Gay marriage battle relaunches, challenged in court

[hotatlboi]

I bet they are starting the paper shredders over at Protect Marriage.

 

[scream4ever]

Great news JockBoy!!!

 

[Kulindahr]

I wish the article gave a bit more of the judge's reasoning. What's there, WRT the First Amendment, isn't quite clear to me.

I see he held the option open of leaving the information closed to the public, which is a decent compromise position respecting the desire for privacy on the part of the "marriage defenders" and the need for full information on the part of the plaintiffs.


If there are any really damaging memos, they just may go through the paper shredder -- if they haven't already. Any effort to eliminate everything will bring contempt of court (at the least), but a careful elimination of certain items could go undiscovered. I presume the judge gave orders about that, but what if they've already acted?

 

[CaptainRush]

This is awesome. I bet Yes on 8 is shitting their pants.

Does this mean the court can possibly attain a simple email as someone saying "Think we'll get those fags tomorrow at the voting poll?"

 

[Kulindahr]

It would be a dangerous thing to shred evidence. When the opposition now requests to see documentation about something specific, and the yes on 8 lawyer has to say "we have no record of that," what do you think it's going to look like in court?

Kind of like what happened to Alberto Gonzalez.

That's why it's only for your dirtiest little secrets that no one has any inkling of -- and you don't want them to. It can't be done with anything that's related to anything else, unless you can wiggle out that thread without disturbing others.

 

[CaptainRush]

Actually this article covered what the pro-gay lawyers are specifically looking for.


It should then be fairly easy to show that the premises they ran the campaign on were not the premises that they advertised to the public. For one, the Yes on 8 lawyer knows, but just won't admit, that what can win the people won't win the courts, and visa versa.

We may actually see their dirty tactics blow up in their face!

You know Judge Walker has a pretty eyebrow-raising interest in this case. Proposition 8 might be overturned yet, and sooner than anyone thought.

Wow! That's great. I can't wait to read what they say if it's all revealed. It's possible for us to read the transcripts right?

 

[frankfrank]

I hope the memos which talked about blackmailing corporations and large donors to the No on 8 campaign will turn up. That would be pretty damning.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's always that one paper you shredded and didn't think about the consequences by what it was related to. Then it brings up the specter of what else you may be hiding. Well, not you obviously, but the anti-gay side.

I rarely hide anything.

The other day at the river, when the temp hit 80 F, I wasn't hiding anything at all.

 

[Kulindahr]

Wilson River -- flows west along highway 6 from Portland to the coast.

If the forecast for tomorrow holds, I may go up and not hide anything tomorrow, too.

 

[Kulindahr]

You can make a lot of candles from that much bacon.




My family wasn't on the Oregon Trail as such. One side of the family sort of drifted westward, kind of into Sioux country, before just heading west; the other drifted out this way after the Civil War.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

the Republicans will be crying "homosexual" all over the place to frighten and to get their own kind out to the polls.

Not all Republicans, dude. Only the ones who pronounce it as "homa setual".

 

[scream4ever]

Love the Oregon Trail reference JockBoy!!!

 

[Kulindahr]

Not all Republicans, dude. Only the ones who pronounce it as "homa setual".

M: How do you spell "gay"?
RR: "F -- A -- G"

M: All right, how do you spell "homosexual"?
RR: "F -- A -- G"

M: Well, how do you spell "lesbians"?
RR: "B -- I -- T -- C -- H -- I -- N"

 

[Kulindahr]

There's no reason to leave Oregon out. It's a leader in gay rights too.

The river is 3.5 feet deep. Do you want to?

A) Wait
B) Ford the river
C) Caulk the wagon and float
D) Take the ferry (5.00)

Strip and go for a swim.

Heck, the bottom of a good Conestoga would hardly get wet in just 3.5 feet of water, and was caulked good and tight anyway.

The real question is:

what's the bottom made of?

 

[Kulindahr]

Fuck that. I'm taking the ferry. Besides, I love boats.

A good Conestoga IS a boat.

It just has its engines up front -- four to six horse-power, usually.

 

[Kulindahr]

Three pieces of good news.

1) Judge Walker refused to throw out the Prop 8 case now before his federal district court.

2) He has required evidence from the Yes on 8 side that allowing gay marriage harms heterosexual unions.

