Ex-judge predicts "spectacular" argument against Prop. 8

Mar 23, 2013 Full story: blog.sfgate.com 187

The now-retired federal judge who struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage has caused a bit of a stir in an e-mail exchange, leaked to a conservative blogger, in which he predicts the lawyer advocating gay marriage rights will present a "spectacular" argument to the Supreme Court.

Full Story

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#126 Mar 28, 2013
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
God, I seriously hope after the arguments presented in the DOMA case today, that the Prop 8 case had any bearing on the DOMA case because that chickenshit btch of a lawyer was too fn timid to argue the merits in a substantive way, and I don't think the justices bought it. What a reversal from the greatness of yesterday? I fn cried as I heard the closing arguments. I'd say the standing issue is our only hope, but I don't think Windsor's team offered a strong enough argument against it. Now we just have to wait and see.
Don't go getting all worked up Josh. ItLl all come our ok in the end

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#127 Mar 28, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I was astounded that they wasted so much time on that "well, if ONE party is fertile, then all's good for havin' kids!" bullshit argument.
Seriously???
The vast majority of same-sex partners are BOTH fertile. If their argument is that at least one partner needs to be fertile without regard to who they might be fertile WITH, their ENTIRE "it's all about procreation" not only fails, but blows up in their face!
They're essentially arguing that procreation within marriage is completely irrelevant to marriage, but as long as at least one of them can have kids with *someone*, they can get married, except that procreation is the reason to ban gay couples, even though straight couples aren't required to procreate with each other, just be able to procreate with someone.
WTF???? And THESE people get to vote on whether or not *I* have the right to marry???
OMFG....
Our opposition is trying to establish a "doctrine" for the Court that the Government has the specific "Intent" to foster and regulate procreation. They are hoping that it will be useful in later arguments regarding new State abortion regulation cases.

These guys aren't the pikers that they were in past decades. They are planning ahead.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#128 Mar 29, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm calling Bill an idiot and even he has regretted signing DOMA!!
Where did you get the idea Clinton regretted signing DOMA?

He regrets HAVING TO sign it, not signing it. He's said that all along.

He did it to stop the hoards of panicking idiots that were getting ready to pass a FEDERAL constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. His signing the DOMA successfully cut them all off at the knees and stopped their momentum. That's the only reason he did it.

I hate that he had to do it, too, but it's WAY better that he did than for us to be trying to get a Federal Constitutional amendment repealed before we could even *start* fighting for marriage rights.

Imagine how much more difficult it would be to repeal it when we didn't have thousands of legally married couples to prove that marriage equality won't cause straight people to start murdering their children than engaging in wild same-sex orgies.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#129 Mar 29, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you get the idea Clinton regretted signing DOMA?
He regrets HAVING TO sign it, not signing it. He's said that all along.
He did it to stop the hoards of panicking idiots that were getting ready to pass a FEDERAL constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. His signing the DOMA successfully cut them all off at the knees and stopped their momentum. That's the only reason he did it.
I hate that he had to do it, too, but it's WAY better that he did than for us to be trying to get a Federal Constitutional amendment repealed before we could even *start* fighting for marriage rights.
Imagine how much more difficult it would be to repeal it when we didn't have thousands of legally married couples to prove that marriage equality won't cause straight people to start murdering their children than engaging in wild same-sex orgies.
If there was any threat of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage when Clinton signed DOMA, it is not part of the record. It is true that there were more than enough votes in each house to override a veto, so the politics were compelling. Clinton had nothing to gain by vetoing DOMA except a personal sense of responsibility. He would have been embarrassed politically, and the veto would have had little political support.

As far as I know, the introduction of the excuse of a constitutional amendment is an act of rewriting history. Nonetheless, the politics did compel Clinton's signature. And a more damaging bill could have been written.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#130 Mar 29, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you get the idea Clinton regretted signing DOMA?
He regrets HAVING TO sign it, not signing it. He's said that all along.
He did it to stop the hoards of panicking idiots that were getting ready to pass a FEDERAL constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. His signing the DOMA successfully cut them all off at the knees and stopped their momentum. That's the only reason he did it.
I hate that he had to do it, too, but it's WAY better that he did than for us to be trying to get a Federal Constitutional amendment repealed before we could even *start* fighting for marriage rights.
Imagine how much more difficult it would be to repeal it when we didn't have thousands of legally married couples to prove that marriage equality won't cause straight people to start murdering their children than engaging in wild same-sex orgies.
He has stated that recently.....but either way, I think Clinton was a good President......even if he did have that lil affair thing.....lol!!!
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#131 Mar 29, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
There are many mitigating factors for Clinton in this case, none of which have led me to forgive him for either DADT or DOMA.
.
In short, calling the senate and prez bigots would have made you and your claims of all opposition being bigotry look VERY silly...

put another way, no rational person would argue that ALL opposition is bigotry...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#132 Mar 29, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Our opposition is trying to establish a "doctrine" for the Court that the Government has the specific "Intent" to foster and regulate procreation. They are hoping that it will be useful in later arguments regarding new State abortion regulation cases.
These guys aren't the pikers that they were in past decades. They are planning ahead.
true indeed.
My guess is that you guys are going to cheer the outcomes of prop 8 and doma as small victories, but they are going to be trojan horses...

all the claims you have to a right...gone....suspect class...gone...gender discrimination? gone...
you will get CA and no leg to stand on in any other courts from now on...
courts cannot but consider that given the chance the court did not think there was a right to gay marriage...
Walker's tack is therefore GONE...

