Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

[AGENT J]

Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

[h=1]Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit[/h]HARRISBURG (AP) — A federal judge in Harrisburg says he’ll schedule a June trial for a lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania’s gay-marriage ban.
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III told lawyers in the case Friday he would set a trial date and a timetable for pre-trial discovery and depositions soon.
Lawyers for the state sought an August trial, but Jones said the delay was unnecessary.
Pennsylvania is the only northeastern state that bars same-sex marriage. Nationally, Illinois this week joined 15 other states and the District of Columbia in allowing it.
The federal lawsuit was the first of at least six state and federal lawsuits that challenge aspects of the 17-year-old Pennsylvania law. Civil rights lawyers filed it on behalf of plaintiffs who include a widow, 11 couples and one couple’s two teenage daughters.

Back-up links:
Judge: June trial for Pa. gay marriage lawsuit - SFGate
Judge: June trial for Pa. gay marriage lawsuit - abc27 WHTM
Judge: June Trial for Pa. Gay Marriage Lawsuit | NBC 10 Philadelphia
EDGE Boston :: Gay News
Judge set June trial for challenge to Pa. gay marriage ban


NICE!!!!!!
still a while off but looks like PA is going to be one of the next with and protecting equal rights for gays! I hope so, it'll make me proud to live in a state that supports equal rights.

Living in this time of change is so exciting, watching the fight for equal rights and seeing it win is something almost indescribable. A mixture of awe, relief, being proud, excited and thankful.

16 states and DC have equal rights:

California - June 28, 2013
Connecticut - November 12, 2008
Delaware - July 1, 2013
Hawaii - December 2, 2013 effective
Illinois - June 1, 2014 effective
Iowa - April 27, 2009
Maine - December 29, 2012
Maryland - January 1, 2013
Massachusetts - May 17, 2004
Minnesota - August 1, 2013
New Hampshire - January 1, 2010
New Jersey - October 21, 2013
New York - July 24, 2011
Rhode Island - August 1, 2013
Vermont - September 1, 2009
Washington - December 6, 2012

16 more are in various stages of fighting or establishing a fight for equal rights

New Mexico – is granting equal rights for now and the SSC is going to decided on this soon

Court Case(s) in the works to establish equal rights:
Arkansas
Kentucky
Michigan (Feb Trial)
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania (June Trial)
South Carolina
Utah


Court Case(s) and Legislation in the works, which ever wins first:
Arizona
Nevada
Ohio (December 2013 trial)


Legislation in the works:
Colorado
Florida
Oregon

thats 32 states that could have equal rights by 2015 and some much sooner!

 

[Deuce]

Massachusetts was in favor of equality before it went mainstream. :hipster:

 

[Ontologuy]

This is not about equal rights but about ludicrously violating definitive propriety in the name of political vote pandering, nothing more, making everyone exposed to it all dumber.

Also, whatever changes are erroneously made in state laws, their effect will be of a temporary contemporary nature, I assure you, likely meaningless 100 years from now.

 

[AGENT J]

Massachusetts was in favor of equality before it went mainstream. :hipster:

lol nice!

 

[Deuce]

This is not about equal rights but about ludicrously violating definitive propriety in the name of political vote pandering, nothing more, making everyone exposed to it all dumber.

Also, whatever changes are erroneously made in state laws, their effect will be of a temporary contemporary nature, I assure you, likely meaningless 100 years from now.

Oh hey he's spouting his favorite meaningless term again.

Usage of words changes. Even "gay" and "faggot" are used differently today than a half century ago.

I'm not sure why you think this violates some universal principle. Language changes, man. Instead of getting hung up on semantics, maybe you should try seeing the people behind the issue.

Violating definitive propriety. (a term and concept you invented) I'm sure everybody is really, really concerned.

 

[chromium]

This is not about equal rights but about ludicrously violating definitive propriety in the name of political vote pandering, nothing more, making everyone exposed to it all dumber.

Also, whatever changes are erroneously made in state laws, their effect will be of a temporary contemporary nature, I assure you, likely meaningless 100 years from now.

Are you really so desperate in your hate that you just can't resist pissing on progress by saying that 100 years from now...when of course, none of us will be around to tell you how wrong you were.

