Prop 8 Going To The Supreme Court

Jun 5, 2012 Full story: lezgetreal.com 313

It is official, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to take up the Prop 8 case.A This means that it is going straight to the Supreme Court.A The case will be argued by two men familiar to the Supreme Court- former Solicitor General Ted Olsen and his former Bush v. Gore opponent David Boies.A Olsen is a Conservative who has argued the ... (more)

Full Story

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#282 Jun 14, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
all true except your belief that everyone hates you...
while claiming consensus of support...
marriage encouraging straights is no more or less animus towards gays as gay pride is animus to straights.
I will again go on record and say this marriage or nothing isn't going well for you and it will not end well for you...that's my prediction.
Even if you were to win in the scotus,(not likely as the 9th avoidance of scotus review indicates by people of greater stature than ourselves) there is always a federal amendment.
It will NEVER be over just like abortion...
Enjoy this time where you can pout and deny the existence of culture, history, tradition and law, but reality is real!
"Second, to create such a new suspect classification for same-sex relationships would have far-reaching implications—in particular, by implying an overruling of Baker, which we are neither empowered to do nor willing to predict. Nothing indicates that the Supreme Court is about to adopt this new suspect classification when it conspicuously failed to do so in Romer—a case that could readily have been disposed by such a demarche. That such a classification could overturn marriage laws in a huge majority of individual states underscores the implications."
Who said I believe people hate me? Though it is true that DOMA was set up and designed to harm Gays and Lesbians who might have gotten married in Hawaii......because in reality, there was NO NEED for DOMA in 1996........and now, it clearly is harming ONLY one type of married couples......GAY AND LESBIAN MARRIED COUPLES!!!

Wow, you really think those two are the same? Sorry to inform you, but Straights participate in Gay Pride......but Gays and Lesbians aren't allowed to participate in St. Patrick's Day Parade.....wonder why? I guess Irish Gays and Lesbians can't drink like straight Irish folks do, right?

You can predicate all ya want.......and you can threaten a Federal Constitutional Amendment.....which by the way AIN'T NEVER GONNA HAPPEN.......but at the end of the day......Gays and Lesbians will still be getting married and getting federal recognition........and you will still not have to like it, accept it or even approve of it.

I stand where I have always stood on this issue....even long before I got married. I said Prop 22 was UNCONSTITUTIONAL......and it was, though it took 8 years to overturn it. I always knew Prop 8 was also UNCONSTITUTIONAL and it was, thankfully it won't take 8 years to get it gone once and for all. I know DOMA is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and it will either be repealed or tossed just like DADT and I believe that when a case does reach SCOTUS, that it will be a 5-4 victory for the individual rights of Gays and Lesbians to marry just like it was a victory for interracial marriages in 1968.

Now, I could be wrong......but views are changing and for those folks who's views aren't going to change.....well, they will eventually die and the younger generation will not see this issue the same way as you or I do.

So, there......lol!!!

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#283 Jun 14, 2012
Reality wrote:
It will NEVER be over just like abortion...
Enjoy this time where you can pout and deny the existence of culture, history, tradition and law, but reality is real!
I'll agree with ya here.....this issue will NEVER be over as long as narrow-minded people insist that a particular class of individuals should be treated differently.

Hell, in today's society.....there are folks who still believe Blacks should be considered property......but we simply ignore them, like we will learn to ignore other folks who prefer to think in the same way about Gays and Lesbians.

As for who is busy pouting and whining about not getting their way.....that would be you......and those like you.

I hate to inform you of this....BUT, there are far more important issues that are plaguing this Country than the right of a small percentage of the population to get married or not.....and as long as our politicians can keep the American people focused on something else besides them not doing their job.......they remain in power and we the people continue to suffer.

