Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Gay Marriage] And now we play the waiting game.

MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
What will happen? Well, most people I've talked to about the trial agree it looks like Prop 8 will lose, and then will go to appeals and eventually the Supreme Court. Nobody is sure what effect the revelation that Judge Walker is in fact, gay, will have on the process.

Closing arguments are over! Best place to review them right now is http://prop8trialtracker.com/

Judge Walker had a lot of questions. It's anyone's guess how long it will take him to make a ruling. Which will be almost instantly appealed by one side or the other.


Updates:

2/28/10: Final briefs have been filed.
3/16/10: Evidence skirmish could delay end of Prop 8 trial
3/22/10: Breaking: Judge Walker Rules EQCA and ACLU Must Turn Over Documents in Federal Prop 8 Trial
4/27/10: Judge (Walker) Threatens to Fine No on Prop. 8 Groups Over Documents
4/28/10: Closing arguments scheduled
06/16/10: Closing Arguements

For those interested in re-capping the trial, check out these links:
http://www.youtube.com/user/MarriageTrial (The video re-enactment of the trial)
http://prop8trialtracker.com/

More stuff:
This is Jay and Brian. They have an adorable family (whom I have met) and have been broadcasting on youtube to show people what gay families are actually like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5p2vno-5g4

This is a PSA that just came out that I found particularly well made.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoNiZhAUWcg

An appropriately themed music video
And we can have this conversation because of this man.

MuddBudd on
steam_sig.png
«13456771

Posts

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Good to see this thread back, because it seems that Miss Beverly Hills is trying to oupt-Prejean Prejean.

    And the gay pageant director, while his heart might be in the right place, his brain sure isn't.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Good to see this thread back, because it seems that Miss Beverly Hills is trying to oupt-Prejean Prejean.

    That is a very silly article; first because she didn't say that gays should be stoned, only that the bible straightforwardly condemns them, and second because the city was freaking out about a girl calling herself "Miss Beverly Hills 2010." Guys, chillax. I could call myself moon-minister of finance and sodomy, but that wouldn't make it so.

  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    Good to see this thread back, because it seems that Miss Beverly Hills is trying to oupt-Prejean Prejean.

    That is a very silly article; first because she didn't say that gays should be stoned, only that the bible straightforwardly condemns them, and second because the city was freaking out about a girl calling herself "Miss Beverly Hills 2010." Guys, chillax. I could call myself moon-minister of finance and sodomy, but that wouldn't make it so.

    I...

    I would back you up. If anyone asked. About your title, that is, herr moon-minister.

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • Rellik SanRellik San Registered User
    edited February 2010
    Prop 8,

    I find the whole situation a farce, church and state are secular, its open and shut.
    Gavel goes bang, case closed, guys are allowed to marry closed minded prejudice tools have a moan about it, before realising it doesn't affect their lives in anyway.

  • Orochi_RockmanOrochi_Rockman __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2010
    Unfortunately, you're forgetting that ignorance and hypocrisy play a large role in our government.

  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Unfotunately, you're forgetting that ignorance and hypocrisy play a large role in our government.

    The supreme court is the one place where sanity usually prevails. It's an inherently apolitical position since they're on the bench for life. Whether or not the conservative members rule in favor of equal rights over "morals" is another question.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    Unfotunately, you're forgetting that ignorance and hypocrisy play a large role in our government.

    The supreme court is the one place where sanity usually prevails. It's an inherently apolitical position since they're on the bench for life. Whether or not the conservative members rule in favor of equal rights over "morals" is another question.

    Plus, left/right-philosophies notwithstanding, they're about a billion times smarter than the average voter.

  • Orochi_RockmanOrochi_Rockman __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2010
    I didn't say anything about the supreme court. I was addressing Relliks comment that the whole thing was a farce, and it is. Of course same sex couples should be able to get married. But they can't because....
    Ignorance and hypocrisy play a large role in our government.

  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I didn't say anything about the supreme court. I was addressing Relliks comment that the whole thing was a farce, and it is. Of course same sex couples should be able to get married. But they can't because....
    Ignorance and hypocrisy play a large role in our government.

    Except this is a thing that will largely be decided in the courts. Congress already ruled on this when they penned the constitution centuries ago. The court just needs to make it explicitly cover gay people.

    edit: It's actually in the declaration of independence. I keep getting them mixed up. :(

  • Orochi_RockmanOrochi_Rockman __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2010
    Again. Said nothing about courts.

