California Prop 8 Overturned By Openly Gay Judge

[CrufflerSteve]

I'm more libertarian about this and don't care what consenting adults do with each other - as long I don't have to see pictures of it. Personally, I don't think there should be such a thing as state sponsored marriage, only civil unions. To me, marriage is a church thing.

This is more than a slippery slope. It's well greased. If this stands I cannot see how any arguments against polygamy or polyandry could stand. It will get real interesting at city hall. How many signature spaces will there be on marriage licenses?

Steve

[Irving]

I'm so sick of all the reality shows about midgets and dwarfs. If there was a show about persons of average height, the ACLU and other activists would poop themselves with anger!

Why should I have to see them in public and tell my kid that they are "normal"? I mean look around, hardly anyone is shorter than 4 feet. Between the shows about them, and the trend of celebrities hanging out with them, it seems like that's the cool thing to do. Am I supposed to lower my counter tops to 3 feet high and install an elevator in my house just because some midgets choose not to walk up and down stairs like a normal person? Just the other day I had some woman tell me that I should get my daughter into gymnastics as soon as possible so she doesn't grow too tall.

If we keep celebrating midgets, dwarfs, and other "freaks," pretty soon everyone is going to be crammed into smaller work and living spaces, and in 50 years the whole population is going to average only 5 feet tall. If I wanted to go backwards in physical evolution, I'd move to China!

[SA Friday]

[quote=nogaroheli;227898]

Cool

Do you think that activist judges going against the will of the majority being acceptable is a slippery slope? Not to derail, just for an example (if possible)- Look at AZ, the majority of the country wants the existing border laws upheld but our activist judges are giving the majority the finger and saying no to that. Just for thought...

I think there are too many laws being made and changed so legislators can justify their existance and appease their special interest contributors.

What if the majority's desire contradicts a constitutional right? The 14th ammendment was written in the 1860's and has picked up a lot of definition since its inception. It's a powerful and yet potentially destructive ammendment. It's interesting that both this and the immigration issue seem to lead back to the 14th ammendment so often. It's equal protection clause seems to be the underlying issue with gay marriage. The 14th does allow for 'separate but equal' destinction. It allows for equality legally without redefining what a marriage is. The immigration issue and the 14th also utilizes the equal protection clause of the ammendment and also a 4th ammendment issue. IMO, the immigration issue is a much bigger issue/problem/conundrum than gay marriage.

Laws and legal rulings are two very different animals. Laws are written by politicians, and some have been found over the years to be flawed, illegal, violations of constitutional rights, etc. Some have been pretty good. Legal rulings are a judges weighing and measuring of the laws. In both of these cases, some judges are finding issues with the laws and are addressing it. There will be appeals in both cases as is appropriate, IMO, in both cases. I suspect both will be addressed and possibly further defined at the SC level sooner or later.

I agree there is way too little restraint shown in the modern day politician when it comes to writing 'new laws'. They seem to be cropping up everywhere, when standing back and addressing what's already there is the most logical and clean way to resolve issues. The federal government could have avoided the current problem in AZ and the rest of the country by addressing the problem with the current laws on the books 10 years ago. They didn't, and now AZ and many other citizens are mad as hell and going to do something about it. So, they wrote a new state law. It's forcing the issue to the front where it should have been. It's also a flawed new law and forcing constitutional right to the forefront; unintended consenquences. We reap what we sew. We bitch about why we should have to show an ID card to any cop that asks for it (without cause), and then expect this to be acceptable for others. Not so black and white is it, but the majority want it. Be careful what you want.

[jake]

The bias IS that, yes, he is gay. And I see your point about if he were straight then that's a bias as well. However, you have to weigh this in with what is "average" (I was going to say normal but that would be mis-interpreted). On average marriage is between a man and a woman, but in this case they are trying to change the average, and he is on the "activist" side of the case.

The same would ring true if a Hispanic judge were to sit in ruling of a case where Hispanics gain some significant new right. If it were a black judge, there's no pony in the race. If it's a white judge then there is a high likelihood there is no pony in the race, but perhaps there might be.

I completely understand your point but I believe there is a difference in THIS case if a gay judge ruled on an appeal from the community that he is a part of. Who is to say that he wasn't for prop 8 to start with? Nobody, but any chance of impropriety has to be brought into question. In my experience, at least, it is more likely a gay person will be PRO gay than it is that a straight person will be ANTI gay.

Of course, he should have excused himself from making the ruling on the grounds that he's a conservative which is the traditional home of the idea that marriage = man + woman, but he didn't do that either.

[Ranger]

Of course, he should have excused himself from making the ruling on the grounds that he's a conservative which is the traditional home of the idea that marriage = man + woman, but he didn't do that either.

Ah, spoken like a true liberal.

[jake]

Ah, spoken like a true liberal.

Good comeback!

All joking aside, Judge Walker is a conservative. Opposition to gay 'marriage' is usually the domain of conservatives, isn't it?

[Elhuero]

I'm so sick of all the reality shows about midgets and dwarfs. If there was a show about persons of average height, the ACLU and other activists would poop themselves with anger!

Why should I have to see them in public and tell my kid that they are "normal"? I mean look around, hardly anyone is shorter than 4 feet. Between the shows about them, and the trend of celebrities hanging out with them, it seems like that's the cool thing to do. Am I supposed to lower my counter tops to 3 feet high and install an elevator in my house just because some midgets choose not to walk up and down stairs like a normal person? Just the other day I had some woman tell me that I should get my daughter into gymnastics as soon as possible so she doesn't grow too tall.

If we keep celebrating midgets, dwarfs, and other "freaks," pretty soon evveryone is going to be crammed into smaller work and living spaces, and in 50 years the whole population is going to average only 5 feet tall. If I wanted to go backwards in physical evolution, I'd move to China!

you should not even be allowed to think that

[Irving]

you should not even be allowed to think that

Quit trying to reduce me down to your level with your midget loving rhetoric. Go eat dinner at your coffee table-height kitchen table, you pinko commie.

[Elhuero]

Quit trying to reduce me down to your level with your midget loving rhetoric. Go eat dinner at your coffee table-height kitchen table, you pinko commie.

hehe

[StagLefty]

Just like how we are forced to accept the choices of people with down syndrome because of the Special Olympics.

??????????????????????????????????