Oh and you personally may not hate Gays and Lesbians......but you damn well do wish that they would accept what you believe is "GOOD ENOUGH" for them and leave the "SPECIAL" rights and privilege of marriage to an EXCLUSIVE club known as HETEROSEXUALITY!!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#284 Jun 14, 2012
Reality wrote:
honestly, I didn't want to insult you, so i just ignored it.
Here is what you are calling undeniably true:
"You really should take notes, it's been explained here before and no, it is not an unsupported stereotype or even a supportable one. The state has a compelling interest in the regulation of the rights, benefits, protections, obligations and responsibilities associated with marriage, that is served by the ban on poly marriages. Any limit beyond one marriage, per person, at a time, would be arbitrary and constitutionally unsustainable. With no limit on the number of spouses an individual is permitted to have, the existing legal structure hasn't been designed for such a scenario and creating a legal structure for a scenario where theoretically, just about every last consenting adult can legally marry just about every other last consenting adult at the same time ain't happening. There is simply no way to create a fair and equal system that recognizes each possible poly combination. You idiots just aren't thinking, about what you would actually get out of legal plural marriages, you'd get diminished rights, benefits and so forth with each additional spouse and marriage until there is nothing left."
Plural marriage would theoretically allow us all to marry into one union? That's the whopper I have to address?
So when I suggest that folks will have more sham marriages for benefits since they can do so with their friends under gay marriage, thats bigotry, but when you suggest polygamy would lead to us all being in one marriage, thats rational?
Better to just ignore what you wrote...
And "Reality" misses the short bus once again. Pay attention dear, I'll make this as simple as possible for your obviously simple mind. Any limit beyond one marriage per person at a time would be constitutionally indefensible. If you limit people to say three spouses, there is no rational basis, let alone a compelling interest served by denying four, ad infinitum and therefore, theoretically, the only limit on the number of people you can be married to and married to each other would be those who are otherwise not legally qualified to marry you, close relatives and those unable to provide the requisite consent, EVERYONE else can be in the same marriage.

I made no mention of "sham marriages" buttercup, because there would be no need for them, under your theory a person can marry just about anyone they want as many as they want.

If you're going to bother to reply, please address the compelling state interest which is served by prohibiting legally recognized marriages, the ability of the state to regulate. If you're not going to bother again, I'm just going to ignore anything idiotic you have to say.
Ash

Grosse Pointe, MI

#285 Jun 14, 2012
Why are so many pro-same-sex "marriage" posters on this board afraid of going to SCOTUS??

Why are Judges avoiding 14th amendment claims and trying to limit the scope of potential litigation.

Whats wrong with going to SCOTUS and demanding your "equal protection" rights under the consitution.

Why go after some parts of DOMA and not others?

I thought you guys were so confidnet of your impending victory??? History is on your side right???

Its "inevitable"!!!!!!
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#286 Jun 14, 2012
Ash wrote:
Why are so many pro-same-sex "marriage" posters on this board afraid of going to SCOTUS??
Why are Judges avoiding 14th amendment claims and trying to limit the scope of potential litigation.
Whats wrong with going to SCOTUS and demanding your "equal protection" rights under the consitution.
Why go after some parts of DOMA and not others?
I thought you guys were so confidnet of your impending victory??? History is on your side right???
Its "inevitable"!!!!!!
Honestly, I agree, and I get flak for it from the pro-gay. I *don't* believe the supreme court is going to declare a right to same-sex marriage; however, I differ sharply from you (perhaps) in my *interpretation* of this. I think it makes the judges look like dishonorable pussies who shouldn't even be on the bench to begin with, WHO CARES if they're on the supreme court.

I was horrified when I read one of the justices claiming that they'd "gone too far, too fast" on abortion. This is ludicrous claptrap; justice in any given matter and rectitude in any given matter either *EXIST*, or *DON'T EXIST*. That supreme court justice was pandering to a sense of *PUBLIC CONSENT* or *DISSENT*, which is ludicrous nonsense.

The right to same-sex marriage is god-given, but you raise excellent points: The pro-gay *don't* have a plan B (although some claim that they do) and there is *nothing* they will be able to do about it until public opinion shifts. The state votes *weren't* fought; there *is* no alternative to going to the court.