3) He has required that the Yes on 8 side show that their purpose for marriage, procreation, would be undermined by same sex marriages.

From the looks of things, it appears that Vaughn Walker is holding a sham court case, and he really has his mind made up in favor of gay marriage. I'm very optimistic about this case.

http://www.365gay.com/news/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-gay-marriage-ban-lawsuit/

1. There were no grounds to throw it out: it isn't frivolous, and there is merit to the argument(s) of the plaintiffs.

2 & 3. No sham involved -- he's being strict in requiring that the Yes on 8 people prove their grounds/claims. If they can't (they can't), then he might throw it out.

Walker isn't the sort to conduct a sham. He is a bit of a maverick, with a libertarian streak, though. My only serious complaint is that he's soft on white-collar crime.

I tried to find something about where he stands on religious issues, but came up with nothing. I did it because I'm wondering if he's just sick and tired of people who deep down believe in a theocracy.

 

[scream4ever]

1. There were no grounds to throw it out: it isn't frivolous, and there is merit to the argument(s) of the plaintiffs.

2 & 3. No sham involved -- he's being strict in requiring that the Yes on 8 people prove their grounds/claims. If they can't (they can't), then he might throw it out.

Walker isn't the sort to conduct a sham. He is a bit of a maverick, with a libertarian streak, though. My only serious complaint is that he's soft on white-collar crime.

I tried to find something about where he stands on religious issues, but came up with nothing. I did it because I'm wondering if he's just sick and tired of people who deep down believe in a theocracy.

You mean he'd throw out Prop. 8, and not the case, right?

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm saying these are positive developments for the gay side. It's really obvious Walker has made up his mind because of the numerous specific requests he has made in recent months, as well as his peculiar interest in the case. If he didn't like gays or gay marriage, he would have dismissed this case and not acquiesced to any pro-gay requests. I think he's putting the case on for show, and he really has a pro-gay decision in his mind. Everything he does is eyebrow-raising.

He's an eyebrow-raising sort of judge. For example, he believes that the position of lead counsel in some cases should be put up at auction...

How he got picked by Reagan and appointed by GHW Bush is beyond me!

Anyway... yes, these are positive developments for the plaintiffs. I'm not going to guess as to his motives other than the apparent ones: being a stickler for doing it right. There's a judge here in Portland who does the same sort of thing, regardless of his personal beliefs -- in fact I've heard him tell a defendant that in his personal opinion the guy should have been stuck with a collar so his whereabouts could be monitored 24-7, but that what the law said was he could go free.
OTOH, I don't care about his motives, so long as he sticks it to the theocrats -- hard, and deep.

 

[Kulindahr]

You mean he'd throw out Prop. 8, and not the case, right?

Right. It's a hope, anyway.

The basis would be that those defending the issue can't make any rational response to the plaintiffs, who would thus prevail. So far, it doesn't sound as though they have any rational responses, and by requiring them to defend their basic arguments concerning marriage itself, I think it will become evident that they don't in fact have any.

The "traditional marriage" argument is void, because humanity has had so many different forms. The procreation argument is void as well, because there have always been marriages which didn't result in procreation, and procreation occurs quite efficiently outside of marriage. Needing a mother and a father doesn't stand as an argument; we have gobs of kids raised these days by only one parent, and some by a combination of parent(s)/grandparent(s)/nanny/whatever.

If the memos show that their basic position is religious, then he can rule from their own documents than Prop 8 is a sham, a move to impose (a narrow view of) religion on everyone, and under the U.S. Constitution void it right there.

I think that's the way it's going to come down: they'll fail to make a rational argument for their position(s), there will be documents showing that this is about religion, and Prop 8 goes in the dustbin of history.

And if I could make a wish, he'd further rule that since civil marriage as currently defined is also religious in essence, then all definitions of marriage are tossed out, and something inclusive has to be written -- at which point we should just jettison the word "marriage" and let those who like it use it, and those who don't like it not use it. Unfortunately, that would be seen as over-reaching his authority... but it would be a good step anyway.

 

[Kulindahr]

Let's hope so.

This article is really interesting. It really shows how biased Walker is in our favor.

Interesting read. I don't see where he's being biased, though -- just rational. And since the Yes on 8 folks have no rational arguments, it can appear that he's biased, when he's just being what a judge is supposed to be: someone who weighs the merits, and proceeds under the law.