SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Proponents of California's same-sex marriage ban filed a motion Monday seeking to vacate the historic ruling that overturned Proposition 8 because the federal judge who wrote it is in a long-term relationship with another man.
Lawyers for the ban's backers said in the motion in San Francisco's U.S. District Court that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker should have removed himself from the case, or at least disclosed his relationship status, because his "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
"Only if Chief Judge Walker had unequivocally disavowed any interest in marrying his partner could the parties and the public be confident that he did not have a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case," attorneys for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that put Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot wrote. Proposition 8 overturned a ruling by the California Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriages.
What douchenozzles. It was clear that he was gay well before the trial. That was the time for them to bring this up.
Now they're just reaching for anything they can get to delay things.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
To be fair it is a lot better reasoned than their original case...
I could have sworn this came up before and it was pointed out that their case hinged upon gay marriage damaging straight marriage and therefore everybody who might participate in a marriage would be biased.
To be fair it is a lot better reasoned than their original case...
I could have sworn this came up before and it was pointed out that their case hinged upon gay marriage damaging straight marriage and therefore everybody who might participate in a marriage would be biased.
Yep...and it's still has better logic than their original case.
Just... WOW. I mean, I knew Pat was crazy, but I didn't know he was CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZY.
For those who want the text:
Robertson: Well it’s the left; it’s this culture of death. The far-left is livid about killing babies. They want to kill do this, they want to destroy. You go back, and I don’t want to play all this psychological stuff but nevertheless, if a woman is a lesbian, what advantage does she have over a married woman? Or what deficiency does she have?
Meeuwsen: Well she can’t have children
Robertson: That’s exactly right. And so if these married women don’t have children, if they abort their babies, then that kind of puts them on a level playing field. And you say, nobody’s there to express that? Isn’t that shocking, well think about it a little bit ladies and gentlemen.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
And people bristle when I suggest that religion should fall under "hate speech."
Come on, Ross. Not all religious people talk like that. Folks like Falwell, Robertson and Westboro Baptist are especially high profile bigots just because they have (or had, in Falwell's case) a lot of national exposure. Unfortunately, they garnered that national exposure exactly because of the polarizing and terrible things that come out of their mouths, not because what they say actually represents everyone who claims Christianity.
I honestly do bristle a little when you make a blanket statement that all religion should fall under "hate speech". How about you amend that and say that hate speech from any source is bad? Just because someone is religious (whatever religion they may be) doesn't mean they automatically get a hate-on for everyone around them.
Unfortunately, until the correct kind of legislation comes along and the law fully recognizes homosexuals as people, it will be hard to get people like Robertson for any kind of hate speech crime. I would love to see a video clip one day of police busting into his 700 Club studio and arresting him on the spot for being the hate-mongering douche that he is. One day...
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
I don't know if I'd say that religion = hate speech, but I do say that hate speech shouldn't get a pass just because it's religious.
Agreed. That's my entire point. Hate speech is hate speech, regardless of it's source. Just saying that all religion is a source of hate is pretty narrow-minded.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I don't know if I'd say that religion = hate speech, but I do say that hate speech shouldn't get a pass just because it's religious.
This is what I meant. Sorry for any confusion.
But yes, Robertson (and other attention whores like him) have made a living out of saying things that within any other context would get him either booted, laughed out of the room, or (depending on setting) arrested for incitement.
I always thought marriage should be something between N persons regardless of their gender, sexual identity or substrate (bring on Alife marriages, bitch!)
It saddens me that people are making this much fuzz about marriage between two people of the same gender - just makes you wonder how much longer everything I pointed out above will take to get implemented.
I don't know if I'd say that religion = hate speech, but I do say that hate speech shouldn't get a pass just because it's religious.
But then I would say that Fallwell =/= religion.
I would say that he does. He represents a certain portion of Christianity that just happens to be hardcore against the idea of homosexuals (among other things). Other Christians (like myself) could care less about whether gay people get married. I feel like God would have us worry about bigger things than meddling in other people's lives to make themselves feel holy, but I digress...
If I really wanted to get in depth with it, I could point out that I have a hard time believing men like Robertson and Falwell really are Christians, considering that they have (had) an extreme lack of love for a portion of their fellow man, something that I'm pretty sure Jesus talked about quite a bit. But that's an entirely different discussion that isn't really for this thread.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
I always thought marriage should be something between N persons regardless of their gender, sexual identity or substrate (bring on Alife marriages, bitch!)
It saddens me that people are making this much fuzz about marriage between two people of the same gender - just makes you wonder how much longer everything I pointed out above will take to get implemented.
