Trial in Same-Sex Marriage Case Is Ch...

Trial in Same-Sex Marriage Case Is Challenged

There are 16 comments on the www.nytimes.com story from Mar 22, 2010, titled Trial in Same-Sex Marriage Case Is Challenged. In it, www.nytimes.com reports that:

Opponents of same-sex marriage have long said the issue does not belong in the courts. Lately they have gone a step further.

They say Judge Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, made a serious mistake by calling for a trial in a challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage rather than deciding the case based on paper submissions.

“To think that somehow the rules of evidence can lead you to the right answer is just not right,” said Jordan W. Lorence, a lawyer with Alliance Defense Fund and a member of the trial team for the people and groups who intervened to defend the ban after state officials would not. “There should not have been a trial.”

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.nytimes.com.

“ ILKS r kewl ”

Since: Apr 09

Conch republic

#1 Mar 22, 2010
Equality is NEVER left to the ballot box......... thats EXACTLY what the "COURTS" are for..

Alliance Defense goobers are sooo stupid!

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2 Mar 22, 2010
Of course they didn't want a trial. Having to actually provide evidence for their bogus claims and have those claims subjected to cross-examination placed them in an untenable position. They were exposed as frauds.

A trial is the perfect venue for exposing hypocrisy and unsupportable claims by religious hacks. Go back and examine the Scopes Trial in 1925 or the Kitzmiller v Dover trial in 2005 ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/i... ).

There remains no rational secular basis for denying same-sex couples the right to civil marriage. All arguments in opposition are irrational, illogical, or based on ignorance, animus, or religious superstition and myth.

There is no rational secular basis for creating a "separate but equal" institution for establishing kinship between unrelated adults when a perfectly suitable one already exists: civil marriage.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#3 Mar 23, 2010
A really fine article !

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#4 Mar 23, 2010
Told ya the anti-gay would stop at literally, utterly, absolutely nothing.

Why stop when they're this desperate and obsessed? Now they're attempting to attack *the very foundation of the methodology by which America settles its grievances*.

I promise you they'll stop at absolutely nothing above, on or below earth in achieving their twisted, anti-American, sickeningly evil ends.

Promise.

Keep watching.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#5 Mar 23, 2010
rdg1234 wrote:
Told ya the anti-gay would stop at literally, utterly, absolutely nothing.
Why stop when they're this desperate and obsessed? Now they're attempting to attack *the very foundation of the methodology by which America settles its grievances*.
I promise you they'll stop at absolutely nothing above, on or below earth in achieving their twisted, anti-American, sickeningly evil ends.
Promise.
Keep watching.
Of course they will stop at nothing, because they believe the fate of the universe is at stake.

They honestly believe that if gay couples can marry, and are accepted, then our country will be damned, perhaps even abandoned by God. They have no choice but to do anything they can to stop such a terrible fate.

Even if that fate is only in their imaginations.

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#6 Mar 23, 2010
“To think that somehow the rules of evidence can lead you to the right answer is just not right,” said Jordan W. Lorence, a lawyer with Alliance Defense Fund <-- An *attorney* said this? Did *your* jaw drop like mine did? A LAWYER just basically said that if he doesn't like the results of a trial, then the rules of evidence must somehow be "wrong." A lawyer more or less said that where HE wants a verdict to go HIS way and fears it won't, a trial suddenly becomes "unreliable" and "rules of evidence" have no place in the justice system. Picking up my jaw and moving on.

“The plaintiffs put on a spectacular show-trial of irrelevant evidence,” Andrew P. Pugno, the general counsel of Protectmarriage.com <-- Oh, really? So why did more than one of your witnesses bow out and why was no evidence *ACTUALLY* presented that we've all heard about worldwide telling us that *YOU* are correct and that the pro-gay are wrong?

Just think, Mr. Pugno! In this trial, you had the opportunity to prove *BEING GAY IS A CHOICE*. That's what the anti-gay say alllll day long! They know it! They claim it's a fact!

