California gay marriage ban overturned

[gabosaurus]

Sorry homophobes, you have lost another round:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...476,full.story

[BoogyMan]

Once again Gabs shows how in vogue it is to be down right dishonest if you are a member of the loony left wing fringe.

One who does not want marriage to be redefined based on the debauchery of the modern leftist does not qualify as a homophobe.

Dictionary.com defines "homophobe" thusly:

ho·mo·phobe   /ˈhoʊməˌfoʊb/ Show Spelled[hoh-muh-fohb] Show IPA
–noun
a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.

There is no fear or hate involved.

Since the judge who handed down this ruling is a homosexual I think we will see this one in front of the Supreme Court fairly soon. The fact that San Franciscans find no issue with this obvious ethical conflict simply points out how out of touch they are with the real world.

[Little-Acorn]

"Homophobe": (n) A term invented by homosexual advocates in an attempt to pretend that normal people have some kind of fear of homosexuals, since the advocates can find no other points they can refute in the people's arguments and must resort to calling names instead.

[KarlMarx]

Sorry homophobes, you have lost another round:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...476,full.story

Gabby... don't you get astigmatism looking down your nose at everyone?

Well, let me post this in a big font so that you can see it better.

Radical Gay Rights Activists 1
The California Voters 0

You know, this was that Proposition 80(?) that was overturned, right? You know which segment of the California population was most in favor of banning gay marriage? Blacks and Latinos.

Had this been a ruling over illegal immigration or some other Politcally Correct rallying point, some of us (Gabby most likely) would have been prattling on about how racist this decision was.

I guess Gay is the New Black... Gay trumps Black in the Politically Correct Poker Game... and White is something like the 2 of spades.

Don't worry, it won't stop here... the gays will be demanding something else before too long...

I wonder how Gabby will feel when she has to share the lavatory with men... don't think I'm making that up... New York had a "gender fairness" bill in consideration.. that would have been one of the consequences.

[KarlMarx]

"Homophobe": (n) A term invented by homosexual advocates in an attempt to pretend that normal people have some kind of fear of homosexuals, since the advocates can find no other points they can refute in the people's arguments and must resort to calling names instead.

Someone who is much more eloquent that I had a name for this phenomenon... "Defining Deviancy Down".

[Missileman]

"Homophobe": (n) A term invented by homosexual advocates in an attempt to pretend that normal people have some kind of fear of homosexuals, since the advocates can find no other points they can refute in the people's arguments and must resort to calling names instead.

Is that really that much different than the opponent's arguments (like, allowing gays to marry will destroy heterosexual marriage), but when pressed by the judge to explain just how that might come about, the opponents were unable to offer anything to support that "invention"?

[gabosaurus]

Nice to see a fair judge screw homophobes up the butt. I don't see anything criminal about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. I find it more deviant how some adults masturbate over their gun collections.
The courts need to stop legislating personal morality. There are enough restrictions on the books as it is.
Oh, and I already share a bathroom with a man, so I am not worried about that one.

[KarlMarx]

Nice to see a fair judge screw homophobes up the butt. I don't see anything criminal about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. I find it more deviant how some adults masturbate over their gun collections.
The courts need to stop legislating personal morality. There are enough restrictions on the books as it is.
Oh, and I already share a bathroom with a man, so I am not worried about that one.

Legislating morality, let's look at that.

1. There is legislation against lying. For instance, lying on your income tax statement, lying on a timecard if you're charging a government contract, lying under oath.

2. There is legislation against murder. Murder of any sort, unless of course, you're talking about unborn kids.

3. There is legislation against stealing. Embezzlement, grand larceny, you name it...

So, you see, that's what the law *is*. It is a reflection of the morals of the governed.

Now, when you have judges overturning the will of the people.. isn't that also legislating morality from the bench?

[SassyLady]

Legislating morality, let's look at that.

1. There is legislation against lying. For instance, lying on your income tax statement, lying on a timecard if you're charging a government contract, lying under oath.

2. There is legislation against murder. Murder of any sort, unless of course, you're talking about unborn kids.

3. There is legislation against stealing. Embezzlement, grand larceny, you name it...

So, you see, that's what the law *is*. It is a reflection of the morals of the governed.

Now, when you have judges overturning the will of the people.. isn't that also legislating morality from the bench?

Must spread rep.....

[bullypulpit]

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Vaughn Walker, U.S. District Chief Judge."

A view I have long expressed regarding bans on same-gender marriages. Never mind that the opponents of same gender marriage utterly failed to provide any evidence of objectively quantifiable harm to, either the individuals involved or the community at large, also a view long expressed by me, here.

