken off the hook.
 
2013-03-25 02:49:26 PM
After ACA and now possibly this, the Republican tears will be glorious.
 
2013-03-25 02:50:28 PM

soporific: carpbrain: meat0918: If the courts overturn Prop 8, the loudest bigots among us are going to say she tainted the proceedings and they aren't valid.

Oh, and what's that going to do to places like Oregon that have banned it?

//Last I knew, Oregon is primed to repeal their ban.  Enough old farts have died off I guess.

Californians are more than prepared to rip up Prop 8 and burn the pieces, through the legislative/proposition process, if SCOTUS manages to drop the ball on this one.  I think even the Mormon and Catholic Churches (together, majority funders of pro-Prop 8) are bruised enough that they would sit out the subsequent legalization-of-same-sex marriage proposition in California.

As a Californian, I remain embarrassed by Prop 8, and more than a little sad that it's taken the courts, and not the will of the people, to fix the law that was voted in (by a quite slim margin).  But . . . if SCOTUS acts on Prop 8 in a way that effects the same-sex marriage bans in 30 states . . . well, then something would have come from the whole debacle, albeit in a ass-backward (so to speak) way.

If this case results in al gay marriage bans being overturned, if it is the watershed case for gay marriage like Loving v. Virginia is for inter-racial marriage, then you have the Prop 8 proponents to thank for it. It will be because of them that gay marriage is legal. They will have to spend the rest of their lives with the knowledge that their actions led to gay marriage being legal for everyone.

If that's what happens, you should send them thank-you cards. (And one of those giant, novelty cards to the LDS church, because they provided the financial backing.)


Billboards in large cities in Utah may be appropriate.
 
2013-03-25 02:53:01 PM

soporific: carpbrain: meat0918: If the courts overturn Prop 8, the loudest bigots among us are going to say she tainted the proceedings and they aren't valid.

Oh, and what's that going to do to places like Oregon that have banned it?

//Last I knew, Oregon is primed to repeal their ban.  Enough old farts have died off I guess.

Californians are more than prepared to rip up Prop 8 and burn the pieces, through the legislative/proposition process, if SCOTUS manages to drop the ball on this one.  I think even the Mormon and Catholic Churches (together, majority funders of pro-Prop 8) are bruised enough that they would sit out the subsequent legalization-of-same-sex marriage proposition in California.

As a Californian, I remain embarrassed by Prop 8, and more than a little sad that it's taken the courts, and not the will of the people, to fix the law that was voted in (by a quite slim margin).  But . . . if SCOTUS acts on Prop 8 in a way that effects the same-sex marriage bans in 30 states . . . well, then something would have come from the whole debacle, albeit in a ass-backward (so to speak) way.

If this case results in al gay marriage bans being overturned, if it is the watershed case for gay marriage like Loving v. Virginia is for inter-racial marriage, then you have the Prop 8 proponents to thank for it. It will be because of them that gay marriage is legal. They will have to spend the rest of their lives with the knowledge that their actions led to gay marriage being legal for everyone.

If that's what happens, you should send them thank-you cards. (And one of those giant, novelty cards to the LDS church, because they provided the financial backing.)


That's an awesome idea: Prop. 8 thank-you cards to the LDS Church.

I frequent an ex-mormon forum on Reddit. They're perspective on this is interesting. The exmos believe gay marriage might be an issue that causes severe damage to the church over the long run. The thing is, cisgender, heterosexual couplings are so endemic to the LDS Church's identity, that gay marriage might not be something they can simply revelate away, like with black men holding the priesthood or polygyny.
 
2013-03-25 02:53:47 PM

carpbrain: soporific: carpbrain: meat0918: If the courts overturn Prop 8, the loudest bigots among us are going to say she tainted the proceedings and they aren't valid.

Oh, and what's that going to do to places like Oregon that have banned it?

//Last I knew, Oregon is primed to repeal their ban.  Enough old farts have died off I guess.

Californians are more than prepared to rip up Prop 8 and burn the pieces, through the legislative/proposition process, if SCOTUS manages to drop the ball on this one.  I think even the Mormon and Catholic Churches (together, majority funders of pro-Prop 8) are bruised enough that they would sit out the subsequent legalization-of-same-sex marriage proposition in California.