Everything you mentioned has to do with attorneys and judges limiting the scope of rulings *because of a scared, spineless, crybaby populace*-- nothing more and nothing less. The right is absolute. Those attorneys and judges are acting like pussies to *fear* the public reaction. I find this such laughable nonsense that I will never, never, never touch it with a ten-foot pole; I believe they should declare the right to same-sex marriage and call in the military LIKE THEY DID with desegregation.

So I am technically agreeing with you, but from an entirely and utterly different standpoint.
Reality

Montpelier, VT

#287 Jun 14, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>And "Reality" misses the short bus once again. Pay attention dear, I'll make this as simple as possible for your obviously simple mind. Any limit beyond one marriage per person at a time would be constitutionally indefensible. If you limit people to say three spouses, there is no rational basis, let alone a compelling interest served by denying four, ad infinitum and therefore, theoretically, the only limit on the number of people you can be married to and married to each other would be those who are otherwise not legally qualified to marry you, close relatives and those unable to provide the requisite consent, EVERYONE else can be in the same marriage.
I made no mention of "sham marriages" buttercup, because there would be no need for them, under your theory a person can marry just about anyone they want as many as they want.
If you're going to bother to reply, please address the compelling state interest which is served by prohibiting legally recognized marriages, the ability of the state to regulate. If you're not going to bother again, I'm just going to ignore anything idiotic you have to say.
the best part to this is the insults...and they are pretty weak.
"Any limit beyond one marriage per person at a time would be constitutionally indefensible."
ON WHAT BASIS? The traditional definition of marriage?

"I made no mention of "sham marriages" buttercup, because there would be no need for them, under your theory a person can marry just about anyone they want as many as they want."

but they would need to get two people to sign off to get polygamous marriage, yet two same sex roommates could fake a marriage with gay marriage, they would need to find a female to have a polygamous marriage?
This is silly though, my original point is being played out, as to polygamy , its rational to rely on tradition, as to gay marriage its bigotry to do so. As to polygamy, invented scenarios are rational support (we would all end up married in one big polygamous marriage), as to gays everything is an invented scenario (that male immigrant find it easier to find a male to marry then a female for a sham marriage) and to suggest them is bigotry.
lastly your going to have to rephrase this "please address the compelling state interest which is served by prohibiting legally recognized marriages, the ability of the state to regulate."
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#288 Jun 14, 2012
Opposition to same-sex rights is *a-l-w-a-y-s* going to be viciously and even violently hateful. If this causes people to cower and refuse to assert the rights of human beings, they deserve what they get. I understand that it is very, very ugly and very difficult to deal with these things, but the antigay are walking, talking monstrosities who are *never* going to change and waiting for them to change is point-and-laugh ludicrous, period.
Reality

Montpelier, VT

#289 Jun 14, 2012
Ash wrote:
Why are so many pro-same-sex "marriage" posters on this board afraid of going to SCOTUS??
The same reason the 9th circuit didn't want Perry to go to the scotus.
Baker v. Nelson.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#290 Jun 14, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
The same reason the 9th circuit didn't want Perry to go to the scotus.
Baker v. Nelson.
I hate hearing about Baker. It makes me *more convinced than ever* that we're such a nation of puking, literally worthless crybabies. How it obtains in any context whatsoever is point-and-laugh ludicrous to me; I'm simply piggybacking on your post, not saying you made a statement one way or the other.

It has no bearing on *anything* given *reality* in 2012, and it is spine-chilling that anyone would give it an ounce of respect. The *REAL* reason they do is that they don't have in them the fight it would take to do away with it if the supreme court claimed it obtains.
Reality

Montpelier, VT

#291 Jun 14, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate hearing about Baker. It makes me *more convinced than ever* that we're such a nation of puking, literally worthless crybabies. How it obtains in any context whatsoever is point-and-laugh ludicrous to me; I'm simply piggybacking on your post, not saying you made a statement one way or the other.
It has no bearing on *anything* given *reality* in 2012, and it is spine-chilling that anyone would give it an ounce of respect. The *REAL* reason they do is that they don't have in them the fight it would take to do away with it if the supreme court claimed it obtains.
ever read the decision?

procreation puts you off that much?

in the end, that's why we even have marriage...

recognition is a mere side effect, yet that's all gays want out of it...
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#292 Jun 14, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
ever read the decision?
procreation puts you off that much?
See; this is *WHY* the pro-gay bat it aside as having zero applicability: You *PROVE* the point of the pro-gay. My god, did you think before you typed this?