Mr. Pugno, why was *no such evidence* presented at this trial where you had a *GOLDEN* opportunity to prove their contention *ONCE AND FOR ALL*? Hmmm?

Irrelevant is a word being used, by you, in this instance because you don't have the spine to tell everyone how *scared* you are. You're *lying*-- the anti-gay, after all, do it so obsessively and so very well -- about the relevance of their evidence *due to your fear*.

“California voters got all of this evidence, more or less, during the campaign for or against Prop. 8,” Mr. Lorence said <-- Wait. Hang on a sec, Mr. Lorence.

They got *what* evidence?

Again,*what* evidence did they get?

Shall we drag up all the public fodder and the memos and the commercials and look at *what was presented*? Do you REALLY want to remind everyone?

I recall a link between SEXUAL ORIENTATION and CHILDREN, sir. I recall a link *clearly established by the anti-gay* in a completely untrue and fabricated bid to *SCARE* people into voting for this "proposition." Are you really so stupid? Why do you think there's a trial going on? WOW.

But hey, if anyone anti-gay wants to go over that "evidence" again, there's *PLENTY* of it and we can remind the entire world that the anti-gay lied, stripped families of their rights, attempted to damage their children, and *lied* about connections between orientation and what children would know, become or learn.

Want to?

We could have some real fun.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#7 Mar 23, 2010

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#8 Mar 23, 2010
I really marvel at the ignorance of these statements. How can anyone be so deluded as to believe that same-sex marriage will have ANY negative effects? Their fears are so irrational, so illogical as to be laughable, yet they are dead serious. I can not wrap my mind around such positions.
Tim

East Northport, NY

#9 Mar 23, 2010
Jerald wrote:
Of course they didn't want a trial. Having to actually provide evidence for their bogus claims and have those claims subjected to cross-examination placed them in an untenable position. They were exposed as frauds.
A trial is the perfect venue for exposing hypocrisy and unsupportable claims by religious hacks. Go back and examine the Scopes Trial in 1925 or the Kitzmiller v Dover trial in 2005 ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/i... ).
There remains no rational secular basis for denying same-sex couples the right to civil marriage. All arguments in opposition are irrational, illogical, or based on ignorance, animus, or religious superstition and myth.
There is no rational secular basis for creating a "separate but equal" institution for establishing kinship between unrelated adults when a perfectly suitable one already exists: civil marriage.
Excellent post, Jerald. Thank you!

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#11 Mar 23, 2010
I still say the best one was:

“To think that somehow the rules of evidence can lead you to the right answer is just not right,” said Jordan W. Lorence, a lawyer with Alliance Defense Fund

AN ATTORNEY said that. AN ATTORNEY basically said, "Naah, the legal system's completely shot to shit and is worthless because I can't get my way." My jaw has never dropped so far.

TO THINK GOING TO COURT PRODUCES THE WRONG RESULT, YEAH, GOT IT, Mr. LORENCE. Dumbass.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12 Mar 23, 2010
rdg1234 wrote:
I still say the best one was:
“To think that somehow the rules of evidence can lead you to the right answer is just not right,” said Jordan W. Lorence, a lawyer with Alliance Defense Fund
AN ATTORNEY said that. AN ATTORNEY basically said, "Naah, the legal system's completely shot to shit and is worthless because I can't get my way." My jaw has never dropped so far.
TO THINK GOING TO COURT PRODUCES THE WRONG RESULT, YEAH, GOT IT, Mr. LORENCE. Dumbass.
It makes sense from his perspective if you change "the right" to "my" in his quote: "To think that somehow the rules of evidence can lead you to **the right** answer is just not right."

Of course, his perspective is as screwed up as it can be.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#13 Mar 23, 2010
They are trying to make a case that would allow the 9th Circuit (the next appeal step) to refuse to grant certiorary, or strike down on court rules and proceedures grounds. It's also possible that the respondents are trying to make a case for direct preemptive appeal to the SCOTUS for a ruling on substance.