100 years from now there will be videos of gay weddings that will be available at click of a button, just like they are today. The proof that same sex couples *marry* and will continue to marry isn't going anywhere, no matter how much you whine about it.

 

[The Mark]

Ah, so I have seriously insane levels of rage and hype to look forward to, next june.

 

[TheNextEra]

This is not about equal rights but about ludicrously violating definitive propriety in the name of political vote pandering, nothing more, making everyone exposed to it all dumber.

Also, whatever changes are erroneously made in state laws, their effect will be of a temporary contemporary nature, I assure you, likely meaningless 100 years from now.

We'll include you into the group that fought against interracial marriage as well. Hopefully you and your ilk will either change with the times or die out and make the world a better place.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Massachusetts was in favor of equality before it went mainstream. :hipster:

I will say that I know little about the Massachusetts state Constitution, however I will say I know a lot about the United States constitution and nowhere does our constitution even recognize marriage...

Once again gays/gay "rights" advocates have absolutely ZERO understanding of law, the premise of law or the constitution in general. That's why progressives need community organizers and judicial activists on the bench to see it their way from a political perspective and not a legal perspective.

If it matters I think it's fantastic that more states are embracing the Tenth Amendment but it's also a farce that every time the people speak and vote down gay marriage progressives go running to their progressiveness appointed judges screaming
"no fair" despite the fact the people of said state have spoken - but that is EXACTLY what Obama and his **** minions want.... Every opportunity to challenge democracy and have democracy be put in the hands of a Judge....

An informed 12-year-old can see the game the progressives are playing here, well considering they're on the same mental level as a 12-year-olds...

 

[Lursa]

Everyone in PA (taxpayers) should be pissed. What a waste of $$$....they know how it's going to end up. There are no longer any grounds to fight it on.

I dont want to hear about PA conservatives whining about welfare next yr....they wasted all the money fighting a battle in a war that's already been won.

 

[Deuce]

I will say that I know little about the Massachusetts state Constitution, however I will say I know a lot about the United States constitution and nowhere does our constitution even recognize marriage...

Once again gays/gay "rights" advocates have absolutely ZERO understanding of law, the premise of law or the constitution in general. That's why progressives need community organizers and judicial activists on the bench to see it their way from a political perspective and not a legal perspective.

If it matters I think it's fantastic that more states are embracing the Tenth Amendment but it's also a farce that every time the people speak and vote down gay marriage progressives go running to their progressiveness appointed judges screaming
"no fair" despite the fact the people of said state have spoken - but that is EXACTLY what Obama and his **** minions want.... Every opportunity to challenge democracy and have democracy be put in the hands of a Judge....

An informed 12-year-old can see the game the progressives are playing here, well considering they're on the same mental level as a 12-year-olds...

1) Same-sex marriage bans are a classification on the basis of gender. (not sexuality. I can't marry you, neither of us are gay. I can't marry you because we are both male)
2) In sex-based equal protection challenges, intermediate scrutiny applies. In such a challenge, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest
3) The 14th amendment applies to the states, so the 10th amendment is not a shield here. "... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
4) The Supreme Court dismissed Virginia's argument that "anyone can marry the same race, therefore there is no racial discrimination." This logic easily applies to the notion that "anyone can marry the opposite gender, therefore there is no gender discrimination."

So tell me the important state interest served by same-sex marriage bans. Since you're the legal and constitutional expert here. Surely, as a believer in small government, you must agree that for the government to place a restriction on its citizens, it has to show a good reason. Otherwise it has no business making that decision for us. Right? Because that's what I believe.

Failing that, feel free to point out errors in my legal thinking.

 

[Ontologuy]

We'll include you into the group that fought against interracial marriage as well.

Your inappropriate and unethical attempt at ad hominem is also erroneous in its premise.

Hopefully you and your ilk will either change with the times

Though your use of the phrase "and your ilk" is simply meant as an unjustified derogatory, your rhetorical "hope" is unfounded, and obviously so.

We speak the fact-based truth, and the that doesn't change.

What usually happens is that those who don't speak the truth get found out, and discredited.

or die out and make the world a better place.

Wishing others were killed off by something so you won't have anyone to refute your erroneous arguments is not only futile, it's ethically and morally egregious.

