Prop 8 overturned

[MikeWaters]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/cal...ex.html?hpt=T1

I didn't support Prop 8. But I think this decision is ridiculous. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR TWO GAY PEOPLE TO HAVE THEIR RELATIONSHIP LEGALLY DEFINED AS A MARRIAGE!!!!

I believe they have a legal right to have gay sex. And live together as a gay couple.

I really hate how courts have taken over many things, at the expense of the legislative process. It undermines this country. It puts too much power in the hands of too few.

[Archaea]

Prediction:

Ninth Circuit affirms decision,
and Supreme Court, if the current configuration remains,

overturns in a 5 to 4 majority.

I'm not excited about Prop 8, but I loathe bad law and this is bad analysis and law.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It puts too much power in the hands of too few.

This was not a panel of five judges overturning the voice of 7 million people. The decision was based on thousands and thousands of couples, all of whom had legal standing on the issue, condensed into a single lawsuit (for practical purposes), with many, many attorneys and clerks spending thousands of hours researching and arguing the issue. Ultimately, "the plaintiffs" presented the most compelling case, with every point well referenced. The judge's opinion was largely taken from the appellate brief of the more convincing argument.

[Venkman]

Proponents of gay marriage have been telling us for years this is a state issue. Yeah, so much for that.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

This was not a panel of five judges overturning the voice of 7 million people. The decision was based on thousands and thousands of couples, all of whom had legal standing on the issue, condensed into a single lawsuit (for practical purposes), with many, many attorneys and clerks spending thousands of hours researching and arguing the issue. Ultimately, "the plaintiffs" presented the most compelling case, with every point well referenced. The judge's opinion was largely taken from the appellate brief of the more convincing argument.

Umm, no. This is a couple of narcissistic attorneys who used emotional appeals that are especially convincing to soft-headed liberals. "But look how terrible they feel with their civil union, it hurts their feelings when it is not called marriage!"

It's really too bad there is no America, because I would like to leave this shitty Europe we are living in and move to the American frontier and make my own way.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I would like to leave this shitty Europe we are living in and move to the American frontier and make my own way.

Is there no other way?

[Archaea]

This was not a panel of five judges overturning the voice of 7 million people. The decision was based on thousands and thousands of couples, all of whom had legal standing on the issue, condensed into a single lawsuit (for practical purposes), with many, many attorneys and clerks spending thousands of hours researching and arguing the issue. Ultimately, "the plaintiffs" presented the most compelling case, with every point well referenced. The judge's opinion was largely taken from the appellate brief of the more convincing argument.

The Due Process argument was very weak, and the EP argument is stronger.

In light of Lawrence vs. Texas, it may be doomed to stand, but the voices of seven million silenced is disturbing.

The key was showing a relationship that the civil unions was different enough from marriage to receive equal protection under the law. It was a very biased opinion by a man, a gay one, with a vested interest in overturning it. There was never a doubt in how he would rule.

[MikeWaters]

NR says reasoning is highly suspect and non-legal:
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-...tary-ed-whelan

NY Times and other outlets say reasoning is marvelous and difficult to overturn. And then they say if the Supreme Court were to overturn this decision, it would be judicial activism.

LOL.

[MikeWaters]

Serious non-mocking question. Man or woman?



I'm going with woman, though the resemblance to Willem Dafoe is striking.

[ute4ever]

Tell me Waters,
If 7 million people voted to ban Mormonism, and a justice (Dallin Oaks perhaps) wrote an opinion overriding it, would you feel the same?

Or suppose the voice of the people wanted segregation. Or suffrage. Or slavery. Power to the people!