The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

Kehama wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:
So should O'Connor and Ginsburg recused themselves every time an abortion case was raised? Or Clarence Thomas when the issue of racial quotas in schools came up?

Or all of them when human rights comes up. Ya know... cause I'm assuming they're all humans.


That's why I voted for Multivac.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
Stengah wrote:
I'd say it'd change quite a bit if Prop 8 gets shot down.

Why?

Couldn't the same be said for any heterosexual judge ruling that Prop. 8 is constitutional?


I think you misread me. I'm not taking into account the judge's sexuality at all. I'm saying that Prop 8 losing this will change quite a few things in the fight for equality. I imagine that if Prop 8 is shown to be unlawful, then the Maine version of it will be gotten rid of as well.

It's my understanding that it would have to go to the Supreme Court for that to be certain. Maine is in a different federal district than California. (Walker is the Chief U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California) so the decision here would only be effective for the nine states in the 9th District.

momgamer wrote:
It's my understanding that it would have to go to the Supreme Court for that to be certain. Maine is in a different federal district than California. (Walker is the Chief U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California) so the decision here would only be effective for the nine states in the 9th District.

Yeah, but hopefully Equality Maine will be emboldened to try taking our version of Prop 8 to court as well.

The 9th is a highly influential circuit. They tend to pioneer a lot of legal thought. When you read legal textbooks, you notice cases from California, Wisconsin, Michigan, New York tend to dominate a lot of pages.

That would be awesome, Stengah. The more places this hits, the better off it is.

Gorilla, only one of the states you've listed there (California) is in the 9th Circuit. Wisconsin is in the 7th, Michigan the 6th, New York is in the 2nd, and for the record Maine is in the 1st.

In legal circles, it might be more accurate to say the 9th is more famous for having stuff overturned by the Supreme Court. For a rather depressing article, read this.

momgamer wrote:
Gorilla, only one of the states you've listed there (California) is in the 9th Circuit. Wisconsin is in the 7th, Michigan the 6th, New York is in the 2nd, and for the record Maine is in the 1st.

I know that, you wouldn't get far in the WI or MI court systems not knowing that. Just saying, there are regional pockets of legal thought with sweeping effects on the whole country. I just didn't have my map handy to be sure. I almost put 1st Circuit for New York. It was the capital of the nation.

Decisions in California will be very significant for circuits outside.

Two videos were posted on YouTube today of the taped depositions of two pro-Prop. 8 witnesses that withdrew from the case citing their fear of having their testimony in the trial appear on YouTube itself. Unfortunately for them, their depositions are part of the public record and, voila!, they have now appeared on YouTube. After watching them, it appears it was probably wise they did not testify since their depositions undercut the defense.

I really wonder if the pro-Prop. 8 side just put up a Craig's List ad for their witnesses.

Here is the video for Paul Nathanson:

Here is the video of Katherine Young:

Kehama wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:
So should O'Connor and Ginsburg recused themselves every time an abortion case was raised? Or Clarence Thomas when the issue of racial quotas in schools came up?

Or all of them when human rights comes up. Ya know... cause I'm assuming they're all humans.

Even Scalia? I mean, I guess I can sorta see it, technically. How do they put it, "Living tissue surrounding by a metallic endoskeleton?"

Those are Pro-Prop 8 witnesses, Rev? Can I find it funny that the top guy, talking about violence against those perceived to be gay has a pretty effete lisp?

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Those are Pro-Prop 8 witnesses, Rev? Can I find it funny that the top guy, talking about violence against those perceived to be gay has a pretty effete lisp?

They were pro-Prop 8 witnesses, but never made it to the stand, particularly because both of them admit that gay couples being married is beneficial to children.

Here is Nathanson:

Attorney: Let’s try to break that down into two parts. First, you recognize that gay couples are today raising children, correct?
Nathanson: Yes.
Attorney: And you believe that enabling those gay couples to marry would enhance their ability to be good parents to the chi-
Nathanson: Yes.

