• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California gay marriage ban overturned: report

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oorah! Im happy to see that this ridiculous ban has collapsed.
 
from the OP article said:
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license," Walker wrote in the conclusion of the 136-page opinion.
Click to expand...

This is true. As I've said time and time again, the anti-GM lobby has no real rational basis for denying GM. You often hear, "They do have equal protection: they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like straight people can." It is the most flimsy of arguments and I'm glad that this judge had the logic to deny it.

The battle isn't over but the anti-GM movement will have a tough time proving that letting gay people marry has nothing to do with equal protection.

Have fun with that ;)
 
danarhea said:
You know, there is something I do not understand - That would be why some people want to ban gay marriage, don't want gays in the military, and basically want to deny gays the same rights that everybody else has, when the fact is, that America, all the way back to the Revolution, is based on "gayness". In order to prove my point, I now lay out a chapter from my new book (that does not now, nor ever will exist).

From DanaRhea's Fractured American History........

That the United States has always been a gay nation cannot be argued. In fact, America itself was founded upon "gayness". Archeologists, stumbling upon an old battle hymn used by the early American military, have finally decoded it's meaning.

From "Yankee Doodle", which was originally created by the British, in order to poke fun at the American upstarts:

"Yankee Doodle went to town
Riding on a pony"

Yes, that's right. A pony. A real man would have ridden a horse. But why a pony? That is explained in detail in the next passage:

"Stuck a feather in his cap
And called it macaroni"

This is key. The term "macaroni" refers to The Macaroni Club in England, from which arose one of the greatest homosexual scandals in the history of that nation. The "macaronis" were a group of very wealthy and effeminate men, who loved to wear makeup, huge powdered wigs, dresses, and even panties, while discussing political events of the day, all the while sipping tea and eating crumpets. And, of course, they thoroughly enjoyed sodomizing each other.

So, according to the song, what we have is a gay man, who does not have the wealth of the macaronis, but tries hard to emulate their "queerness".

"Yankee Doodle keep it up
Yankee Doodle Dandy
Mind the music and the step"

Minding the music and the step is something that gays are very good at. Just ask Baryshnikov.

"And with the girls be handy"

Pure sarcasm.

And what song did American drum and fife corps play, as they went into battle? Why it was Yankee Doodle, of course.

But, you say, they just did it to rub it in England's face. To that argument, I reply "Precisely, that is exactly what they did". To the British, the American military yelled triumphantly "We're queer, and we're here!!

:prof Class dismissed.

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Someone watched this ;)
robert-wuhl.jpg
 
whenever it's been tried, gay marriage has failed before the votership, 31 for 31

congrats on your transient legal victory

the consequences will be electoral, nation wide

once again, the elites know best, voters be damned

happy day!

seeya in november---in michigan, pennsylvania, missouri, delaware, arkansas...

america's watching
 
Let's be fair to friend Tex please. His full comment was this:

texmaster said:
Yep. Another activist judge overthrowing the will of the people for a second time based on nothing but their own personal politics.
Click to expand...

Note the second half to his paragraph. He is not saying that the ruling was wrong based on the will of the people, but because of the judges personal politics, the will of the people was overturned. He is still wrong, but let's argue against him based on what he actually said.
 
Redress said:
Let's be fair to friend Tex please. His full comment was this:



Note the second half to his paragraph. He is not saying that the ruling was wrong based on the will of the people, but because of the judges personal politics, the will of the people was overturned. He is still wrong, but let's argue against him based on what he actually said.
Click to expand...

The judge applied justice, the will of the people does not matter.

/thread

:mrgreen:
 
The Prof said:
whenever it's been tried, gay marriage has failed before the votership, 31 for 31

congrats on your transient legal victory

the consequences will be electoral, nation wide

once again, the elites know best, voters be damned

happy day!

seeya in november---in michigan, pennsylvania, missouri, delaware, arkansas...

america's watching
Click to expand...

Again, we are not a pure democracy, we are a Republic. And built upon the adherence to the rights and liberties of the individual. The ban on gay marriage infringes upon right to contract of the individual. It doesn't matter if elected officials, or the majority of Americans do not like it. They have no just position to argue against it from. Not so long as marriage remains a government issued and recognized contract.
 
The Prof said:
whenever it's been tried, gay marriage has failed before the votership, 31 for 31

congrats on your transient legal victory

the consequences will be electoral, nation wide

once again, the elites know best, voters be damned

happy day!

seeya in november---in michigan, pennsylvania, missouri, delaware, arkansas...

america's watching
Click to expand...