    But fine, I take it back. Every single politician in the United Stages government is fully knowledgable of all things and not one of them could even be considered a hypocrite concerning any topic whatsoever. None of them that would make campaign speeches about how great America is because all people are equal would ever cast a vote against same sex marriage, and none of them that would brag of religious freedom because of seperation of church and state would ever deny a same sex couple the right to marry based on moral objections.

    That would never, ever, ever happen. You are correct. I am sorry I even brought up the notion that the government of the United States could possibly, in any way, be in error because either they are saying one thing and doing another, or because they are acting as if they are completely unaware of one of the basic founding principles of the country.

    My bad.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    I didn't say anything about the supreme court. I was addressing Relliks comment that the whole thing was a farce, and it is. Of course same sex couples should be able to get married. But they can't because....
    Ignorance and hypocrisy play a large role in our government.

    Except this is a thing that will largely be decided in the courts. Congress already ruled on this when they penned the constitution centuries ago. The court just needs to make it explicitly cover gay people.

    edit: It's actually in the declaration of independence. I keep getting them mixed up. :(

    Well, the Declaration of Independence isn't treated as the rule of law, so the constitution has to cover it. I don't see any difficulty in providing Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment though, the evidence and testimony in the trial has made a pretty strong case for why it should cover sexual orientation.

  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Again. Said nothing about courts.

    But fine, I take it back. Every single politician in the United Stages government is fully knowledgable of all things and not one of them could even be considered a hypocrite concerning any topic whatsoever. None of them that would make campaign speeches about how great America is because all people are equal would ever cast a vote against same sex marriage, and none of them that would brag of religious freedom because of seperation of church and state would ever deny a same sex couple the right to marry based on moral objections.

    That would never, ever, ever happen. You are correct. I am sorry I even brought up the notion that the government of the United States could possibly, in any way, be in error because either they are saying one thing and doing another, or because they are acting as if they are completely unaware of one of the basic founding principles of the country.

    My bad.

    You seem to be referring to legislators when you say "government." Government also includes judges. I'm not saying "government" is infallible, and it's the peak of silly goossery to take my words to mean that. I'm saying judges--the people who will ultimately decide this, and for whom this kind of thing is the sole purpose of existence--will, and have in the past, tend toward sanity and equality.

    Sometimes Podunkville judges are silly geese, but the supreme court is usually pretty good about this stuff.
    KalTorak wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    I didn't say anything about the supreme court. I was addressing Relliks comment that the whole thing was a farce, and it is. Of course same sex couples should be able to get married. But they can't because....
    Ignorance and hypocrisy play a large role in our government.

    Except this is a thing that will largely be decided in the courts. Congress already ruled on this when they penned the constitution centuries ago. The court just needs to make it explicitly cover gay people.

    edit: It's actually in the declaration of independence. I keep getting them mixed up. :(

    Well, the Declaration of Independence isn't treated as the rule of law, so the constitution has to cover it. I don't see any difficulty in providing Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment though, the evidence and testimony in the trial has made a pretty strong case for why it should cover sexual orientation.

    The 14th is probably what I was thinking of. I should re-read these things so I won't keep mangling them together.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    What is the point you are trying to make? That the political system is imperfect and unsatisfactory? No shit.

    ed: @Orochi

  • Orochi_RockmanOrochi_Rockman __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2010
    I didn't say anything about the supreme court. I was addressing Relliks comment that the whole thing was a farce, and it is. Of course same sex couples should be able to get married. But they can't because....
    Ignorance and hypocrisy play a large role in our government.

    ^^^

    I was just making a light little jab at the people telling me that I am a second class citizen and don't deserve the same rights afforded to others in a country were all are supposedly equal. Where elected officials would use religion as a basis for denying me these rights when we're supposed to be have a seperation of church and state.

    We make fun of these people on daily basis for either being ingorant of the history of their own country or for their tendency to say one thing and do another. That's all I was doing. Sorry it was so misconstrued I guess it was just poorly worded on my part.

  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Is there a route to challenge this amendment on the national level that doesn't invoke the fourteenth amendment? The malleable nature of sexual orientation could be a hurdle, which is why it isn't considered a full on protected class like race.