As a Californian, I remain embarrassed by Prop 8, and more than a little sad that it's taken the courts, and not the will of the people, to fix the law that was voted in (by a quite slim margin).  But . . . if SCOTUS acts on Prop 8 in a way that effects the same-sex marriage bans in 30 states . . . well, then something would have come from the whole debacle, albeit in a ass-backward (so to speak) way.

If this case results in al gay marriage bans being overturned, if it is the watershed case for gay marriage like Loving v. Virginia is for inter-racial marriage, then you have the Prop 8 proponents to thank for it. It will be because of them that gay marriage is legal. They will have to spend the rest of their lives with the knowledge that their actions led to gay marriage being legal for everyone.

If that's what happens, you should send them thank-you cards. (And one of those giant, novelty cards to the LDS church, because they provided the financial backing.)

verbaltoxin above posted an insightful article

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/25/us-usa-gaymarriage-idUSBRE 92 O05G20130325

about how having the courts take down same-sex marriage bans is probably doing a favor to a growing number of Republicans.  Another state-wide proposition would probably be difficult ...


Sadly I can't take credit for posting that.
 
2013-03-25 02:59:52 PM

rynthetyn: I hadn't thought of it that way, but I guess so. I think that's going to change when people decide that associating with us is good for their future political careers, which, being Fark's favorite state, is probably going to be a while.


You live in Drunkeness?  Awesome!
 
2013-03-25 03:01:06 PM
Now we know who the mole is that tipped the demorats off to Roberts' sexual inversion. He would have found it impossible not to blab to the only family member who would 'understand'. Ms Podrasky is, I am sure, a good little liberal robot and delivered the goods on her cousin to the people who knew people in the rat machine when he was tapped for CJ. She is going to sit there and look at her bent cousin as a silent but potent reminder of what will happen if the verdict isn't 'right'. This is true Chicago style politics. In sh-t city it is a well known tactic to see that a judge is reminded who owns him or as a direct threat to his existence to see that someone who he knows knows about some secret corruption or shame is sitting in his court room when a case that needs to be 'fixed up' comes to trial. If hizzoner isn't a crook or druggy or pervert then he gets to see a couple of well known torpedoes sitting down front and giving him the coldest of stinkeyes as the trial begins. Link
 
2013-03-25 03:02:48 PM

Dwight_Yeast: rynthetyn: I hadn't thought of it that way, but I guess so. I think that's going to change when people decide that associating with us is good for their future political careers, which, being Fark's favorite state, is probably going to be a while.

You live in Drunkeness?  Awesome!


Well, yeah, that too, law school turns everyone into high functioning alcoholics. Heck, my patent drafting class goes out drinking with our professors almost every week.
 
2013-03-25 03:09:51 PM

verbaltoxin: I frequent an ex-mormon forum on Reddit. They're perspective on this is interesting. The exmos believe gay marriage might be an issue that causes severe damage to the church over the long run. The thing is, cisgender, heterosexual couplings are so endemic to the LDS Church's identity, that gay marriage might not be something they can simply revelate away, like with black men holding the priesthood or polygyny.


I suggested years ago that the LDS church should have come down on the side of gay marriage on the basis that people should be able to marry as many other people of whatever gender they chose.

/really no problem with serial or multiple marriage.
 
2013-03-25 03:17:09 PM

Dwight_Yeast: soupafi: Or the GOP finally realizes that maybe all the anti gay sentiment is kinda pissing people off and they are losing elections because of it

No, that's the funny thing: this isn't coming from the party leadership or the major religious PACs; it's coming from individual Congressman who have gay kids/relatives, and (surprisingly) from the Mormon leadership, who apparently realized how much damage to their image supporting Prop 8 did, and the fact that they're constantly losing young (generally hot, generally male) members, who leave the church because of its position on homosexuality.

Apparently, they recently set up a website which says being gay isn't a choice.  That's the first step on the road to acceptance, and the Mormons are one faith where the leaders can completely rewrite the whole religion whenever they feel like it.



[inigomontoya.jpg]
 
2013-03-25 03:21:19 PM

Grungehamster: peasandcarrots: Grungehamster:
A) Churches will be forced to perform weddings for gay couples or face government retribution.
B) Children will be confused how two members of the same sex can be married and teachers and parents will have to explain how gay people have sex with each other to elementary school students.