But, when ideologically compelled people don't have a fact-based truth argument and they eventually begin to get the realistic sense that their political agenda goal isn't going to be, in this case, nationally realized, they do often then succumb to ethically and morally egregious "hopes".

Let us hope that, unlike the NAZIs in 1930s and 1940s Germany, such ideologues never again come into power to execute their "hopes".

 

[Ontologuy]

Are you really so desperate in your hate

Here, in typical "ideologue with an obviously losing argument" fashion, when you can't rationally present a cogent winning argument, you simply project about being desperate and emotionally erupt in castigating your opponent with the false epithet of being someone who "hates".

Such unjustified name-calling is considered by psychologists as a sign of emotional immaturity.

that you just can't resist pissing on progress

Your assessment that politically motivated erroneously legislated violations of the word "marriage" in misuse is "progress" is, obviously, false.

by saying that 100 years from now...

My assessment about 100 years from now is highly the most likely scenario, all things considered.

when of course, none of us will be around to tell you how wrong you were.

Meaningless and erroneous.

Meaningless in substance and erroneous in likely outcome.

100 years from now there will be videos of gay weddings that will be available at click of a button, just like they are today.

Yes .. as testimony to how the word "marriage" was once misused and no longer is.

Thus they will serve as a timeless reminder against making that same mistake again. :shock:

The proof that same sex couples *marry* and will continue to marry isn't going anywhere,

Your assessment of what these examples are is simply erroneous.

They are not examples of "marriage".

They are examples of erroneous application and thus misuse of the word "marriage", misuse that will, not long from now, understandably, all things considered, come to an end.

no matter how much you whine about it.

Finishing with a projection about the sound you make when presenting your losing argument and the eventual end of that misuse of the word "marriage" is, as always, meaningless.

 

[Ontologuy]

Oh hey he's spouting his favorite meaningless term again.

Your disparaging of a strawman is simply, as you project, meaningless, as well as irrelevant.

Usage of words changes. Even "gay" and "faggot" are used differently today than a half century ago.

Meaningless, as you here take words out of context.

A "marriage of ideas" illustrates a valid usage of the word "marriage".

But, "gay-marriage" does not.

Why?

Because in the first example a different context of the word "marriage" is being used than when marriage is used to mean the relationship between two people we're employing in this thread.

So, because the context usage is different, the different though semantically related meaning is considered valid.

But, when the context usage is the same, as in the "gay-marriage" oxymoron, then that does not exemplify a "changed meaning" of the word "marriage" at all, but simply erroneous usage of the word "marriage", nothing more.

The different-context uses of "gay" and "faggot" are thus valid, because different context is employed.

I'm not sure why you think this violates some universal principle.

Now you know why it does (see above).

Language changes, man.

Your over-generalization is meaningless.

Language changes according to rules that govern language usage.

Instead of getting hung up on semantics,

Following the rules governing language and word usage is not "getting hung up on semantics". :lol:

Though I do realize that a number of people favoring word misuse in this issue do exhibit oppositional defiant disordered reasoning. :shock:

maybe you should try seeing the people behind the issue.

Meaningless false premise for justifying misuse of words.

Violating definitive propriety. (a term and concept you invented) I'm sure everybody is really, really concerned.

Your two assessments here are both false, obviously.

And again, the concerns of irrational reasoning from oppositional defiant disordered motivation isn't important.

 

[Deuce]

Here, in typical "ideologue with an obviously losing argument" fashion, when you can't rationally present a cogent winning argument, you simply project about being desperate and emotionally erupt in castigating your opponent with the false epithet of being someone who "hates".

Such unjustified name-calling is considered by psychologists as a sign of emotional immaturity.



Your assessment that politically motivated erroneously legislated violations of the word "marriage" in misuse is "progress" is, obviously, false.



My assessment about 100 years from now is highly the most likely scenario, all things considered.



Meaningless and erroneous.

Meaningless in substance and erroneous in likely outcome.



Yes .. as testimony to how the word "marriage" was once misused and no longer is.

Thus they will serve as a timeless reminder against making that same mistake again. :shock:



Your assessment of what these examples are is simply erroneous.

They are not examples of "marriage".