I'm not against polyamory per say, but the benefits granted to married couples could become exponentially more complicated with 3+ in a marriage. That is going to be one hell of an uphill battle.
I'm more concerned that currently polygamy is pretty much Patriarch+wives+children, where any rights are granted solely to the head male and women are treated as property. I can imagine a future where that's not the case, but until we get closer, I'm not going to be able to say I support it.
Delzhand on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I'm more concerned that currently polygamy is pretty much Patriarch+wives+children, where any rights are granted solely to the head male and women are treated as property. I can imagine a future where that's not the case, but until we get closer, I'm not going to be able to say I support it.
But yes, Robertson (and other attention whores like him) have made a living out of saying things that within any other context would get him either booted, laughed out of the room, or (depending on setting) arrested for incitement.
Oh, there are plenty of "gays go against natural law/evolution" secular bullshitters around.
WRT the motion against Judge Walker, this is litigation game-playing. They knew about Judge Walker's sexual orientation a year ago (there's a hilarious video of Maggie Gallagher flapping her lips incoherently about it). I would bet my left tit that they simply decided then to sit on it: if they won, they could say "see, even a GAY judge agrees with our position" and if they lost, as they did, they could then whine that he was biased and should have recused himself. Don't know that it will help him in that it's hard for them to explain to an appellate court why they kept their mouths shut about it this long. (Also, really, it's a dumb argument. Unless they have evidence that Walker was trying to marry his partner, this is the equivalent of 'black judges shouldn't decide civil-rights cases'.)
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I'm more concerned that currently polygamy is pretty much Patriarch+wives+children, where any rights are granted solely to the head male and women are treated as property. I can imagine a future where that's not the case, but until we get closer, I'm not going to be able to say I support it.
Actually, I kind of respect him. He has a bit of a point. Lawyers defend unpopular shit all the time. It's their job.
You're confusing public defenders and ACLU attorneys with "all lawyers". The guy's a civil litigator, not Atticus Finch. Also, the idea that DOMA is some hugely unpopular yet worthy pro bono cause a la David and Golliath is hilarious.
That aside, I have my doubts that the law firm actually buckled under pressure. From the comments about 'vetting' and the fact that this guy personally quit to handle the case, it sounds like the DOMA case was his personal "book of business", and because he was a Big Man at his firm nobody paid too much attention to his new client other than making sure it passed the conflicts check. Then when the shitstorm started they asked themselves WTF they were doing taking this case.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
But yes, Robertson (and other attention whores like him) have made a living out of saying things that within any other context would get him either booted, laughed out of the room, or (depending on setting) arrested for incitement.
Oh, there are plenty of "gays go against natural law/evolution" secular bullshitters around.
The assertion that a sizable faction of homophobic secular activists exist and use evolutionary biology as their rallying point is so dubious that I'm going to have to ask for citation.
I mean, I don't doubt secular homophobes exist, even in large numbers. The Black community alone shows an alarming amount of secularly-motivated animosity towards the gay community. I just question the activism of a hypothetical sect of vehement naturalists who cannot abide efforts at non-reproductive sex.
The assertion that a sizable faction of homophobic secular activists exist and use evolutionary biology as their rallying point is so dubious that I'm going to have to ask for citation.
You want me to provide a citation for something you made up and put in my mouth? Huhwhazza?
If what you're actually asking is "Please provide examples of homophobic secular activists whose arguments do not rest on religion," here's a couple off the top of my head: David Blankenhorn, who was the star witness in the Proposition 8 federal trial, and his Institute for American Values. The State of California, defending Proposition 8 by arguing that it had a legitimate (that is: secular) interest in Prop 8. Less well-known: every bozo you've ever talked to who things gays are "gross" or "would be OK if they just didn't flaunt it so much".
I find this humorous given that you seem unable to distinguish "religion" from "a particular brand of socially-conservative Christianity."
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The assertion that a sizable faction of homophobic secular activists exist and use evolutionary biology as their rallying point is so dubious that I'm going to have to ask for citation.
You want me to provide a citation for something you made up and put in my mouth? Huhwhazza?
If what you're actually asking is "Please provide examples of homophobic secular activists whose arguments do not rest on religion," here's a couple off the top of my head: David Blankenhorn, who was the star witness in the Proposition 8 federal trial, and his Institute for American Values. The State of California, defending Proposition 8 by arguing that it had a legitimate (that is: secular) interest in Prop 8. Less well-known: every bozo you've ever talked to who things gays are "gross" or "would be OK if they just didn't flaunt it so much".