I've occasionally pointed out that the reason the anti-gay forces seem so powerful, even in tiny little states like mine, is because they associate themselves with huge national groups wallowing in money and power. For instance, when there was an attempt at a gay rights repeal in 2009, the television airwaves in Maine were suddenly inundated with high-quality ads showing "concerned people" of all races worried about what would happen to the children, the children, and the children if this law were to go through. It occurred to me, watching those ads, that they could have run in any state - all they had to do was erase "Utah Commission for Family and Freedom" from the bottom and type in "Maine Traditional Family Association" under "paid for by." Mostly, it was awfully suspect how the referendum they were fighting directly addressed some of the concerns of the advertisers - there were exemptions all over the place for religious organizations, which you'd never know if you listened only to the ads.

Meanwhile, their opposition didn't seem to have access to similar tactics. They certainly didn't have a steady flow of money from midwestern megachurches. The punchline was that when gay marriage was finally approved in 2011, there were loud and aggressive accusations from the opposition that out-of-state money had tipped the scales.

It makes me wonder if there's even such a thing as a grassroots organization anymore, or just co-opts by larger and more powerful interests.

It just depends on how you define "grassroots" the money for those campaigns are definitely coming from a large number of small donations rather than a handful of influential donors which is how most people would define grassroots, but the people involved are not citizens of the area in question and thus have no personal stake in the law in question.

Speaking of those commercials: what percent of kids when finding out gay marriage has been legalized will want their parents to explain to them how how gay people have sex? What percent of kids when seeing an ad that gay marriage being legalized will lead to you having to explain to kids how gay people have sex will want you to explain to them how gay people have sex? Total Catch-22: by broadcasting "small children will want to know about the gay version of something they likely have no clue about if you tell them about the gay version of something they are familiar with" you're making small children aware that there is something they have no clue about that adults are actively trying to keep them ignorant of.


If a child knows about sex, then why would you have to worry about that question? If they don't know about sex, then they won't be asking that question. What was the point you were trying to make?
 
2013-03-25 03:31:44 PM

carpbrain: Californians are more than prepared to rip up Prop 8 and burn the pieces, through the legislative/proposition process, if SCOTUS manages to drop the ball on this one.


You probably shouldn't be waiting on that. Even if the SCOTUS doesn't fumble, a Prop 8 repeal by the electorate would help send a message on the larger national stage that the times have changed.

Teiritzamna: Thus if it gets kicked on standing (and it will - its the only interesting thing about Perry)


I'm not convinced on that. Saying the Prop 8 intervenors did not have standing to represent the State of California requires overruling the California Supreme Court on who according to California's laws (which the California Supreme Court is supposed to be the last word on) can represent the state in Court. Deciding that the State's interest in the case can be represented by the intervenors -- or by a homeless person randomly picked from Fremont Park -- is a question of state sovereignty and right to choice of legal counsel.

I suppose the SCOTUS could find that such weird standing isn't completely impermissible, but must require an explicit act of the legislature or something, which might also help them punt the DOMA case back into limbo for a few months.
 
2013-03-25 03:32:53 PM
So after reading free Republic I think I finally have it figured out.

The Mormon church pushed for prop eight knowing that it was unconstitutional. Once it gets overturned then they will push for polygamy using the same logic.

After that Furries will push for the right to make love to monkeys since they are only a few strands of DNA apart from us.

After that Planet of the Apes
 
2013-03-25 03:36:45 PM

Lord_Baull: Apparently, they recently set up a website which says being gay isn't a choice. That's the first step on the road to acceptance, and the Mormons are one faith where the leaders can completely rewrite the whole religion whenever they feel like it.


[inigomontoya.jpg]


You really don't understand how the Mormon Church works do you?  Or is it that you don't understand most Judeo-Christian sects?

I'll try to make it simple:

1) For Jews, the Torah hasn't changed for 5000 years.  Their interpretation of it has, but the book remains the same.  The difference in interpretation is why there are different Jewish sects.

2) For Christians, most use the Bible codified by the Catholic Church in the 1500s.  Others accept or reject various books.  None agree on whether the text should be taken literally or figuratively and to what extent.  Even a church as large and well-organized as the Church of Rome can't make sweeping changes to doctrine whenever they want; they must introduce change gradually.

3) The Mormon leaders, on the other hand, can rewrite the Book of Mormon whenever they want, and have done so.  Pick up a modern copy of the book and it's quite different from what was originally published in 1857.

I'll put it another way: most religions can change their operator's manual (doctrine) but they can't change the OS.  The LDS can change the OS as frequently as they want.
 