But this rational, sensible, legal analysis crafted by Judge Walker will do nothing to blunt the fear, insecurity and bigotry of those who oppose the right of same gender couples to marry. Never mind that marriage is a religious institution. Never mind that the only compelling interest the state has in the marriage of two consenting adults, regardless of gender, is the contractual relationship it establishes between the individuals.

Those opposed to the marriage of same gender couples haven't a leg to stand on. But like the "Black Knight" in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", they will continue to insist "It's only a flesh wound!", and irrationally continue their fight.

The full text:

<a title="View Prop 8 Ruling FINAL on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL" style="margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block; text-decoration: underline;">Prop 8 Ruling FINAL</a> <object id="doc_263782217653490" name="doc_263782217653490" height="500" width="100%" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf" style="outline:none;" > <param name="movie" value="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf"> <param name="wmode" value="opaque"> <param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff"> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"> <param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"> <param name="FlashVars" value="document_id=35374462&access_key=key-svga9mgedaz1bibr18j&page=1&viewMode=list"> <embed id="doc_263782217653490" name="doc_263782217653490" src="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=35374462&access_key=k ey-svga9mgedaz1bibr18j&page=1&viewMode=list" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="500" width="100%" wmode="opaque" bgcolor="#ffffff"></embed> </object>

Of particular interest to both supporters and opponents of same gender marriage, begins on page 60 of the decision. This begins the legal analysis of the evidence presented, and demolishes the arguments of those opposing the marriage of same gender couples.

[red states rule]

Once again liberals show how they support their talking point anout counting every vote

Yea, count those votes as long as we approve of what they are voting for or against

You do know alot of blacks, and Dems voted against gay marriage - right?

This is only piss off voters even more as Nov 2, 2010 approaches

[red states rule]

Nice to see a fair judge screw homophobes up the butt. I don't see anything criminal about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. I find it more deviant how some adults masturbate over their gun collections.
The courts need to stop legislating personal morality. There are enough restrictions on the books as it is.
Oh, and I already share a bathroom with a man, so I am not worried about that one.

and a gay Judge at that

[bullypulpit]

Legislating morality, let's look at that.

Yes...Let's...

1. There is legislation against lying. For instance, lying on your income tax statement, lying on a timecard if you're charging a government contract, lying under oath.

Your examples involve fraud and perjury, both with centuries of legal and objectively quantifiable evidence of harm to those involved and the community at large.

2. There is legislation against murder. Murder of any sort, unless of course, you're talking about unborn kids.

Again, murder is a clear cut case of demonstrable harm.

3. There is legislation against stealing. Embezzlement, grand larceny, you name it...

Yet again, these crimes cause demonstrable harm to those immediately involved and the community at large...seeing the pattern yet?

So, you see, that's what the law *is*. It is a reflection of the morals of the governed.

Now, when you have judges overturning the will of the people.. isn't that also legislating morality from the bench?

A reflection of the morals where those morals argue against objectively quantifiable and demonstrable harm to individuals and the community at large.

As for "overturning the will of the people", Brown v. Board of Education overturned "the will of the people". In striking down anti-miscegenation laws, the courts overturned "the will of the people". The instances where the courts have overturned "the will of the people", when the "will of the people", causes harm to individuals and society at large are too numerous to mention.

[red states rule]

Yes...Let's...



Your examples involve fraud and perjury, both with centuries of legal and objectively quantifiable evidence of harm to those involved and the community at large.



Again, murder is a clear cut case of demonstrable harm.



Yet again, these crimes causes demonstrable harm to those immediately involved and the community at large...seeing the pattern yet?



A reflection of the morals where those morals argue against objectively quantifiable and demonstrable harm to individuals and the community at large.

As for "overturning the will of the people", Brown v. Board of Education overturned "the will of the people". In striking down anti-miscegenation laws, the courts overturned "the will of the people". The instances where the courts have overturned "the will of the people", when the "will of the people", is causes harm to individuals and society at large are too numerous to mention.

You know many blacks are pissed over libs comparing gay marriage to the civil rights movement. You guys just keep pising off your base more and more

How is that hope and change going for you BP? Are you looking forward to November as you were 2 years ago?

As millions lose their jobs, as the economy tanks, as our debt soars - libs are more interested in flipping off the voters of CA to advance their social agenda

[bullypulpit]

and a gay Judge at that

And that is an issue why? Would a straight judge have rendered a different decision?

Probably not. Read the ruling. It is clear and provides explicit rationals for the judge's decision in the case. Which is more than can be said for the Prop 8 supporters.