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#14 Apr 11, 2010
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
It makes sense from his perspective if you change "the right" to "my" in his quote: "To think that somehow the rules of evidence can lead you to **the right** answer is just not right."
Of course, his perspective is as screwed up as it can be.
You are right; that is exactly what he's saying. That was why it stunned me so badly that an attorney basically said, "The law is awful unless I can control it!" That's not what law school taught him; that's what *American chicanery and shyster tactics* taught him.

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#15 Apr 11, 2010
snyper wrote:
They are trying to make a case that would allow the 9th Circuit (the next appeal step) to refuse to grant certiorary, or strike down on court rules and proceedures grounds. It's also possible that the respondents are trying to make a case for direct preemptive appeal to the SCOTUS for a ruling on substance.
I suppose one's only consolation is that Olson and Boies *will fight that* like rabid sharks on every cause and contingent known to man. Moreover, Olson and Boies will be smart enough to point out in any procedure that *their opponents deliberately and manipulatively did that*, which is not always honored by judges on procedural grounds but can have a STRONG emotional effect on their decision.

And?

The public voice is now loudly involved in this lawsuit, although that WASN'T a good thing when the supreme court barred the cameras. But ultimately, it could turn out to be a good thing in some other way.

In the meantime, Olson and Boies are smart. They will first battle like sharks to maintain procedure that does not manipulate the proceedings; and if they lose that, how many times do you think the new judge will hear them say that this was a complete travesty and manipulation of procedure? I ask rhetorically; of course you know. Good lord, their objections *would go down in history*. So one can only wait to see, with interest, how this will play out.

I have twice read that they designed their case to make laughingstocks of anyone, INCLUDING THE SUPREME COURT, that decreed gay marriage "illegal." I still think there could be some type of not-good fallout from this if that happens. I don't have any "inside knowledge" or "say-so" or anything; I just keep having a deep, deep gut feeling.

Many millions of gay people themselves who *aren't intimately familiar with the law*, I have noticed, are resting on a presumption that THEY ARE GOING to get gay marriage from this. Think about the day the "last court" decrees that this is not so.

Anyway.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#16 Apr 11, 2010
The current tactics by our side appear to be to gain control of the appeal process, thereby setting the terms under which it will be decided.

Any thoughts?

I would hope that our grassroots activists are taking potential community reactions into account, and preemptively planning local activities to direct and mitigate the passions that are bound to arise.

Harvey understood that anger and adrenaline feed each other. The long march from the Castro to SF City Hall were intended to metabolize away the adrenaline, and give the crowd a sense of action. Then it was up to the speakers to carefully mirror and gain control of the group. Without this march, the results easily turn to riot, as happened when the White verdict was handed down. The crowd had already gathered and been waiting for a long time, and there were no controlling spokespersons. Had more of a crowd been left to stand for longer ... had fewer arrived late after long walks from the Castro, Polk, Folsom and the upper Haight, the destruction would have been far more extensive. It was an act of brilliance that the SFPD pursued no investigations regarding what DID occur.

I am absolutely certain that the Fed has considered the possible repercussions, and has contingency plans in place.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#17 Apr 11, 2010
The middile of cold wet winters are good times to hand out such bad news.

;-)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Virginia Military Institute Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Northam and Perriello hold their fire in first ... (Apr '17) Apr '17 tomin cali 1
News John Jones, Executive Director of the Virginia ... (Sep '15) Sep '15 Clayton 2
News Claudius Crozet the Engineer (Jan '15) Jan '15 jax23willis 1
News Scant support for U.S. strikesSeptember 1, 2013... (Sep '13) Sep '13 Adale 2
XL Sheets for new Cadets. (Jun '13) Jun '13 StanGause 2
News Happy Birthday, "Stonewall" Jackson, Civil War ... (May '13) May '13 someone 1
News UVA Masters Program Seeks to Recruit Veterans (Feb '13) Feb '13 Goody2Shoes 1
More from around the web