2013-03-25 03:38:54 PM

Homegrown: After that Furries will push for the right to make love to monkeys since they are only a few strands of DNA apart from us.


Well, at least we'll finally be able to answer the chimp/human hybrid question.

/yes, that's a real thing.
 
2013-03-25 04:01:45 PM

abb3w: I'm not convinced on that. Saying the Prop 8 intervenors did not have standing to represent the State of California requires overruling the California Supreme Court on who according to California's laws (which the California Supreme Court is supposed to be the last word on) can represent the state in Court. Deciding that the State's interest in the case can be represented by the intervenors -- or by a homeless person randomly picked from Fremont Park -- is a question of state sovereignty and right to choice of legal counsel.


Well not really as regardless of the certification of the Cali Supreme Court, standing is a jurisdictional federal requirement.  Thus the Supreme court could say that when a party lacks constitutional standing, it is beyond the power of a state to declare otherwise.  Given the fact that it is pretty easy to view the the whole certification question to be a matter of clear federal law, many thought it was pretty hinky to begin with and is one of the major reasons Perry was picked up by the Court.

I could not see the Supremes letting slide the 9th Cir. allow a state court to determine federal standing, and figured thios would be yet another in a long line of 9th cir biatchslaps from Washington.
 
2013-03-25 04:52:57 PM
Mark Warner just switched sides and announced his support for marriage equality. It's pretty funny watching politicians scramble to get on the right side of history now that they've realized equality is inevitable but before the SCOTUS rules.
 
2013-03-25 05:06:27 PM

NeverDrunk23: They probably think gay marriage will invalidate their own marriage.

In other news, they are idiots.


when gay marriage became legal in Iowa, I remember reading the comment sections of the Sioux City Journal from people claiming they were going to get remarried in another state "where their marriage would still mean something"

seriously, as derpy as free republic.

(speaking of which, its been a while since ive visited that filth... time to put on some rubber gloves and pay a visit to freeperville)
 
2013-03-25 05:09:45 PM

Teiritzamna: Well not really as regardless of the certification of the Cali Supreme Court, standing is a jurisdictional federal requirement. Thus the Supreme court could say that when a party lacks constitutional standing, it is beyond the power of a state to declare otherwise.


Except, the state didn't declare that the intervenors had standing. Rather, the California Supreme Court seems to have said that in the absence of anyone else more traditional (AG, governor, etc) willing to represent the state's interest in the referendum, the intervenors had "authority to assert the State's interest". That is, it's the state of California which has standing, and the intervenors are the ones the state has sent to complain on its behalf.

And whether they send the California Attorney General, the Governor, or Bozo the Clown would appear to be a question of how the sovereign state of California chooses to govern itself. (The question of whether such bomolocharchy violates the federal constitutional requirement of a republican government might be raised, but the SCOTUS has historically held the question of what is and isn't a republican government non-justiciable.)
 
2013-03-25 05:50:58 PM

abb3w: Teiritzamna: Well not really as regardless of the certification of the Cali Supreme Court, standing is a jurisdictional federal requirement. Thus the Supreme court could say that when a party lacks constitutional standing, it is beyond the power of a state to declare otherwise.

Except, the state didn't declare that the intervenors had standing. Rather, the California Supreme Court seems to have said that in the absence of anyone else more traditional (AG, governor, etc) willing to represent the state's interest in the referendum, the intervenors had "authority to assert the State's interest". That is, it's the state of California which has standing, and the intervenors are the ones the state has sent to complain on its behalf.

And whether they send the California Attorney General, the Governor, or Bozo the Clown would appear to be a question of how the sovereign state of California chooses to govern itself. (The question of whether such bomolocharchy violates the federal constitutional requirement of a republican government might be raised, but the SCOTUS has historically held the question of what is and isn't a republican government non-justiciable.)


That's certainly true, but I think the court still is considering the standing issue because they want to be able to punt if they can't come to an agreement.
 
2013-03-25 06:58:28 PM

rynthetyn: That's certainly true, but I think the court still is considering the standing issue because they want to be able to punt if they can't come to an agreement.


Disagree - i think the standing issues underlying both Perry and Windsor are the reason they picked these cases up, not the gay marriage bits.  The standing concerns are really rather thorny and they mirror each other rather well (i.e. both really ask the question of who gets to appeal when the original plaintiff decides they concede).  Partially this explains to me why Windsor was picked up and the older, yet almost identical Massachusetts cases were not, as the only major difference between the 1st Cir. and 2d Cir. opinions is that the 1st Cir. holding is not based on a standing snafu (well and the 1st Cir. didn't make up a new intermediate scrutiny the way the 2d Cir. did).
 