    I was thinking that there might be an angle with freedom of association (not explicitly defined in the constitution, but extended from first amendment freedom of speech rights), since this limits the ability of citizens to engage in marriage contracts somewhat arbitrarily.

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Is there a route to challenge this amendment on the national level that doesn't invoke the fourteenth amendment? The malleable nature of sexual orientation could be a hurdle, which is why it isn't considered a full on protected class like race.

    It's no more malleable than religion (quite a bit less in most cases), but religion is a protected class. Plus there's a demonstrable history of discrimination for reasons of sexual orientation, which there was for race and religion.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    Again. Said nothing about courts.

    But fine, I take it back. Every single politician in the United Stages government is fully knowledgable of all things and not one of them could even be considered a hypocrite concerning any topic whatsoever. None of them that would make campaign speeches about how great America is because all people are equal would ever cast a vote against same sex marriage, and none of them that would brag of religious freedom because of seperation of church and state would ever deny a same sex couple the right to marry based on moral objections.

    That would never, ever, ever happen. You are correct. I am sorry I even brought up the notion that the government of the United States could possibly, in any way, be in error because either they are saying one thing and doing another, or because they are acting as if they are completely unaware of one of the basic founding principles of the country.

    My bad.

    You seem to be referring to legislators when you say "government." Government also includes judges. I'm not saying "government" is infallible, and it's the peak of silly goossery to take my words to mean that. I'm saying judges--the people who will ultimately decide this, and for whom this kind of thing is the sole purpose of existence--will, and have in the past, tend toward sanity and equality.

    Sometimes Podunkville judges are silly geese, but the supreme court is usually pretty good about this stuff.
    On the contrary, it often fails. Until 2003, gay sex was illegal, and in 2008 they ruled that women couldn't appeal unfair wages that first began more than 180 days before the complaint. The Supreme Court is usually a pretty conservative body, especially when most of its membership was originally appointed by Republicans.

  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    Again. Said nothing about courts.

    But fine, I take it back. Every single politician in the United Stages government is fully knowledgable of all things and not one of them could even be considered a hypocrite concerning any topic whatsoever. None of them that would make campaign speeches about how great America is because all people are equal would ever cast a vote against same sex marriage, and none of them that would brag of religious freedom because of seperation of church and state would ever deny a same sex couple the right to marry based on moral objections.

    That would never, ever, ever happen. You are correct. I am sorry I even brought up the notion that the government of the United States could possibly, in any way, be in error because either they are saying one thing and doing another, or because they are acting as if they are completely unaware of one of the basic founding principles of the country.

    My bad.

    You seem to be referring to legislators when you say "government." Government also includes judges. I'm not saying "government" is infallible, and it's the peak of silly goossery to take my words to mean that. I'm saying judges--the people who will ultimately decide this, and for whom this kind of thing is the sole purpose of existence--will, and have in the past, tend toward sanity and equality.

    Sometimes Podunkville judges are silly geese, but the supreme court is usually pretty good about this stuff.
    On the contrary, it often fails. Until 2003, gay sex was illegal, and in 2008 they ruled that women couldn't appeal unfair wages that first began more than 180 days before the complaint. The Supreme Court is usually a pretty conservative body, especially when most of its membership was originally appointed by Republicans.

    Two things out of how many rulings?

    And I would like to see the justifications for the votes in those two rulings.

  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Is there a route to challenge this amendment on the national level that doesn't invoke the fourteenth amendment? The malleable nature of sexual orientation could be a hurdle, which is why it isn't considered a full on protected class like race.

    It's no more malleable than religion (quite a bit less in most cases), but religion is a protected class. Plus there's a demonstrable history of discrimination for reasons of sexual orientation, which there was for race and religion.

    Which is why a fourteenth amendment challenge is worth a shot, but it is not a homerun. Interpretation of the scale of the fourteenth amendment is pretty subjective. It seems to me that the courts have been cautious in assigning and using suspect class rationals.

    I just wanted to see if anyone has any other ways that the California amendment could get challenged.

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I picked two ridiculously regressive things (or in the former case, ridiculously late end to a travesty) out of the last six years, and that was off the top of my damn head. You're not seriously claiming that there are no other objectionable rulings, are you?