They are examples of erroneous application and thus misuse of the word "marriage", misuse that will, not long from now, understandably, all things considered, come to an end.



Finishing with a projection about the sound you make when presenting your losing argument and the eventual end of that misuse of the word "marriage" is, as always, meaningless.

The nonsense you repeatedly vomit on to this message board is based entirely on the ridiculous notion that the usage of words can't ever change.

And I find it really, really cute that you think people are going to backtrack on the rights of homosexuals because of ​semantics.

You think the use of words changes based on some sort of rules, but that's not how it works. Words are defined by how people use them, and those usages change.

But keep whining about words you think you get to define. Rights trump semantics. And yes, it is semantics. You're arguing solely about the usage of words, that's the definition of semantics.

 

[Ontologuy]

The nonsense you repeatedly vomit on to this message board

Your projection about "nonsense" and "vomit" is irrelevant, though your and your side's continuous attempt to initiate ad hominems when you have an obvious losing argument is again noted.

is based entirely on the ridiculous notion that the usage of words can't ever change.

False, with respect to both the erroneous nature of the substance of your clause here and your false accusations of a strawman.

And I find it really, really cute

Disparaging derogatory again noted, typical for you and your side when in a losing argument.

that you think people are going to backtrack on the rights of homosexuals because of ​semantics.

Your premise is false.

There are rules that govern language, as I just got through explaining to you in a recent post in this thread.

I know liberal political activists don't like valid rules, as they get in the way of making anything mean whatever they want it to mean.

But, that's life.

 

[Deuce]

Your projection about "nonsense" and "vomit" is irrelevant, though your and your side's continuous attempt to initiate ad hominems when you have an obvious losing argument is again noted.



False, with respect to both the erroneous nature of the substance of your clause here and your false accusations of a strawman.



Disparaging derogatory again noted, typical for you and your side when in a losing argument.



Your premise is false.

There are rules that govern language, as I just got through explaining to you in a recent post in this thread.

I know liberal political activists don't like valid rules, as they get in the way of making anything mean whatever they want it to mean.

But, that's life.

Pseudointellectual prose designed to give an air of smug superiority. Might work better if you used the terms correctly. Should I start accusing you of mental disorders too? Oh wait, that would be ad hominem. Can't have that.

There are rules governing language. None of which require the word "marriage" to indicate a male-female relationship. Rather, it indicates a particular legal contract. Which supposed rule of language creates a barrier for two males to enter a specific legal contract?

 

[Ontologuy]

Pseudointellectual prose designed to give an air of smug superiority.

Your false accusation based on projection here is simply that.

Might work better if you used the terms correctly.

Meaningless disconnect, and certainly based on your error of comprehension.

Should I start accusing you of mental disorders too? Oh wait, that would be ad hominem. Can't have that.

Now you're arguing with a strawman.

Oppositional defiant disordered thinking and reaction behavior does not mean one is certifiably diagnosable.

It's simply a valid way to accurately use metaphor to describe and educate about a frequently recurring theme in this matter.

If you take exception to the metaphor, then it might be best to do some self-examination.

Regardless, what I initiate isn't ad hominem, obviously.

Ad hominem is initiating false accusation of "pseudointellectual prose" and "air of smug superiority" and "hater!" and other obvious ad hominems.

When I then suggest, in response to your initiated ad hominem, via metaphor, that you examine your own stuff in reply to your initiation of ad hominems, accurately referring to them as projections when appropriate, that's always in response to you first castigating via ad hominems.

You're just complaining here because you got your initiated ad hominems reflected back to you.

There are rules governing language.

As I accurately pointed out to you.

None of which require the word "marriage" to indicate a male-female relationship.

Here you employ obfuscation via subterfuge.

The rules I presented to you about context prevent a word from having contradictory in-context meanings.

The reason marriage means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" has nothing whatsoever to do with those rules, I'm sure you know.

It has everything to do with the fact that that's what marriage simply means in this context.

Talk about taking things out of context!

Rather, it indicates a particular legal contract.

And, talk about pseudointellectual presentation, here you meander from an erroneous premise to erroneously conclude that the foundational meaning of the word "marriage" isn't "between a man and woman as husband and wife" but is "indicative of a particular legal contract".