2013-03-25 07:07:05 PM

abb3w: Except, the state didn't declare that the intervenors had standing. Rather, the California Supreme Court seems to have said that in the absence of anyone else more traditional (AG, governor, etc) willing to represent the state's interest in the referendum, the intervenors had "authority to assert the State's interest". That is, it's the state of California which has standing, and the intervenors are the ones the state has sent to complain on its behalf.

And whether they send the California Attorney General, the Governor, or Bozo the Clown would appear to be a question of how the sovereign state of California chooses to govern itself. (The question of whether such bomolocharchy violates the federal constitutional requirement of a republican government might be raised, but the SCOTUS has historically held the question of what is and isn't a republican government non-justiciable.)


Yes, but the standing question remains.Regardless of what California says, have the intervenors (1) suffered or imminently will suffer injury (2) caused by the complained of incident that (3) is capable of legal redress.

Here the real issue is whether the intervenors suffered an injury in fact.  There is solid case law that the executive branch of a state has standing to appeal on its own behalf.  However there is no precedent at all that a state can designate a somewhat involved party to step in, as in subrogation, and claim the same injury.  This is not an instance where the executive is stricken with some disaster and thus we need a stand in - the executive waived the appeal.  The one party that under federal law had standing said no, and the Ninth Circuit, because they really wanted to have a juicy appeal, for some crazy ass reason allowed the state supreme court to name a party with dubious injury in fact to stand in for the state.
 
2013-03-25 08:25:39 PM
I don't care if it was my closest family member ... if she tried to make herself the center of attention like this and embarrass me at work (by openly suggesting she's trying to influence my ruling through social pressure) in front of the public?  I'd cut her out of my life permanently.

/Go attention whore somewhere else.
 
2013-03-25 09:11:01 PM

carpbrain: As a Californian, I remain embarrassed by Prop 8, and more than a little sad that it's taken the courts, and not the will of the people, to fix the law that was voted in (by a quite slim margin).  But . . . if SCOTUS acts on Prop 8 in a way that effects the same-sex marriage bans in 30 states . . . well, then something would have come from the whole debacle, albeit in a ass-backward (so to speak) way.


As a Californian, I place the blame for the passage of Prop 8 on Gavin Newsom and his condescending, overly cocky, "It's going to happen, whether you like it or not" speech in 2004. The footage from that speech was turned into an advertisement (run ad nauseum on TV) in favor of Prop 8, and that ad almost single-handedly turned the tide on that issue because his manner in that speech read like a big "fark you" to anyone who was even a little wishy-washy about gay marriage.

But as you say, in the long run, it may turn out to be the key to a fell-swoop ruling rather than the otherwise-inevitable, but very slow trickle, of state-by-state rulings and votes over decades.
 
2013-03-25 09:53:35 PM

SunsetLament: I don't care if it was my closest family member ... if she tried to make herself the center of attention like this and embarrass me at work (by openly suggesting she's trying to influence my ruling through social pressure) in front of the public?  I'd cut her out of my life permanently.

/Go attention whore somewhere else.


Seriously? What the hell did you read?

She requested tickets to the family and friends section as she is in fact a family member. She was granted them. A reporter asked her if she was attending and she said she was, but also said she had no insight into how he rules or what the ruling would be because she considers it rude to ask him about his cases and she also made it clear that she only sees him at family reunions.
 
2013-03-25 10:21:40 PM

100 Watt Walrus: As a Californian, I place the blame for the passage of Prop 8 on Gavin Newsom and his condescending, overly cocky, "It's going to happen, whether you like it or not" speech in 2004. The footage from that speech was turned into an advertisement (run ad nauseum on TV) in favor of Prop 8, and that ad almost single-handedly turned the tide on that issue because his manner in that speech read like a big "fark you" to anyone who was even a little wishy-washy about gay marriage.


There's a few problems with that conclusion. Public support for gay marriage in California (as well as the rest of the US) has risen at a fairly steady steady rate since 2004, so it's not clear that the "tide" turned at all, much less that it turned because of one specific thing. More likely, the "tide" in question simply hadn't gotten high enough at that point.
 