  • DeebaserDeebaser Lead Frog Rammer Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Waitaminute, Miss Beverly Hills isn't really Miss Beverly Hills? Well, then I don't know on what authority she claims to know the will of God.

    I only take my sunday school level interpretation of the bible from ACTUAL dimwitted beauty contest runners up with fake tits and internet videos of lady fapping THANKYOUVERYFUCKINGMUCH!

    http://i.imgur.com/SVLUjAW.png
    Vanguard wrote: »
    ...poetry is actually the worst
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Waitaminute, Miss Beverly Hills isn't really Miss Beverly Hills? Well, then I don't know on what authority she claims to know the will of God.

    I only take my sunday school level interpretation of the bible from ACTUAL dimwitted beauty contest runners up with fake tits and internet videos of lady fapping THANKYOUVERYFUCKINGMUCH!

    I'm more interested in how the Miss California pageant works now. Apparently, they don't care where you say you are from as long as you say 'USA' right after it. IE, any contestant can claim to be from anywhere.

    steam_sig.png
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    There was some discussion in the last thread of the disposition of the SC justices; Thomas and Scalia are a wasted effort, Alito is probably just as far gone. Some of Roberts' past work suggests he might be sympathetic to the gay movement, but as yet (IIRC) he hasn't voted against the conservative block. As usual it comes down to Kennedy (although Stevens will probably be retiring soon), and while he is a swing vote, he did write the majority opinion of Lawrence v. Texas which struck down the anti-sodomy laws. He's open to persuasion, and the plaintiffs' side has already demonstrated the strength of their lawyers in the CA trial. If nothing else I'd trust Olsen and Boies to be able to convince Kennedy; the SCOTUS building is practically their second office.

  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    The arguments of the anti-prop 8 side were really good. Every bullshit reason they were given for prop 8 staying, they shot down pretty well.

    It honestly seemed like the prop 8 team was barely trying. I'm wondering what they're holding back on. If they have some 'surprise witness' or something they think will improve their chances in the appeals process.

    steam_sig.png
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    The arguments of the anti-prop 8 side were really good. Every bullshit reason they were given for prop 8 staying, they shot down pretty well.

    It honestly seemed like the prop 8 team was barely trying. I'm wondering what they're holding back on. If they have some 'surprise witness' or something they think will improve their chances in the appeals process.

    Heh, they were already trying to hold back as many witnesses as they could because their own witnesses were so detrimental to their case - basically false experts and avowed religious bigots.

    I can't imagine they think they'll have better chances on appeal; apparently the appellate court the case will end up in is notoriously liberal. Not that it matters; the powers behind them will demand an appeal every step of the way.

  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    The arguments of the anti-prop 8 side were really good. Every bullshit reason they were given for prop 8 staying, they shot down pretty well.

    It honestly seemed like the prop 8 team was barely trying. I'm wondering what they're holding back on. If they have some 'surprise witness' or something they think will improve their chances in the appeals process.

    Heh, they were already trying to hold back as many witnesses as they could because their own witnesses were so detrimental to their case - basically false experts and avowed religious bigots.

    I can't imagine they think they'll have better chances on appeal; apparently the appellate court the case will end up in is notoriously liberal. Not that it matters; the powers behind them will demand an appeal every step of the way.

    So, is their strategy basically "Take it to the Supreme Court because they are generally much more conservative"?

    That's all they have left?

    steam_sig.png
  • Orochi_RockmanOrochi_Rockman __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2010
    That sort of worried me as well.

    That they just considered the trial in California to be practice and a chance to see everything the opposition was going to hit them with since no matter who won the other side would obviously appeal.

  • CorehealerCorehealer The Apothecary When has it ever been any different?Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    The arguments of the anti-prop 8 side were really good. Every bullshit reason they were given for prop 8 staying, they shot down pretty well.

    It honestly seemed like the prop 8 team was barely trying. I'm wondering what they're holding back on. If they have some 'surprise witness' or something they think will improve their chances in the appeals process.

    Heh, they were already trying to hold back as many witnesses as they could because their own witnesses were so detrimental to their case - basically false experts and avowed religious bigots.

    I can't imagine they think they'll have better chances on appeal; apparently the appellate court the case will end up in is notoriously liberal. Not that it matters; the powers behind them will demand an appeal every step of the way.