PROCREATION? The purpose of marriage is PROCREATIVE? Where do I begin? With the fact that marriage is not a requirement? With the fact that those who signed off on the Baker decision have no control over the fifty percent divorce rate, which makes their reasoning a laughingstock? Or would you like to discuss the idea that this "procreative" purpose doesn't even touch couples who marry *with no intention of having children*? Or couples who *cannot* have children? How about the fact that this so-called purpose reaches its most laughable zenith when one considers it *IN THE CONTEXT* of the decision *YOU* just cited yet again, so we are left to conclude that somehow gay people *lower* rates of procreation (clinically senseless), discourage people from getting married (clinically senseless), or -- worst of all, most damaging of all to the antigay argument(s)-- possess others to "become" gay hand-in-hand with their *refusal* to marriage, implying that somehow, inborn orientation is a "CHOICE"?
Reality wrote:
in the end, that's why we even have marriage...
Dead seriously, the antigay should have a much, much stronger argument than one which *literal tens of millions* of people can see through. And I am not citing that number to indicate SUPPORT for anything; I'm citing it to indicate how *plainly logical* it is that there is no connection where you have cited one.

The *addition* of gay people to the marriage paradigm changes nothing about marriage. The claim that it does implies a number of *NEGATIVE* things about gay people, all of which are *FACTUALLY* untrue. The worst of these is the implication that being gay is a "choice" and that people might start "turning gay" in record numbers if marriage is no longer exclusively heterosexual: This "logic" is often deployed by the antigay *because* they see gay as a choice, thus destroying all their arguments.
Reality wrote:
recognition is a mere side effect, yet that's all gays want out of it...
I used to disagree; now I'm not so sure. But I know recognition is not the top priority: The top priority is legal and economic protections -- for them and, ya know, those TINY BEINGS CALLED CHILDREN which are usually in a married household.