Here is Young:

Attorney: And you believe that allowing gay couples to marry will increase the durability of those gay couples relationships, correct?
Young: Okay. I’ll say yes.

Attorney: Okay. And increasing the durability of those relationships is beneficial to the children that they’re raising, correct?
Young: On that one factor, yes.

It was probably wise they were not put on the stand.

Wow. I can't follow the mental leaps those guys in the video make. Even for depositions those are painfully bad, and I've been reading Freivogel. Which might be useful reading for some of you here if you have a really intractable case of insomnia, or if the Walker-is-gay issue starts really dealing the pressure for him to recuse.

KingGorilla wrote:
momgamer wrote:
Gorilla, only one of the states you've listed there (California) is in the 9th Circuit. Wisconsin is in the 7th, Michigan the 6th, New York is in the 2nd, and for the record Maine is in the 1st.

I know that, you wouldn't get far in the WI or MI court systems not knowing that. Just saying, there are regional pockets of legal thought with sweeping effects on the whole country. I just didn't have my map handy to be sure. I almost put 1st Circuit for New York. It was the capital of the nation.

Decisions in California will be very significant for circuits outside.

Except you'll find a very disproportionate number of cases out of the 9th were overturned by the Supreme Court. That link I included was just an overview of the issue. This has been going on for years, and it has a chilling effect on other courts following them on their own. And if the SCOTUS decide to take on Perry, it's going to be a real concern.

The one this that I have been trying to wrap my noodle around is the argument that "my religion says homosexuality is an abomination."

So I finally looked up the definition of abomination:

1. anything abominable; anything greatly disliked or abhorred.
2. intense aversion or loathing; detestation
3. a vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit, etc.

None of these definitions say anything about being inhuman. Is it not plausible that what you abhor and find shameful, vile or detestable is still human at its core and worthy of rights and privileges of a human being?

Unfortunately, Blizzard has forever imprinted upon me what an abomination looks like. I've seen picture of Ellen Degeneres: VERY disimilar to Patchwerk.

fangblackbone wrote:
The one this that I have been trying to wrap my noodle around is the argument that "my religion says homosexuality is an abomination."

So I finally looked up the definition of abomination:

1. anything abominable; anything greatly disliked or abhorred.
2. intense aversion or loathing; detestation
3. a vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit, etc.

None of these definitions say anything about being inhuman. Is it not plausible that what you abhor and find shameful, vile or detestable is still human at its core and worthy of rights and privileges of a human being?

I feel that abomination is often misused as shorthand for something unnatural that shouldn't exist. This might be the case in the context you've highlighted.

I feel that abomination is often misused as shorthand for something unnatural that shouldn't exist. This might be the case in the context you've highlighted.

Then the issue of their beliefs should be confronted further:

Are they feeling that it is vile, detestable, or shameful behavior?
Are they feeling it is unnatural in the context of procreation?
The behavior shouldn't exist?

Or is it unnatural in the sense that they deem it otherworldly or demonic?
Or that practitioners of homosexuality shouldn't exist?

The former they have a right to believe but should never be upheld by law or government. Believers of the latter are the best examples of abomination I have witnessed in my lifetime.

fangblackbone wrote:
Are they feeling that it is vile, detestable, or shameful behavior?
Are they feeling it is unnatural in the context of procreation?
The behavior shouldn't exist?

Growing up in evangelical churches I was always told that homosexual activity is "unnatural because God designed humans in a certain way and that what these people are doing was never intended." Essentially tab A goes into slot B per God but if you're trying to put tab A into slot C or slot B into slot B then the world goes up in flames. There was never much more to it than that. Oh, and of course there was always the unspoken "eww factor" among most if not all of them. Always seemed a flimsy argument to me. Of course there were tons of sexual behaviors that were looked down upon by the churches I went to.