    So, is their strategy basically "Take it to the Supreme Court because they are generally much more conservative"?

    That's all they have left?

    Such is the recourse of a desperate viewpoint that refuses to see their beliefs brought down by equality and refuses to see anything but their viewpoint.

    2fbfH5V.png
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Walker was assigned to the trial randomly right? Can we assume that if he strikes down prop 8, the appeal might be based on his being gay?

    And I know it will go to appeals either way, but is winning this case going to make it easier to convince the Supreme Court? How often does something get appealed that far and then the verdict stays the same?

    steam_sig.png
  • Saint MadnessSaint Madness Registered User
    edited February 2010
    The fact that Walker is gay really threw me, but not as much as the fact that everyone was aware of this and didn't really care.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    The fact that Walker is gay really threw me, but not as much as the fact that everyone was aware of this and didn't really care.

    :shock:

    Whoa, yeah. Same here.

  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Is it naive to think that might not also be part of the plan?

    "We had a gay judge presiding over our case about gay rights and didn't make a fuss about it, so clearly there isn't nearly the level of discrimination they'd want you to think there was?"

    Or more likely, they'll probably just include "we had a gay judge, clearly he was biased" as part of the appeal.

    Which raises another question; how has this been applied to battles over religion and race? Or are judges expected to be above such considerations?

    sigthree.png
  • Saint MadnessSaint Madness Registered User
    edited February 2010
    I should also point out that Walker has apparently ruled against gay cases before.

  • ShivahnShivahn Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Forar wrote: »
    Or more likely, they'll probably just include "we had a gay judge, clearly he was biased" as part of the appeal.

    I was thinking about that, specifically, just now. It seems like something that would be sensible to use as an argument, however I don't know if it can be constructed into an argument that can't be morphed pretty easily into one concluding that only gay judges should be allowed to preside, because heterosexual judges obviously are ruling based on biases or fears about losing a privileged institution. Or maybe we should only let bisexual judges rule?

    Anyway, I'm sure it can be used as an argument, but I'd be pretty dumbfounded if a judge ruled against something because "This other guy was biased!" rather than on the merits of the thing in question.

    Well, maybe I wouldn't be, because people are geese, but hopefully that doesn't happen, for the sake of my sanity.

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    The arguments of the anti-prop 8 side were really good. Every bullshit reason they were given for prop 8 staying, they shot down pretty well.

    It honestly seemed like the prop 8 team was barely trying. I'm wondering what they're holding back on. If they have some 'surprise witness' or something they think will improve their chances in the appeals process.

    Pretty sure they can't introduce witnesses or evidence anymore, its not part of the appeals process.

  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    Walker was assigned to the trial randomly right? Can we assume that if he strikes down prop 8, the appeal might be based on his being gay?

    I don't know that this is something about which you can actually object. It would certainly be awkward in the race case, and the end-point of the reasoning is that only unbiased straight white men get to decide anything at all.

  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    Walker was assigned to the trial randomly right? Can we assume that if he strikes down prop 8, the appeal might be based on his being gay?

    I don't know that this is something about which you can actually object. It would certainly be awkward in the race case, and the end-point of the reasoning is that only unbiased straight white men get to decide anything at all.

    Yes, but given all the other crap they've tried, I can see them trying to argue it.
    Pretty sure they can't introduce witnesses or evidence anymore, its not part of the appeals process.

    I hope you're right. If this is all they have, I honestly can't see the Supreme Court siding with them.

    steam_sig.png
  • Bobkins FlymoBobkins Flymo FF69B4 Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited February 2010
    The judge is gay? And no ranting about the homos infiltrating our sacred heterogoverment?

    I'm pleased even if it means I lose out on some entertaining ranting.

    73zrBvC.png
  • MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    The judge is gay and 60+ years old. That means he was there when anti-gay violence and discrimination was really bad.

    He definitely has personal experience. Whether it backfires or not remains to be seen... I personally doubt that it will. Major points of the case on the plaintiff's side are hilariously obvious to gay people: sexual orientation being almost impossible to change, a history of intense discrimination by the government and everyday people, the legitimacy of gay relationships, etc.

  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Fighting the War on String Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    he was also randomly assigned to the case right?

    Elki wrote: »

    Casual Eddy: best poster 2014.
«13456771
This discussion has been closed.