What I find so monstrous and evil is that the antigay are denying the reality of these protections *TO CHILDREN*.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#293 Jun 14, 2012
Ash wrote:
Why are so many pro-same-sex "marriage" posters on this board afraid of going to SCOTUS??
No fear of going to the Supremes with the Perry case, the result will only be the same. We're just telling you that it is the SCOTUS that doesn't want to address the issue of the constitutionality of these amendments with a ten foot pole. The Court of Appeals has given them a very easy out and even though it means sacrificing California's amendment, they are going to take it and run.
Ash wrote:
Why are Judges avoiding 14th amendment claims and trying to limit the scope of potential litigation.
The Courts tend to be cautious when it comes to issues that will have a broad impact and don't like to get ahead of public sentiment. The Court of Appeals had to reign in Walker's ruling, because his 14th Amendment findings would have resulted in all state amendments being flushed at once and that might have given the more conservative leaning members of the Court some pause. The Appeals panel knew what the Supremes wanted to hear if they were going to overturn the amendment and they gave it to them.
Ash wrote:
Whats wrong with going to SCOTUS and demanding your "equal protection" rights under the consitution.
Absolutely nothing and that is EXACTLY what would happen if this case is heard and that is EXACTLY why it won't be.
Ash wrote:
Why go after some parts of DOMA and not others?
There are only two parts to DOMA, Congress granting the states immunity from claims that their same sex marriage laws violate the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution (section 2) and the so-called federal definition of marriage (section 3). Section 2 has been challenged a number of times over the years and repeatedly found to be constitutional. Section 3 on the other hand had not been challenged until recently, it's been found unconstitutional in every case that has reached a decision. With Section 3 put down, Section 2 really won't matter much, the state constitutional amendments will become vulnerable to equal protection claims by couples who will have federal recognition, but no state recognition.
Ash wrote:
I thought you guys were so confidnet of your impending victory??? History is on your side right???
Its "inevitable"!!!!!!
It is inevitable, it's not our fault you don't see it.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#294 Jun 14, 2012
Reality wrote:
the best part to this is the insults...and they are pretty weak.
"Any limit beyond one marriage per person at a time would be constitutionally indefensible."
ON WHAT BASIS? The traditional definition of marriage?
You really should pay attention to what you claim to be reading, because I already explained it to you moron and I didn't need "traditional marriage" to do so. If a state were to set a limit of say three spouses per person, there is no rational basis, let alone a compelling interest served by denying those who want four, five, six, all the way up to every legally eligible person. Get it now?
Reality wrote:
"I made no mention of "sham marriages" buttercup, because there would be no need for them, under your theory a person can marry just about anyone they want as many as they want."
but they would need to get two people to sign off to get polygamous marriage, yet two same sex roommates could fake a marriage with gay marriage, they would need to find a female to have a polygamous marriage?
Cupcake, there is NO SEXUAL ORIENTATION REQUIREMENT TO MARRY SOMEONE OF YOUR OWN SEX. If two heterosexuals of the same sex want to marry, that is not a sham marriage unless the purpose of that marriage was to defraud the government in some manner. Damn you are such an idiot.
Reality wrote:
This is silly though, my original point is being played out, as to polygamy , its rational to rely on tradition, as to gay marriage its bigotry to do so. As to polygamy, invented scenarios are rational support (we would all end up married in one big polygamous marriage), as to gays everything is an invented scenario (that male immigrant find it easier to find a male to marry then a female for a sham marriage) and to suggest them is bigotry.
I haven't relied on tradition, I haven't relied on bigotry against those who wish to have poly relationships, I haven't relied on "sham marriages", I have given you one argument and one argument only, the compelling state interest in being able to regulate marriage which is served by denying that the right to marry extends beyond one per person at a time. You keep bringing up these extraneous, meaningless arguments as if you are making some sort of point, not me.
Reality wrote:
lastly your going to have to rephrase this "please address the compelling state interest which is served by prohibiting legally recognized marriages, the ability of the state to regulate."
Why? It's perfectly clear. I've explained it to you a half dozen times now in each and every response to you. I can't help it if you are a f*cking moron.

You're done. Reply if you want, but you've made it painfully clear that you have a complete inability to engage in reasoned thought and I'm done spoon feeding you.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#295 Jun 14, 2012
Reality wrote:
The same reason the 9th circuit didn't want Perry to go to the scotus.
Baker v. Nelson.
Buttercup, the Baker case is not relevant to the claims of the plaintiffs in Perry (their right to marry exists under California's Constitution and they are not directly arguing a federally recognized right to marry)), both the trial court decision and the appeal made that clear. You really should limit your discussions to subjects where you can at least fake having a clue, this ain't it.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#296 Jun 14, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Buttercup, the Baker case is not relevant to the claims of the plaintiffs in Perry (their right to marry exists under California's Constitution and they are not directly arguing a federally recognized right to marry)), both the trial court decision and the appeal made that clear. You really should limit your discussions to subjects where you can at least fake having a clue, this ain't it.
I find it pathetic that Baker keeps coming up when in reality it was NEVER the same argument in the Perry case.

The biggest difference between Baker and Perry is that marriage was a right in California and Same-Sex Couples were getting married.......in Baker, NO MARRIAGE LICENSE was ever issued and therefore is not the same.