Seth wrote:
Unfortunately, Blizzard has forever imprinted upon me what an abomination looks like. I've seen picture of Ellen Degeneres: VERY disimilar to Patchwerk.

If this were true I would DVR her show every single day.

Let me say in advance that I'm a filthy skimmer. Actually, I'm worse. I just don't have the energy to go through 12 pages of responses on this thread to see if anyone has addressed this burning question.

Has anyone actually articulated what actual damage gay marriage inflicts on straight marriage or society in general?

Seriously, I'm curious.

A lot of what the prosecutor tried to prove with their witnesses and cross-examinations is that society improves in just about everyway. Economically, through more lasting relationships, through better family units (getting proponents of Prop 8 to admit that married gay couples would raise children better than non-married gay couples), and psychologically for gay people themselves - treating them as full members of society and therefore making them more productive and happier people.

You are a filthy skimmer :-). I highly recomend you read Rev Phoenix's day-by-day recaps of the trial. Ignore the rest of us.

fangblackbone wrote:
The one this that I have been trying to wrap my noodle around is the argument that "my religion says homosexuality is an abomination."

So I finally looked up the definition of abomination:

1. anything abominable; anything greatly disliked or abhorred.
2. intense aversion or loathing; detestation
3. a vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit, etc.

None of these definitions say anything about being inhuman. Is it not plausible that what you abhor and find shameful, vile or detestable is still human at its core and worthy of rights and privileges of a human being?

Yeah, but if you think an action is wrong at its core and disapproved by an authority you believe to be infallible, you might naturally lean towards banning that act. To some people, marriage is not a right, but a privilege. It's not about maximizing freedom, it's about doing what promotes what is moral, and discouraging the immoral in their view.

And using the concept of rights in any argument will immediately run the argument into circular motions. You have to come up with some criteria for agreeing on what deserves to be a right.

Paleocon wrote:
Let me say in advance that I'm a filthy skimmer. Actually, I'm worse. I just don't have the energy to go through 12 pages of responses on this thread to see if anyone has addressed this burning question.

Has anyone actually articulated what actual damage gay marriage inflicts on straight marriage or society in general?

Seriously, I'm curious.

Nope.

Articulated is a stretch. Grammaticaly correct sentences have been uttered-subject verb and all that.

Let's put this on front street. There are bigots and hate mongers who have found something they can fill their coffers with and get on TV about. They are whores, of the highest degree. I have no patience, no tolerance for these people and wish them removed from existence. I want them federally prosecuted for the fraud, overt campaign violations, and first amendment violations.

Bill Moyers interviews Ted Olson and David Boies, the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the case.

Video and transcript or podcast version.

It's nearly an hour, but it's a fascinating look into the case, the reasons why they took it up, and the law and social issues involved.

This seems rather appropriate for this thread:

http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/201...

A small child understands marriage equality a lot better than some conservative Americans.

Just a very quick update...

Judge Walker is at least two weeks (minimum) from calling for closing arguments and may try to have them televised. There has been no explanation as to the delay considering during trial he anticipated calling for closing arguments in late February. However, there is conjecture that it is due to the voluminous amount of evidence presented during trial that Judge Walker wishes to review.

I will post an update when I hear more.

Thanks for the update Phoenix! I wondered what was going on with the trial.

Given the quality of the evidence presented re gay people destroying society I'm amazed that it's taking him so long.

That said, in his position I'd be spending 95% of the time alternating between hysterical laughter and near-clinical depression, so I suppose that might slow things down a bit.

He was probably too busy ruining heterosexual marriages and recruiting kids to be gay. And they drink baby blood right?

KingGorilla wrote:
He was probably too busy ruining heterosexual marriages and recruiting kids to be gay. And they drink baby blood right?

Only if it is absolutely faaabulous baby blood.

Obama orders hospital visitation rights for gays, lesbians

Does this weaken the case for same-sex marriage?