Verdict on Proposition 8

[Lostlover]

The judge didn't say this at all. His decision was narrow to a point: the state has no justifiable interest from keeping two people of the same sex from being able to marry, the same way two people of opposite sexes can marry. Doing so is a violation of the US Constitution, as it is written. It's the same logic that was used when the Supreme Court struck down laws preventing blacks and whites from marrying. This decision wouldn't even apply to laws governing polygamy or bestiality. To even compare those two with gay marriage is not only a red herring, but it's also insulting.

And I can testify to you on how well Arizona upholds laws on polygamy. We have communities in northeastern Arizona that marry off girls at 14 and no state officers are knocking at their doors.

This hypocrisy is deafening especially as the bigots cite their morals and their respect for nuclear families.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Why shouldn't he hypothetically be able to marry his brother? Who are you to say no?

Because we're not discussing hypothetical questions, we're talking about other people's lives and the outcome that a very real verdict might present.

 

[MercuryJones]

that these trolls are allowed to pretend to be here for any other reason but disruption is ludicrous at this point

And frankly, this is the reason I don't appear as a JUB supporter.

 

[MercuryJones]

Childish questions huh? They seem pretty decent to me.

You didn't read the decision.

 

[Lostlover]

People keep taking the bait... a gay poster asking if bestiality is next now that a court gave gay couples the right to marry. And people still respond to the poster as if he's seriously posting.

 

[BostonPirate]

And frankly, this is the reason I don't appear as a JUB supporter.

this thread is the line for me.

It shows who is gay and who is not. Gay republicans and gay conservatives want gay protections.

all others are trolls at this point haranguing the gay people for actually winning a victory in courts.

the absolute audacity of comparing gay mariage to bestiality and then saying that they still believe in gay rights or that they ARE gay is ludicrous.

 

[MercuryJones]

Where some questions will need to be answered. I think that's part of what is stopping gay marriage from happening are these very questions.

Again, this decision has nothing to do with those questions, as you certainly know.

Do you ever wonder why you have to pretend such things? I'll tell you: Because the truth is not on your side.

 

[MercuryJones]

Congrats, guys, you just let those trolls ruin this forum.

To a degree, you are correct. I admit a measure of culpability.

I also have to wonder, however, about a board that allows such blatant trolling and anti-gay sentiment.

 

[laikaNYC]

this thread is the line for me.

It shows who is gay and who is not. Gay republicans and gay conservatives want gay protections.

all others are trolls at this point haranguing the gay people for actually winning a victory in courts.

the absolute audacity of comparing gay mariage to bestiality and then saying that they still believe in gay rights or that they ARE gay is ludicrous.

I never said I didn't want gay protections. You're putting words in my mouth yet again. Take a deep breath and relax. All I said is that we have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to marriage. I'm worried this will open the floodgates.

 

[laikaNYC]

You keep ignoring my point that the judge did draw the line by saying the state has no right or reason to keep TWO people of the same sex from marrying the same way to people of opposite sexes do. His ruling was very narrow and specific to this concept. Situations where there is a state interest, such as polygamy and incest, will continue to be illegal.

You've made an excellent point. I hope to see you post more. Unlike most of the liberals on here you've actually responded intelligently. I apologize if it seemed like I was bashing the outcome of our ruling, but I was playing devil's advocate.

 

[MercuryJones]

trojan, you may have missed it but laika said some weeks earlier that this isn't even an equal protection issue.

The usual gay-haters set of arguments - it's not equal protection, slippery slope to incest and bestiality, etc. Next thing it will lead to human extinction. All framed up nicely in "I'm not saying I don't support it" innocence.

 

[MercuryJones]

Situations where there is a state interest, such as polygamy and incest, will continue to be illegal.

The disingenuous will perpetually pretend this decision eliminates the "line", when in fact the line is as has ever been the case: legitimate interests.

They will further pretend this case was global in scope as opposed to narrow and explicit. Notice "coolkid" already doing so,m claiming the judge says you have the right to marry anyone you want. But when asked to point out where Judge Walker said this, "coolkid" has no response.

As I've said before, if you have to lie to make your case (as laika and coolkid do), it;'s because there's something fundamentally wrong with it.

 

[Centexfarmer]

By the way, we are not trolls.

LaikaNYC, Justapixel, and myself. We are more like the Scalia, Thomas, and Alto of the JUB board.

BostonPirate, he's like the Ginsberg of the board.

