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.
Posts
Yes. It was random.
He was a Bush appointee too. (The first Bush.)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTL
Another thing to keep in mind is that the defense's case is reliant on their stance that Prop 8 isn't biased against homosexuals. If they were to use the judge's sexuality as grounds for appeal, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.
(Soul Silver): 4383 4318 1528
Lv 85 Tauren Shaman Lv 85 Worgen Druid
That'd be consistent with their courtroom strategy so far.
Eh. Not really much of a problem, since it's considerably less malleable than religion and religion is already protected.
The immutability cause doesn't really mean "can never be changed under any circumstances", just that it is an intrinsic property of a person's identity can not really be voluntarily changed without extreme difficulty. Religion, after all, is usually characterized as less of a choice and more of an inclination or calling. Many people would not say they "chose" to be their present religion, it is just who they are.
Not that I think this is a wasted effort. I just wouldn't expect anything but another Bowers out of it.
http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/02/01/is-this-case-really-heading-for-the-supreme-court-definitely-maybe/ (if plaintiffs lose appeal)
http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/02/13/mooting-perry/ (if 2010 ballot succeeds)
Both are kinda unlikely, esp. the 2nd one.
MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
Justice Kennedy is not going to be the man who made gay marriage legal.
You saying things =/= making them true.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02262010/watch.html
xbl: brimfields
Walker's a very well-respected judge. Also, very very smart, and he has libertarian-ish tendencies. I don't think anybody outside of his immediate circle knew he was gay until very recently. The prop 8 people knew they would look like fools claiming he was biased.
I'm hoping they bring in the cameras for closing arguments. The Ninth Circuit is doing the rules change correctly this time, and since it's closing argument, the "waaaah people will be mean to our witnesses" bullshit goes out the window. I'm entertained that the prop 8 side hasn't said whether they're OK with it or not - probably wracking their tiny brains trying to come up with some excuse to prevent anyone with access to YouTube from seeing what tools they are.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
honestly, at least from i've seen, kennedy seems to be the type who wants to be remembered for something awesome judicially. If Prop 8 is upheld, SCOTUS will take the case and it will pass 5-4 to overturn, mostly because Im sure kennedy sees the writing on the wall for gay rights and doesn't want to go down as "that judge who hated the gays"
I think even those justices whose religion makes them stupid on this issue kind of recognize that the writing is on the wall, and I doubt any of them want to go down as being part of what people 100 years from now will consider a Dread Scott.
He wrote the majority opinion on the case that made sodomy legal. Kennedy swings to the right more often than we'd like, but his record suggests that he might be on the good guys' side this time.
Frankly I'd still be shocked if Roberts went to the left, but I'd be happy. I wonder if he'd do that chiefly so he'd be able to write the opinion.
...Do you think we'd be able to hear W's head exploding all the way from Texas?
That second one bothers me. That sound to anyone like they are desperately seeking ANY kind of proof or study to support their case? Or in my paranoid mind, in the process of falsifying one.
It's tough to characterize many SC justices in a binary "right/left" sort of term. Even Scalia has his "liberal" moments. Admittedly, not a lot of them- and Thomas is very likely just a catspaw, he never seems to have a coherent legal philosophy at all.
One of Scalia's objections to the sodomy thing was that if you decriminalized sodomy, you'd inevitably have to allow gay marriage. Since he sometimes really does stick to his "strict constructionist" principles, he might very well feel he'd have to be a part of that inevitability.
Something I found disturbing.
Those opposed to gay marriage are arguing that gay marriage threatens their faith and their ability to practice it, probably based on the Bible's teachings. They are also pulling that whole "my freedom is threatened" thing that conservatives love.
Thoughts?
But yeah, I'm not actually all that concerned. It's a stupid tack. Of course it's a decent diversion on the surface, because an assault on religious freedom in a very religious country would be something that got people really excitable. But it's not even a little close to happening in any way, shape, or form. So they can moan about vague unease all they want, but there will never be a believable example to point to.
http://troublethinking.wordpress.com (Updated Wed) http://twitter.com/#!/Durandal4532
Just like how No Fault Civil Divorce rent asunder the Catholic Church in America?
Expand on this! I am intrigued by what you are referring to.