2013-03-25 11:27:33 PM

Biological Ali: 100 Watt Walrus: As a Californian, I place the blame for the passage of Prop 8 on Gavin Newsom and his condescending, overly cocky, "It's going to happen, whether you like it or not" speech in 2004. The footage from that speech was turned into an advertisement (run ad nauseum on TV) in favor of Prop 8, and that ad almost single-handedly turned the tide on that issue because his manner in that speech read like a big "fark you" to anyone who was even a little wishy-washy about gay marriage.

There's a few problems with that conclusion. Public support for gay marriage in California (as well as the rest of the US) has risen at a fairly steady steady rate since 2004, so it's not clear that the "tide" turned at all, much less that it turned because of one specific thing. More likely, the "tide" in question simply hadn't gotten high enough at that point.


The polls were about 55% against Prop 8 (i.e., in favor of marriage equality) before that ad started running.

After a month of that ad in heavy rotation, support was down to 42%, and the measure passed 52.3% (against marriage equality) to 47.7% (for marriage equality).

There was another ad that sometimes gets some credit - one about a little girl supposedly being told in school that she could "marry a princess" - but that one felt like propaganda. The Newsom ad was in his own arrogant words, and nothing but those words. The first time I saw that ad, I had two concurrent thoughts: 1) "It's over, the good guys lost," and 2) "Newsom, you farking loudmouthed, arrogant farkwit pandering to the crowd in front of you with no bigger picture in mind."
 
2013-03-26 07:52:15 AM

rynthetyn: abb3w: Teiritzamna: Well not really as regardless of the certification of the Cali Supreme Court, standing is a jurisdictional federal requirement. Thus the Supreme court could say that when a party lacks constitutional standing, it is beyond the power of a state to declare otherwise.

Except, the state didn't declare that the intervenors had standing. Rather, the California Supreme Court seems to have said that in the absence of anyone else more traditional (AG, governor, etc) willing to represent the state's interest in the referendum, the intervenors had "authority to assert the State's interest". That is, it's the state of California which has standing, and the intervenors are the ones the state has sent to complain on its behalf.

And whether they send the California Attorney General, the Governor, or Bozo the Clown would appear to be a question of how the sovereign state of California chooses to govern itself. (The question of whether such bomolocharchy violates the federal constitutional requirement of a republican government might be raised, but the SCOTUS has historically held the question of what is and isn't a republican government non-justiciable.)

That's certainly true, but I think the court still is considering the standing issue because they want to be able to punt if they can't come to an agreement.


The plaintiffs clearly have standing. The defendants don't need to for SCOTUS to make a ruling. Or rather, "the government" is good enough when you are challenging a law, You only need standing to bring suit. The other side not being able to have standing is irrelevant.
 
2013-03-26 09:31:55 AM

100 Watt Walrus: The polls were about 55% against Prop 8 (i.e., in favor of marriage equality) before that ad started running.


First of all, you're comparing polling results from different pollsters, which is a very basic mistake. If you compare only the same pollsters (the polls only by Field, for instance), you'll notice that things don't change very much at all and that, if anything, opposition to Prop 8 probably rose in that time period.

The result on this referendum most likely had to do with basic demographic differences between the the population at large, and those who actually show up to vote. For instance, Proposition 22 (which was the precursor to Proposition 8) passed with 61% of the vote, at a time when only 50% of the California population was opposed to gay marriage (and this happened in 2000, in case you were going to suggest that the speech from 2004 had an impact there too).

If you personally didn't like that speech, that's fine - but to single it out as the one reason that Prop 8 passed is a real stretch (and that's putting it generously).
 
2013-03-26 09:57:24 AM

Biological Ali: if anything, opposition to Prop 8 probably rose in that time period


Looking back at the numbers, I'm not so sure about this anymore (I was comparing the "CBS/Survey USA" numbers to the later "Survey USA" numbers, but they might not necessarily be comparable), but the broader point still stands - polling overall showed greater opposition than support, which roughly matches up with support for gay marriage in general in California at the time (51% for gay marriage and 42% against).
 
2013-03-26 10:05:23 AM

Neeek: The plaintiffs clearly have standing. The defendants don't need to for SCOTUS to make a ruling. Or rather, "the government" is good enough when you are challenging a law, You only need standing to bring suit. The other side not being able to have standing is irrelevant.


Fun fact - you also need standing to appeal.

Jurisdictional limits of federal authority and all that.
 