Pseudointellectuals often meander from relevant apples to irrelevant oranges, never realizing their error.

Which supposed rule of language creates a barrier for two males to enter a specific legal contract?

And, since your premise about apples is expressed in irrelevant and thus meaningless oranges terms, your oranges conclusions is erroneous as it does not apply to apples.

:roll:

 

[TheNextEra]

Your inappropriate and unethical attempt at ad hominem is also erroneous in its premise.



Though your use of the phrase "and your ilk" is simply meant as an unjustified derogatory, your rhetorical "hope" is unfounded, and obviously so.

We speak the fact-based truth, and the that doesn't change.

What usually happens is that those who don't speak the truth get found out, and discredited.



Wishing others were killed off by something so you won't have anyone to refute your erroneous arguments is not only futile, it's ethically and morally egregious.

But, when ideologically compelled people don't have a fact-based truth argument and they eventually begin to get the realistic sense that their political agenda goal isn't going to be, in this case, nationally realized, they do often then succumb to ethically and morally egregious "hopes".

Let us hope that, unlike the NAZIs in 1930s and 1940s Germany, such ideologues never again come into power to execute their "hopes".

Oh I see you finally managed to Godwin the thread. How very useless of you. Facts don't change, you and your ilk have already lost and will soon have to deal with SSM becoming a REALITY. Deal with it. I will add you to the people I will toast when SSM becomes legal across the U.S.

 

[Ontologuy]

Oh I see you finally managed to Godwin the thread. How very useless of you. Facts don't change, you and your ilk have already lost and will soon have to deal with SSM becoming a REALITY. Deal with it. I will add you to the people I will toast when SSM becomes legal across the U.S.

Meaningless, all of your reply .. except to point out that you know longer state that you wish "me and my ilk" death.

Regardless, I assure you, 100 years from now, essentially no same-sex couples will want to "marry".

And, nobody will be "toasting" anyone about it.

 

[TheNextEra]

Meaningless, all of your reply .. except to point out that you know longer state that you wish "me and my ilk" death.

Regardless, I assure you, 100 years from now, essentially no same-sex couples will want to "marry".

And, nobody will be "toasting" anyone about it.

Well it's a good thing I don't by what your selling, cause in 100 years there will still be SSM. Regardless of what archaic thoughts you and your ilk will have. But no, I don't wish you death, I hope you change. Either way, you mean very little to me regardless whether you die off or not.

So if you don't like what I post, you can either ignore it, or go pound sand. Your choice.

 

[Ontologuy]

Well it's a good thing I don't by what your selling, cause in 100 years there will still be SSM. Regardless of what archaic thoughts you and your ilk will have. But no, I don't wish you death, I hope you change. Either way, you mean very little to me regardless whether you die off or not. So if you don't like what I post, you can either ignore it, or go pound sand. Your choice.

Or, I can call you on your many errors of both fact and ethics. :shock:

My choice.

 

[TheNextEra]

Or, I can call you on your many errors of both fact and ethics. :shock:

My choice.

It's actually YOU that is in error, but then you hate FACTS. Your lack of intellect into homosexuality has been proven for all to see. You see, you seem to think because you write long winded paragraphs that will somehow mask your lack of knowledge. Here's a hint, it doesn't mask it at all.

 

[Deuce]

And, talk about pseudointellectual presentation, here you meander from an erroneous premise to erroneously conclude that the foundational meaning of the word "marriage" isn't "between a man and woman as husband and wife" but is "indicative of a particular legal contract".

Pseudointellectuals often meander from relevant apples to irrelevant oranges, never realizing their error.



And, since your premise about apples is expressed in irrelevant and thus meaningless oranges terms, your oranges conclusions is erroneous as it does not apply to apples.

:roll:

"Foundational" meaning is irrelevant, as you yourself already pointed out. A "marriage of ideas" is a different use of the word in a different context.

Marriage is a legal contract. That is a correct usage of the word in a different context. Your repeated insistence that it's incorrect doesn't make it so.

 

[AGENT J]

oh look another day and facts havent changed same sex marriage does exist and it is indeed in fact marriage :shrug:

Man reality and facts are funny that way, opinions have no impact on them.