to the ballot box where you belong.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#133 Mar 29, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
In short, calling the senate and prez bigots would have made you and your claims of all opposition being bigotry look VERY silly...
put another way, no rational person would argue that ALL opposition is bigotry...
Was separate-but-equal a bigoted policy back when almost no one questioned it?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#134 Mar 29, 2013
eJohn wrote:
I was astounded that they wasted so much time on that "well, if ONE party is fertile, then all's good for havin' kids!" bullshit argument.
Seriously???
Not to mention the fact that the state DOES allow infertile couples incapable of procreating to marry, and procreation is entirely possible absent the legal protections of marriage. In fact, 40% of conceptions occur without such legal protection.

the moral argument of procreation fails even a rational basis test. I can't believe the high court indulged in such a waste of time for so long.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#135 Mar 29, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Was separate-but-equal a bigoted policy back when almost no one questioned it?
what's your point?
hopefully its not hat this doctrine applies to you since it is clear it does not...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#136 Mar 29, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
what's your point?
hopefully its not hat this doctrine applies to you since it is clear it does not...
The point is whether you think being a bigot depends on how many other people agree with you. That's your argument, isn't it? If 84 senators, including a majority of Democrats and a Democratic President agreed on DOMA, it couldn't be based on bigotry, could it?

See the House report on DOMA.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#137 Mar 29, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is whether you think being a bigot depends on how many other people agree with you. That's your argument, isn't it? If 84 senators, including a majority of Democrats and a Democratic President agreed on DOMA, it couldn't be based on bigotry, could it?
See the House report on DOMA.
I'll ask you what was asked, DID EVERY PERSON who voted fro DOMA do so out of animus?
Answer: NO!

this means all of your opposition was not based on bigotry...
I have no clue where you got the its not bigotry if other people agree?

since we are not talking rights(as is clear by the scotus to EVERYONE), your tack towards the tyranny of majority is misguided

you are just the 15 year old locked out of getting a drivers license...
whining that he can drive better than 62 years olds...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#138 Mar 29, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
The point is whether you think being a bigot depends on how many other people agree with you. That's your argument, isn't it? If 84 senators, including a majority of Democrats and a Democratic President agreed on DOMA, it couldn't be based on bigotry, could it?
See the House report on DOMA.
The reason our shape shifting friend chooses to concentrate on irrelevant drivel like "bigotry" is because they lack the fundamental ability to form a rational argument in defense of their position, and they would rather be right than president. After all, if you cannot win on the merits of your argument, then why not make a feeble attempt to obfuscate the topic?

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#139 Mar 29, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll ask you what was asked, DID EVERY PERSON who voted fro DOMA do so out of animus?
Answer: NO!
YES, they did......and it's in the HOUSE REPORT.....there was NO NEED for the Federal Government to do anything!!!

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#140 Mar 29, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you get the idea Clinton regretted signing DOMA?
He regrets HAVING TO sign it, not signing it. He's said that all along.
He did it to stop the hoards of panicking idiots that were getting ready to pass a FEDERAL constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. His signing the DOMA successfully cut them all off at the knees and stopped their momentum. That's the only reason he did it.
I hate that he had to do it, too, but it's WAY better that he did than for us to be trying to get a Federal Constitutional amendment repealed before we could even *start* fighting for marriage rights.
Imagine how much more difficult it would be to repeal it when we didn't have thousands of legally married couples to prove that marriage equality won't cause straight people to start murdering their children than engaging in wild same-sex orgies.
And I respectfully disagree. without DOMA Hawaii would have been the first of the marriage equality states. All DOMA did is give the right wing time to get individual states to alter their constitutions. An anti marriage equality amendment to our constitution would still be looking for state sponsors.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#141 Mar 29, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
true indeed.
My guess is that you guys are going to cheer the outcomes of prop 8 and doma as small victories, but they are going to be trojan horses...
all the claims you have to a right...gone....suspect class...gone...gender discrimination? gone...
you will get CA and no leg to stand on in any other courts from now on...
courts cannot but consider that given the chance the court did not think there was a right to gay marriage...
Walker's tack is therefore GONE...
to the ballot box where you belong.
Wrong!

Walker wrote his decision with a very narrow target, California, for exactly that reason. But how would you know, you've probably. Not even looked at his findings.

Go troll somewhere where they don't know what they are talking about, you'll fit right in.
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#142 Mar 29, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Was separate-but-equal a bigoted policy back when almost no one questioned it?
It was at the time and under those circumstances, but I don't think it necessarily has to be.

Doesn't Title IX approach that?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#143 Mar 29, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to mention the fact that the state DOES allow infertile couples incapable of procreating to marry, and procreation is entirely possible absent the legal protections of marriage. In fact, 40% of conceptions occur without such legal protection.
the moral argument of procreation fails even a rational basis test. I can't believe the high court indulged in such a waste of time for so long.
"high" has a "higher".

"Supreme" has no "supremer".

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#144 Mar 29, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"high" has a "higher".
"Supreme" has no "supremer".
And "perfect" has no "more perfect," does it?
Better than you per S Ct

Henderson, NV

#145 Mar 29, 2013
Declaration of Independence begins with the words "more perfect union."

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
TOWIE boys say Balls to Cancer by stripping NAK... 4 min NE Jade 3
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 7 min Reverend Alan 2,824
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 12 min Respect71 5,421
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 25 min Mikey 4,970
Elton John, David Furnish to tie knot in privat... 28 min Theodore 11
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 38 min Reverend Alan 4,280
1st Gay Divorce in State History Granted in Sou... 48 min Gremlin 1
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 2 hr Selecia Jones- JA... 26,659
How 2014 Was the Beginning of the End for the G... 9 hr Your blood we hope 21
More from around the web