Besides.....if Baker was truly precedent as claimed.....then Walker would have had to throw the complaint out before the trial ever began.
Ash

Mount Clemens, MI

#297 Jun 14, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>No fear of going to the Supremes with the Perry case, the result will only be the same. We're just telling you that it is the SCOTUS that doesn't want to address the issue of the constitutionality of these amendments with a ten foot pole. The Court of Appeals has given them a very easy out and even though it means sacrificing California's amendment, they are going to take it and run.
<quoted text>The Courts tend to be cautious when it comes to issues that will have a broad impact and don't like to get ahead of public sentiment. The Court of Appeals had to reign in Walker's ruling, because his 14th Amendment findings would have resulted in all state amendments being flushed at once and that might have given the more conservative leaning members of the Court some pause. The Appeals panel knew what the Supremes wanted to hear if they were going to overturn the amendment and they gave it to them.
<quoted text>Absolutely nothing and that is EXACTLY what would happen if this case is heard and that is EXACTLY why it won't be.
<quoted text>There are only two parts to DOMA, Congress granting the states immunity from claims that their same sex marriage laws violate the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution (section 2) and the so-called federal definition of marriage (section 3). Section 2 has been challenged a number of times over the years and repeatedly found to be constitutional. Section 3 on the other hand had not been challenged until recently, it's been found unconstitutional in every case that has reached a decision. With Section 3 put down, Section 2 really won't matter much, the state constitutional amendments will become vulnerable to equal protection claims by couples who will have federal recognition, but no state recognition.
<quoted text>It is inevitable, it's not our fault you don't see it.
Dude...I know you think you know what the law is... But you dont really follow court watchers all that much do you?

You realize that if the California Appeals court reasoning is sound and upheld than every state with a consitutional amendment (what are we at 33-34) protecting marriage can be struck down using the same precedent?

Ash is right....You guys are doing everything you can to avoid the very same 14th amendment claims that you make in state courts...but are to chicken to bring up in SCOTUS..

You thought you could ram the camels nose under the tent and then run out the clock...

Well...the clock is ticking

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#298 Jun 14, 2012
Ash wrote:
Dude...I know you think you know what the law is... But you dont really follow court watchers all that much do you?
Being that far off the mark is not the best way to start off your rebuttal, but you'll learn.
Ash wrote:
You realize that if the California Appeals court reasoning is sound and upheld than every state with a consitutional amendment (what are we at 33-34) protecting marriage can be struck down using the same precedent?
Have you actually read the majority opinion in the Perry case? Obviously not. As written, the ONLY amendment which would be automatically overturned is California's. The Court made it very specific to the circumstances which resulted in California's Prop 8, a situation which did not exist in any other state. While plaintiffs would be able to cite the ruling in Perry, it would not be a binding precedent in their cases.
Ash wrote:
Ash is right....You guys are doing everything you can to avoid the very same 14th amendment claims that you make in state courts...but are to chicken to bring up in SCOTUS..
You thought you could ram the camels nose under the tent and then run out the clock...Well...the clock is ticking
Speaking of yourself in the third person is kind of weird, or are there a bunch of clueless idiots sharing the screen name Ash? Whatever. IF the Supreme Court were to agree to hear the Perry case, it would be argued on the grounds of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the due process clause of the 5th by two of the most experienced constitutional lawyers in the country against a legal team which has been humiliated twice now. That's the OTHER reason why the Supremes will not be taking this case, because it is such a mismatch and any of the Justices that sided with the proponents would be humiliating themselves for posterity by doing so.
I'd love to see the Perry case before the Supremes, because it would be argued in a way which would jeopardize the constitutionality of every states laws and amendments denying the right to marry to same sex couples and given the proponents attorneys propensity to humiliate themselves, it could very well do just that. But they aren't going anywhere near it.
Fitz