I find this humorous given that you seem unable to distinguish "religion" from "a particular brand of socially-conservative Christianity."
When you say words like, "plenty," I (wrongly?) assume you meant some kind of organized effort.
There's "plenty" of miserable assholes everywhere, but that doesn't mean they're lining up to side with crazy people who happen to share one single belief.
When you say words like, "plenty," I (wrongly?) assume you meant some kind of organized effort.
There's "plenty" of miserable assholes everywhere, but that doesn't mean they're lining up to side with crazy people who happen to share one single belief.
People who share one single belief - Gay Bad - do tend to line up together, regardless of whether they the gay-is-badness comes from God. And of course people aren't always acting out of a single pure motive either. How many Christian homophobes would suddenly rush off to join PFLAG if it were proven that the line in Exodus was inserted by a later translator in the 18th century? (Answer: probably about six, tops.) How many people who rely on the Bible for their homophobia don't also spout off about how gays can't have babies or "it's an exit not an entrance" or babble about AIDS?
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I think it's kind of hard to argue that the 'Gay == Bad' secular crowd or the 'eww gays are icky' non-churchy machismo crowd aren't coming from a religious origin when the social norms arise from the historically dominant majority religion.
It's like saying Christmas isn't a religious holiday because you're personally an atheist and are mostly in it for Santa and free shit - that doesn't mean it's not rooted in religion. 'No homo' frat guy is the same deal, only more ciruitous and with bigotry instead of a jolly fat guy.
Wow. Took me a minute, but "Fags are Freaks." Poor horses. Someone needs to call Tony Soprano on the SOB responsible.
I probably should mention that I'm not actually advocating a mob hit, but making reference to a certain storyline in The Sopranos involving fire and horses that ended badly for the person responsible courtesy of Tony Soprano.
I hope that asshole is caught, thrown in prison and receives his due punishment and is rehabilitated to understand why his actions and the thoughts that led to them are not productive.
Note: despite my love of them, that's not intended to be a euphemism.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I think it's kind of hard to argue that the 'Gay == Bad' secular crowd or the 'eww gays are icky' non-churchy machismo crowd aren't coming from a religious origin when the social norms arise from the historically dominant majority religion.
It's like saying Christmas isn't a religious holiday because you're personally an atheist and are mostly in it for Santa and free shit - that doesn't mean it's not rooted in religion. 'No homo' frat guy is the same deal, only more ciruitous and with bigotry instead of a jolly fat guy.
That's why only Christian-majority nations have a poor view of homosexuality. Oh, wait.
Homosexuality is a lot more about misogyny than it is about Exodus; that's why homophobes seem to forget lesbians exist half the time, and why it's considered hot to watch two women having sex but disgusting to watch two men.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Posts
We're sure he's not a Southpark character?
They're try to get Judge Walker to recuse himself because he's gay.
What douchenozzles. It was clear that he was gay well before the trial. That was the time for them to bring this up.
Now they're just reaching for anything they can get to delay things.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Yep...and it's still has better logic than their original case.
Walker is openly gay and there was no opposition to this from lawyers when the case began. For fuck's sake, I think Walker is a Bush appointee.
Of course we are. Who else is unbiased enough to view us in a favorable light?
You're probably right.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=murKRfTfGQs
Just... WOW. I mean, I knew Pat was crazy, but I didn't know he was CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZY.
For those who want the text:
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I honestly do bristle a little when you make a blanket statement that all religion should fall under "hate speech". How about you amend that and say that hate speech from any source is bad? Just because someone is religious (whatever religion they may be) doesn't mean they automatically get a hate-on for everyone around them.
Unfortunately, until the correct kind of legislation comes along and the law fully recognizes homosexuals as people, it will be hard to get people like Robertson for any kind of hate speech crime. I would love to see a video clip one day of police busting into his 700 Club studio and arresting him on the spot for being the hate-mongering douche that he is. One day...
This is what I meant. Sorry for any confusion.
But yes, Robertson (and other attention whores like him) have made a living out of saying things that within any other context would get him either booted, laughed out of the room, or (depending on setting) arrested for incitement.
But then I would say that Fallwell =/= religion.
Yet for many people, he does.
It saddens me that people are making this much fuzz about marriage between two people of the same gender - just makes you wonder how much longer everything I pointed out above will take to get implemented.
I would say that he does. He represents a certain portion of Christianity that just happens to be hardcore against the idea of homosexuals (among other things). Other Christians (like myself) could care less about whether gay people get married. I feel like God would have us worry about bigger things than meddling in other people's lives to make themselves feel holy, but I digress...