That's actually what I'd be putting money on...if I had money to gamble. Prop-8 is going to be struck down in Appeals pretty damn hard to the point that sodomy may actually become mandatory for married couples. This is the 9th Circuit, remember? SCOTUS picks it up, reaffirms that Prop-8 is illegal, but writes a far more narrow interpretation of the 14th Amendment with something like 5 concurring opinions.
Catholics don't believe in divorce, just like how they don't believe in gay marriage. You can get a civil divorce in the US pretty damn easily, and most Catholics don't give two shits because it doesn't impact them whatever. The same would be true of civil marriage for gays and for the same reason.
This sort of thinking has sadly taken root in our government, the upcoming civil unions bill has an opt-out clause for the registrars, if they feel that issuing a licence to a gay couple is a violation of their religious beliefs then they are free to refuse to do so.
Which is pretty dispicable but not entirely surprising considering our justice minister's views on gays.
Yep, here in Ireland divorce was legalised in Ireland after a narrow referendum in the 90s, anti-divorce campaigners were hysterical about how "the floodgates would open" and families all over the country would break down. Today we have one of the lowest divorce rates in Europe.
No I know it's an old hat. It just never gets old how very easy it is to dissassemble their arguements, present that info to them, and watch them rationalize it away in their own minds and continue to remain ignorant, silly geese.
I'm concerned not by the threat this arguement against gay marriage proposes, that's as seethrough as glass and I doubt many will buy it. My concern is with the level of fear mongering and ignorance inherent in this way of thinking. How can people justify this kind of hypocrasy based on what's written in a two thousand year old book? This kind of thing is old but it's always disturbing.
EDIT: On the Catholic Divorce thing, I remember that well. I was taught in Catholic school by a very faithful Catholic religious teacher that only God could break the bonds of marriage after it was finalized in a formal, accountable religious ceremony, state marriages not counting. Catholics have a divorce council that very rarely allows divorces in accordance with church doctrine on the basis of things like the ceremony not being a religiously accountable one by their standards or the priest wasn't fully ordained. For all other cases, people are denied divorce within Catholicism on that original, only God can basis. If your husband is beating you or your wife is cheating, your stuck with them regardless and have to work it out, and I'm all for trying to save marriages but in the end sometimes it can't be fixed.
Among other things this is one of the reasons I am no longer really Catholic.
Go out and ask a few Christians if they think that god wrote the bible.
Marvel at the response.
Trust me, I know all this, I've asked and marveled many times.
It doesn't get any less disturbing or stupid. Faith is a great thing when it's not used in such irresponsible and counterproductive ways like this ad.
There should be a requirement that anytime you quote anyone citing Leviticus, you have to list the myriad amounts of crazy shit in Leviticus that no one fucking abides by.
Yeah, but the "rent asunder" part sounded like you were referring to something specific in history, like the Church claiming back when No-Fault divorce was legalized that it would kill them.
Unfortunately yes.
This doesn't mean that closing arguments will not be televised. (The source you cite doesn't link to the press release and there's no date on it, but I'll assume it's correct for the moment.)
What happened the first time is that allowing cameras required a rules change, and the 9th Circuit didn't allow for a long enough comment period before changing the rule. This time they did allow the correct comment period, and the rule change will take place after March 4.
Nothing prevents Walker from deciding that closing arguments will be televised after the rule change is made. Nothing in the press release says that Judge Walker has decided it would be a bad idea after all. All the press release says is that back in January the request was withdrawn, and it currently hasn't been renewed. This takes the Prop 8 case officially off the table for purposes of the request - nobody can block the rule by litigating about that case, since it's not actually being requested, if that makes sense.
Re #2, yes, they're trying to find something to bolster their case for the appeal, so closing arguments have not yet been finalized, apparently.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Uh, what? I'm pretty sure Catholics aren't allowed to get divorces, ever, at all. I think you're talking about annulments there, which are a declaration that the marriage never actually existed, not that it's now over.
Well, not quite, it's a declaration that necessary pre-requisites for the marriage were not met and so the supernatural union of man and woman was not (in His wisdom) initiated by God, making their marriage no more meaningful than a secular or non-Catholic one, and so capable of being dissolved.
Something like 60% of annulment requests are granted- it's not super difficult to justify it, there are plenty of escape clauses. Of course, 90% of Catholics who get divorced never even initiate the annulment process at all, nor care about "clearing things" with the Church. Most Catholics are, after all, only nominally so.