Mount Clemens, MI

#299 Jun 14, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Being that far off the mark is not the best way to start off your rebuttal, but you'll learn.
<quoted text>Have you actually read the majority opinion in the Perry case? Obviously not. As written, the ONLY amendment which would be automatically overturned is California's. The Court made it very specific to the circumstances which resulted in California's Prop 8, a situation which did not exist in any other state. While plaintiffs would be able to cite the ruling in Perry, it would not be a binding precedent in their cases.
<quoted text>Speaking of yourself in the third person is kind of weird, or are there a bunch of clueless idiots sharing the screen name Ash? Whatever. IF the Supreme Court were to agree to hear the Perry case, it would be argued on the grounds of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the due process clause of the 5th by two of the most experienced constitutional lawyers in the country against a legal team which has been humiliated twice now. That's the OTHER reason why the Supremes will not be taking this case, because it is such a mismatch and any of the Justices that sided with the proponents would be humiliating themselves for posterity by doing so.
I'd love to see the Perry case before the Supremes, because it would be argued in a way which would jeopardize the constitutionality of every states laws and amendments denying the right to marry to same sex couples and given the proponents attorneys propensity to humiliate themselves, it could very well do just that. But they aren't going anywhere near it.
You pulled that all out of your A(ss)..I bet you cant link or even point me to a single blog or article that says any of that absolte and complete conjecture...

Some of us on these blogs are actually attorneys and know enough not to just start making things up.

Now why do you expect that Perry was drawn so narrowly??? Why would the 9th curcuit try and throw a case that wouldent have a national effect?

And - how about this (just to test to see if you know anything) WHO was the 9th curcuit opinion written for? and Why?

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#300 Jun 14, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
You pulled that all out of your A(ss)..I bet you cant link or even point me to a single blog or article that says any of that absolte and complete conjecture...
Some of us on these blogs are actually attorneys and know enough not to just start making things up.
Now why do you expect that Perry was drawn so narrowly??? Why would the 9th curcuit try and throw a case that wouldent have a national effect?
And - how about this (just to test to see if you know anything) WHO was the 9th curcuit opinion written for? and Why?
I'm not a lawyer......but the 9th wrote they're opinion with Justice Kennedy in mind. My guess is because they knew that if SCOTUS took the appeal.....the argument would be towards Kennedy being the swing vote.

As I have learned over the last 4 years......Judges will do their best to avoid intensely hot social issues like the right to marry for Gays and Lesbians......as they did before Loving came to them. The Justices also knew that by making their ruling narrowly confined to California, that they were doing 2 things.....one getting rid of Prop 8 and side stepping the larger question.

You are entitled to disagree with me all ya want....but there are lawyers who certainly disagree with you......and just because you state your an attorney......doesn't mean you are.......just saying that I can make bold claims as well.....it still won't matter to others.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#301 Jun 14, 2012
Fitz wrote:
You pulled that all out of your A(ss)..I bet you cant link or even point me to a single blog or article that says any of that absolte and complete conjecture...
Translation: you aren't able to refute anything I said (again), so you changed names in order to pretend to be ganging up on me.
Fitz wrote:
Some of us on these blogs are actually attorneys and know enough not to just start making things up.
Translation: I'm going to pretend I'm now something I'm not in a pathetic attempt to intimidate you.
If you are one of those people who is an "actual attorney", I'm the King of Sweden.
Fitz wrote:
Now why do you expect that Perry was drawn so narrowly??? Why would the 9th curcuit try and throw a case that wouldent have a national effect?
Because the SCOTUS is not ready for such a case yet. This way California's amendment gets killed without having to deal with any of the others, yet.
Fitz wrote:
And - how about this (just to test to see if you know anything) WHO was the 9th curcuit opinion written for? and Why?
You'd be more convincing if you knew how to spell circuit. Thanks for playing, but you and your imaginary friends have been dismissed.

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.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Medical pot in Oakland: Appeals court weighs fa... 21 hr discocrisco 1
Anti-gay group sues elected officials to stop s... Jan 23 The Troll Stopper 31
Appeals court won't re-hear Nevada, Idaho gay m... Jan 18 Abrahamanic Relig... 1
Appeals court won't re-hear Nevada, Idaho gay m... Jan 14 St Rick Saintpornum 12
Appeals court won't re-hear Nevada, Idaho gay m... Jan 14 Belle Sexton 5
Appellate court won't reconsider Idaho gay marr... Jan 11 Not Yet Equal 3
Appellate court won't reconsider Idaho gay marr... Jan 10 Belle Sexton 9
More from around the web