If I really wanted to get in depth with it, I could point out that I have a hard time believing men like Robertson and Falwell really are Christians, considering that they have (had) an extreme lack of love for a portion of their fellow man, something that I'm pretty sure Jesus talked about quite a bit. But that's an entirely different discussion that isn't really for this thread.
I'm not against polyamory per say, but the benefits granted to married couples could become exponentially more complicated with 3+ in a marriage. That is going to be one hell of an uphill battle.
Oh, there are plenty of "gays go against natural law/evolution" secular bullshitters around.
WRT the motion against Judge Walker, this is litigation game-playing. They knew about Judge Walker's sexual orientation a year ago (there's a hilarious video of Maggie Gallagher flapping her lips incoherently about it). I would bet my left tit that they simply decided then to sit on it: if they won, they could say "see, even a GAY judge agrees with our position" and if they lost, as they did, they could then whine that he was biased and should have recused himself. Don't know that it will help him in that it's hard for them to explain to an appellate court why they kept their mouths shut about it this long. (Also, really, it's a dumb argument. Unless they have evidence that Walker was trying to marry his partner, this is the equivalent of 'black judges shouldn't decide civil-rights cases'.)
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I don't know who that is or what it means.
You're confusing public defenders and ACLU attorneys with "all lawyers". The guy's a civil litigator, not Atticus Finch. Also, the idea that DOMA is some hugely unpopular yet worthy pro bono cause a la David and Golliath is hilarious.
That aside, I have my doubts that the law firm actually buckled under pressure. From the comments about 'vetting' and the fact that this guy personally quit to handle the case, it sounds like the DOMA case was his personal "book of business", and because he was a Big Man at his firm nobody paid too much attention to his new client other than making sure it passed the conflicts check. Then when the shitstorm started they asked themselves WTF they were doing taking this case.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
To sum up his message: In the end this will fail and history will not be kind to its proponents.
The assertion that a sizable faction of homophobic secular activists exist and use evolutionary biology as their rallying point is so dubious that I'm going to have to ask for citation.
I mean, I don't doubt secular homophobes exist, even in large numbers. The Black community alone shows an alarming amount of secularly-motivated animosity towards the gay community. I just question the activism of a hypothetical sect of vehement naturalists who cannot abide efforts at non-reproductive sex.
You want me to provide a citation for something you made up and put in my mouth? Huhwhazza?
If what you're actually asking is "Please provide examples of homophobic secular activists whose arguments do not rest on religion," here's a couple off the top of my head: David Blankenhorn, who was the star witness in the Proposition 8 federal trial, and his Institute for American Values. The State of California, defending Proposition 8 by arguing that it had a legitimate (that is: secular) interest in Prop 8. Less well-known: every bozo you've ever talked to who things gays are "gross" or "would be OK if they just didn't flaunt it so much".
I find this humorous given that you seem unable to distinguish "religion" from "a particular brand of socially-conservative Christianity."
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
When you say words like, "plenty," I (wrongly?) assume you meant some kind of organized effort.
There's "plenty" of miserable assholes everywhere, but that doesn't mean they're lining up to side with crazy people who happen to share one single belief.
People who share one single belief - Gay Bad - do tend to line up together, regardless of whether they the gay-is-badness comes from God. And of course people aren't always acting out of a single pure motive either. How many Christian homophobes would suddenly rush off to join PFLAG if it were proven that the line in Exodus was inserted by a later translator in the 18th century? (Answer: probably about six, tops.) How many people who rely on the Bible for their homophobia don't also spout off about how gays can't have babies or "it's an exit not an entrance" or babble about AIDS?
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Some assholes in Ohio burned a barn--and the eight horses in it--because the owner is gay
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
It's like saying Christmas isn't a religious holiday because you're personally an atheist and are mostly in it for Santa and free shit - that doesn't mean it's not rooted in religion. 'No homo' frat guy is the same deal, only more ciruitous and with bigotry instead of a jolly fat guy.
I probably should mention that I'm not actually advocating a mob hit, but making reference to a certain storyline in The Sopranos involving fire and horses that ended badly for the person responsible courtesy of Tony Soprano.
I hope that asshole is caught, thrown in prison and receives his due punishment and is rehabilitated to understand why his actions and the thoughts that led to them are not productive.
Note: despite my love of them, that's not intended to be a euphemism.
That's why only Christian-majority nations have a poor view of homosexuality. Oh, wait.
Homosexuality is a lot more about misogyny than it is about Exodus; that's why homophobes seem to forget lesbians exist half the time, and why it's considered hot to watch two women having sex but disgusting to watch two men.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.