2013-03-26 04:42:53 PM

Biological Ali: 100 Watt Walrus: The polls were about 55% against Prop 8 (i.e., in favor of marriage equality) before that ad started running.

First of all, you're comparing polling results from different pollsters, which is a very basic mistake. If you compare only the same pollsters (the polls only by Field, for instance), you'll notice that things don't change very much at all and that, if anything, opposition to Prop 8 probably rose in that time period.

The result on this referendum most likely had to do with basic demographic differences between the the population at large, and those who actually show up to vote. For instance, Proposition 22 (which was the precursor to Proposition 8) passed with 61% of the vote, at a time when only 50% of the California population was opposed to gay marriage (and this happened in 2000, in case you were going to suggest that the speech from 2004 had an impact there too).

If you personally didn't like that speech, that's fine - but to single it out as the one reason that Prop 8 passed is a real stretch (and that's putting it generously).


1) I didn't single it out as the one reason. I said it turned the tide. And it was a defining moment in the campaign.

2) I linked to the chart on the Wiki page as a general guideline to what happened in the course of the campaign. I didn't mean to imply it represented the absolute truth of the trend.

I may have over-stated my point somewhat because it was so wildly irresponsible of Newsom to be such a loud and public dick about opening up marriage to all in his city.

But, anecdotally I admit, before that ad ran, there was a strong sense in much of CA that Prop 8 was going to be defeated. Once that ad aired, it seemed fence-sitters fell off on the side of "I'm not going to be steamrolled."

Maybe I'm looking at this the way the Republicans looked at the 2012 election, thinking they had a chance when really they didn't. But in my view, based on what I saw happen at the time, before the Newsom ad there was hope and many undecided voters. Afterwards, there was scrambling and desperation and many minds made up in a knee-jerked manner.

Ultimately, the people swayed by that ad are to blame. But that doesn't change the fact that Newsom's speech was politically irresponsible, and a great example of someone failing to use their what-happens-next machine.
 
2013-03-26 05:07:47 PM

100 Watt Walrus: 1) I didn't single it out as the one reason. I said it turned the tide. And it was a defining moment in the campaign.


...

Ultimately, the people swayed by that ad are to blame. But that doesn't change the fact that Newsom's speech was politically irresponsible, and a great example of someone failing to use their what-happens-next machine.


My point is that it's unlikely that the ad had any impact at all, given that the result of the referendum isn't really a surprise but is more or less in line with what one would expect given the actual level of support for same-sex marriage in California at the time, along with the tendency (as seen with Prop. 22) of anti-gay marriage voters turning out at rates far higher than those who support it.

In other words, there was never any moment where Prop. 8 was particularly likely to fail (and thus no "tide" to begin with), outside of overly optimistic predictions which looked only at polls of registered voters and failed to consider the possibility that one side would turn out at much higher rates than the other. Some of the early polls also seemed to overstate Californian opposition to Prop. 8 (at least if taken as a proxy for support for gay marriage in general) - which probably further fueled said optimism, or at the very least contributed to the "turning tide" notions when subsequent polls were closer to the more accurate ~50% mark.
 
2013-03-27 12:31:04 AM

Biological Ali: My point is that it's unlikely that the ad had any impact at all, given that the result of the referendum isn't really a surprise but is more or less in line with what one would expect given the actual level of support for same-sex marriage in California at the time, along with the tendency (as seen with Prop. 22) of anti-gay marriage voters turning out at rates far higher than those who support it.

In other words, there was never any moment where Prop. 8 was particularly likely to fail (and thus no "tide" to begin with), outside of overly optimistic predictions which looked only at polls of registered voters and failed to consider the possibility that one side would turn out at much higher rates than the other. Some of the early polls also seemed to overstate Californian opposition to Prop. 8 (at least if taken as a proxy for support for gay marriage in general) - which probably further fueled said optimism, or at the very least contributed to the "turning tide" notions when subsequent polls were closer to the more accurate ~50% mark.


You may be right. The effect/effectiveness of that ad may have been smaller than it seemed to me.

But I maintain that Newsom's speech was politically irresponsible. It was arrogant and condescending to bellow bellicosely that "it's going to happen, whether you like it or not."

Granted, that speech was a year before YouTube was launched. He might have been a little smarter about it a few years later. But I still say he was being a dick and pandering to the audience in front of him. (Shocking, I know.)
 
Displayed 175 of 175 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report