And voters used to approve bans on inter-racial marriage. Voters used to approve slavery. Voters used to approve laws that didn't allow women to vote.

Bigots always lose in the end. They will this time as well.
 
The Prof said:
whenever it's been tried, gay marriage has failed before the votership, 31 for 31
Click to expand...
This is not a mater for the electoral arena any more than freedom of speech is for the KKK.

seeya in november---in michigan, pennsylvania, missouri, delaware, arkansas...

america's watching
Click to expand...
You mean you predict a victory for bigotry? How could they be watching, having their heads up each others' asses.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The judge applied justice, the will of the people does not matter.

/thread

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I am not arguing that point, but Tex was not arguing the ruling was wrong because of the will of the people.

Yes, it pains me to defend him, but it is the right thing to do, and sometimes the right thing to do is difficult.
 
Redress said:
Let's be fair to friend Tex please. His full comment was this:



Note the second half to his paragraph. He is not saying that the ruling was wrong based on the will of the people, but because of the judges personal politics, the will of the people was overturned. He is still wrong, but let's argue against him based on what he actually said.
Click to expand...

But he gave no reason for such a statement. The judge filed a long opinion detailing the law and giving legal reasons for the decision. Tex (who I will bet had not read the decision at the time of his post) just automatically assumed that the judge must have used personal politics instead of the law.
 
In my search to learn more of Judge Walker, besides being nominated by GHW Bush and being confirmed on unanimous consent in 1989, I came across this...

Vaughn Walker almost lost his chance to reach the federal bench because of claims that he was anti-gay and hostile to civil rights. Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his alleged "insensitivity" to gays and the poor. His first appointment, from President Ronald Reagan in 1987, stalled out in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Gay judge has proven record of impartiality - SFGate
Click to expand...



Ironic?
 
Your Star said:
Someone watched this ;)
robert-wuhl.jpg
Click to expand...

You guessed right, and my post is loosly based on that (as much of it as I can remember of it), with a little extra thrown in. BTW, I loved that show. :)

** Although Wuhl was much better in "The Hollywood Knights". LOL.
 
prometeus said:
This is not a mater for the electoral arena any more than freedom of speech is for the KKK.

You mean you predict a victory for bigotry? How could they be watching, having their heads up each others' asses.
Click to expand...

This is another one. I am ecstatic about this ruling. Every one who knows me on this board knows that gay issues are important to me. However, it is perfectly possible to oppose gay marriage without being bigoted, or for bigoted reasons. Let's leave the over the top rhetoric to the other guys, then laugh at them for it.
 
Redress said:
I am not arguing that point, but Tex was not arguing the ruling was wrong because of the will of the people.

Yes, it pains me to defend him, but it is the right thing to do, and sometimes the right thing to do is difficult.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to avoid the whole gay people can get married crap, that is usually trotted out.

Facts are, the judge applied the concept of equality under the law.
A very good thing because the religious getting easily offended by gay people is not important.
 
BWG said:
In my search to learn more of Judge Walker, besides being nominated by GHW Bush and being confirmed on unanimous consent in 1989, I came across this...

Ironic?
Click to expand...

But that would mean (gasp) that the judge made his decision despite it being against his own personal politics! That the judge actually applied the law, just like judges are supposed to do!
 
Groucho said:
But he gave no reason for such a statement. The judge filed a long opinion detailing the law and giving legal reasons for the decision. Tex (who I will bet had not read the decision at the time of his post) just automatically assumed that the judge must have used personal politics instead of the law.
Click to expand...

Right, absolutely, I agree. I am just pointing out that his argument was not that it was the will of the people, as some claimed.
 
BWG said:
In my search to learn more of Judge Walker, besides being nominated by GHW Bush and being confirmed on unanimous consent in 1989, I came across this...





Ironic?
Click to expand...

He is also gay, which makes the above especially amusing.

Worse than that, he is a libertarian, which means I am applauding a libertarian...
 
danarhea said:
You guessed right, and my post is loosly based on that (as much of it as I can remember of it), with a little extra thrown in. BTW, I loved that show. :)

** Although Wuhl was much better in "The Hollywood Knights". LOL.
Click to expand...

I loved that show too. It told me about the real badass Israel Bissell! Paul Revere was nothing compared to him ;) Even if his name sounded like a jewish vacuum cleaner :lamo
 
I wonder what this will mean for the other states that have banned GM.
 
Redress said:
He is also gay, which makes the above especially amusing.

Worse than that, he is a libertarian, which means I am applauding a libertarian...
Click to expand...

Don't just applaud. Come over to the dark side and join us. :mrgreen:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom