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.
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.
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.
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.
Man, do people really believe that the SCOTUS might uphold a ruling against prop 8? The Supreme Court is little more than the judicial wing of the Republican party at this point; Kennedy is something of a maverick in that he occasionally says "hey maybe we shouldn't stomp all over the Constitution," and yes, holds the remarkably progressive position that the state shouldn't actively persecute homosexuals, but there is no way in hell he is voting to uphold gay marriage.
Not that I think this is a wasted effort. I just wouldn't expect anything but another Bowers out of it.
Is it naive to think that might not also be part of the plan?
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.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Yeah, the Supreme Court is not going to simply decline to hear the case unless the ninth circuit rules for Prop 8.
Justice Kennedy is not going to be the man who made gay marriage legal.
You saying things =/= making them true.
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'd actually not be shocked if it was 6-3, since Roberts has in the past defended gay rights despite his own personal beliefs and, quite frankly, the Constitutional (and...moral) argument is pretty ironclad in favor of sexuality as being a suspect class.
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.
Justice Kennedy is not going to be the man who made gay marriage legal.
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.
I'd actually not be shocked if it was 6-3, since Roberts has in the past defended gay rights despite his own personal beliefs and, quite frankly, the Constitutional (and...moral) argument is pretty ironclad in favor of sexuality as being a suspect class.
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.
I'd actually not be shocked if it was 6-3, since Roberts has in the past defended gay rights despite his own personal beliefs and, quite frankly, the Constitutional (and...moral) argument is pretty ironclad in favor of sexuality as being a suspect class.
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?
EmperorSeth on
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
1. On January 15, 2010, Chief Judge Walker withdrew his previous request to include Perry et. al. v. Schwarzenegger et. al . in the Ninth Circuit’s pilot program permitting broadcasting of district court proceedings in limited circumstances. On the same date, Chief Judge Kozinski approved the request to withdraw the Perry case from the program. Broadcasting closing arguments would require Chief Judge Walker to request that these arguments be included in the Ninth Circuit’s pilot program and approval of that request by Chief Judge Kozinski. No such request has been made.
2. The presentation of evidence has not been completed; defendant-intervenors requested that their case remain open pending completion of discovery they are seeking from third parties. The proceedings concerning this discovery are on-going.
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.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I'd actually not be shocked if it was 6-3, since Roberts has in the past defended gay rights despite his own personal beliefs and, quite frankly, the Constitutional (and...moral) argument is pretty ironclad in favor of sexuality as being a suspect class.
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.
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.
Professor Phobos on
0
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
On Wednesday, the day after the vote in Vermont, the National Organization for Marriage -- a group opposed to same-sex marriage -- launched a new ad campaign that could be a preview of the strategy to come. In its announcement, the organization says the campaign is "designed to raise awareness of the religious liberty implications of same-sex marriage legislation" and discusses what it claims are some of these implications.
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.
It's scare-mongering bullshit. Churches can't be forced to marry anyone, it's state marriage that's the issue. The only religious liberty issues involved are already part of the system- namely the tacit endorsement of a religious viewpoint in an ostensibly secular legal system, and the implicit rejection of religions that are already happy to marry gay dudes and ladies.
Corehealer, that is the least new piece of information in the entire world. Dinosaurs are saying "have you heard about this new conservative strategy?" to each other.
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.
On Wednesday, the day after the vote in Vermont, the National Organization for Marriage -- a group opposed to same-sex marriage -- launched a new ad campaign that could be a preview of the strategy to come. In its announcement, the organization says the campaign is "designed to raise awareness of the religious liberty implications of same-sex marriage legislation" and discusses what it claims are some of these implications.
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?
Just like how No Fault Civil Divorce rent asunder the Catholic Church in America?
On Wednesday, the day after the vote in Vermont, the National Organization for Marriage -- a group opposed to same-sex marriage -- launched a new ad campaign that could be a preview of the strategy to come. In its announcement, the organization says the campaign is "designed to raise awareness of the religious liberty implications of same-sex marriage legislation" and discusses what it claims are some of these implications.
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?
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.
I'd actually not be shocked if it was 6-3, since Roberts has in the past defended gay rights despite his own personal beliefs and, quite frankly, the Constitutional (and...moral) argument is pretty ironclad in favor of sexuality as being a suspect class.
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.
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.
On Wednesday, the day after the vote in Vermont, the National Organization for Marriage -- a group opposed to same-sex marriage -- launched a new ad campaign that could be a preview of the strategy to come. In its announcement, the organization says the campaign is "designed to raise awareness of the religious liberty implications of same-sex marriage legislation" and discusses what it claims are some of these implications.
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?
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.
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.
On Wednesday, the day after the vote in Vermont, the National Organization for Marriage -- a group opposed to same-sex marriage -- launched a new ad campaign that could be a preview of the strategy to come. In its announcement, the organization says the campaign is "designed to raise awareness of the religious liberty implications of same-sex marriage legislation" and discusses what it claims are some of these implications.
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?
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.
On Wednesday, the day after the vote in Vermont, the National Organization for Marriage -- a group opposed to same-sex marriage -- launched a new ad campaign that could be a preview of the strategy to come. In its announcement, the organization says the campaign is "designed to raise awareness of the religious liberty implications of same-sex marriage legislation" and discusses what it claims are some of these implications.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Saint Madness on
0
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
Corehealer, that is the least new piece of information in the entire world. Dinosaurs are saying "have you heard about this new conservative strategy?" to each other.
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.
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.
Corehealer, that is the least new piece of information in the entire world. Dinosaurs are saying "have you heard about this new conservative strategy?" to each other.
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.
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.
Go out and ask a few Christians if they think that god wrote the bible.
Marvel at the response.
Saint Madness on
0
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
Corehealer, that is the least new piece of information in the entire world. Dinosaurs are saying "have you heard about this new conservative strategy?" to each other.
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.
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.
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.
It really irks me that people like that Miss Beverly Hills cunt can get away with citing Leviticus and the media just lets it go.
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.
On Wednesday, the day after the vote in Vermont, the National Organization for Marriage -- a group opposed to same-sex marriage -- launched a new ad campaign that could be a preview of the strategy to come. In its announcement, the organization says the campaign is "designed to raise awareness of the religious liberty implications of same-sex marriage legislation" and discusses what it claims are some of these implications.
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?
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.
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.
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.
1. On January 15, 2010, Chief Judge Walker withdrew his previous request to include Perry et. al. v. Schwarzenegger et. al . in the Ninth Circuit’s pilot program permitting broadcasting of district court proceedings in limited circumstances. On the same date, Chief Judge Kozinski approved the request to withdraw the Perry case from the program. Broadcasting closing arguments would require Chief Judge Walker to request that these arguments be included in the Ninth Circuit’s pilot program and approval of that request by Chief Judge Kozinski. No such request has been made.
2. The presentation of evidence has not been completed; defendant-intervenors requested that their case remain open pending completion of discovery they are seeking from third parties. The proceedings concerning this discovery are on-going.
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.
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.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Corehealer, that is the least new piece of information in the entire world. Dinosaurs are saying "have you heard about this new conservative strategy?" to each other.
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.
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.
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.
Corehealer, that is the least new piece of information in the entire world. Dinosaurs are saying "have you heard about this new conservative strategy?" to each other.
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.
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.
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.
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
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
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.
Steam: pazython
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.
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
Justice Kennedy is not going to be the man who made gay marriage legal.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
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.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
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.
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.