NickCole is like the Kennedy of the board, because he's all over the place, you really don't know what he is. Sometimes he bashes the conservatives and sometimes he bashes the liberals.

By the way, Justapixel? Where are you? Are you not going to way in on this gay marriage issue? lol.

Posters of CE&P as U.S. Supreme Court Justices?






If that were the case we'd all be doomed.

 

[opinterph]

The first segment of this week’s Fox News Sunday was an interview between host Chris Wallace and Ted Olson. I was favorably impressed with the outcome of the exchange and recommend that my fellow Jubbers consider viewing the video.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4305716/ted-olson-on-fns/​

 

[hotatlboi]

This one has done a good job so far.

being the operative word.

 

[Centexfarmer]

And don't forget JockBoy87, you have Ted Olsen (A Republican) out there fighting for your rights.

Gee I thought Republicans hated us. Well maybe not. This one has done a good job so far.

Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker (The Activist Judge who issued this ruling) is a "Gay" Republican, and a Ronald Reagan appointee too.

But they're what I'd call "old school conservatives."

The types of "conservatives" that most would call "Libertarians," or even "Moderate Republicans" today.

The Modern Day GOP only allows "Libertarians" (Think Ron Paul) when they think that they might be able to win an election, or even the White House.

Other than that the "old school conservatives" are no more welcome under the "Big GOP tent" than the Log Cabin Republicans are.

They like to talk a lot though.

 

[rareboy]

Nevertheless, if I had to make an educated guess, I would guess that the supreme court will decline to take the case and kick it back down to the appeals courts for the time being.

I am still inclined to believe this will be the next step as well.

Do the justices have to be unanimous on the cases they will hear?

I apologize if it seemed like I was bashing the outcome of our ruling, but I was playing devil's advocate.

Gee Laika. Why the pullback?

By the way. It is intellectually more honest to preface your comments with " If one were to play Devil's Advocate....". It casts you as an honest provocateur. There is nothing that prevents you from arguing the side of the Devil. You can even believe it. But it changes the tone of discussion from infantile trolling to academic debate. I would have thought you were on a debate team at some point in the last few years. If not, you should consider joining one. It will help you in your schoolwork.

 

[palemale]

And don't forget JockBoy87, you have Ted Olsen (A Republican) out there fighting for your rights.

Gee I thought Republicans hated us. Well maybe not. This one has done a good job so far.

For the most part, Republican elected officials are anti-gay (whether they believe it or not). But there are plenty of Republicans who do not hold office who are not ant-gay (even though they are a small minority in their party). In the Northeast, we even have Republican elected officials who are pro gay civil rights. For example, State Senator Dede Scozzafava (R-NY) lost her bid for Congress because she was too pro-gay and pro-labor (her husband is actually a union official) that the tea partiers ran someone on the Conservative Party line.

Then you get old fart McCain, who I would bet any amount of money is not rabidly anti-gay, but he now is willing to hold up the defense authorization bill because will repeal DADT.

 

[poolerboy]

This belongs here:

 

[construct]

Arguing with people about gay marriage makes my head hurt. It starts with semantics, goes quickly into incorrect "Scientific" evidence, then goes into misguided moral terrority- then they flat out stop making any sort of sense at all and if you're lucky they'll start bringing up God. At least then you know WHY they hate gay people.

Seriously though- you guys know there is apparently a large number of people around the world that think Gay men A) Really want to be women B) Eat and play in shit? I'm not kidding. There are people that think gay people's "main activity" is eating and playing in shit (I assume they include lesbians but they were mostly referring to guys). I've talked to these people. They're real. They equate gay rights with murdering being OK. My head hurts so bad.

So these are the people that are not only holding back gay rights but holding us back as humans. These are the people we have to constantly appease and compromise with. Nonsensical lunatic hate mongers.

Yes. They exist. I don't think I've ever knowingly met anyone quite as extreme as the "B" part, but it's all there in the Family Research Council's "studies."

As for appeasing and compromising--I have no intention of ever appeasing them. They can KMRA. I'll make tactical compromises but not directly with them.

Now. What to do, what to do? First off, never argue with those who hold irrational beliefs with the goal to win them over. Only do it in front of an audience to exhibit them in their true colors or in private for sheer amusement.

The only appropriate response is ridicule and denunciation. So ridicule them and denounce them as viciously and as stridently as you please. As long as it is done with a Cheshire Cat smile, everyone will feel awfully naughty and superior, and the enemy will be brought down a notch in your audience's estimation.