Jump to content

Wow.. Now I can Marry Him


Lucky Pierre

Recommended Posts

... not so far.. seems Florida has several little... ttitles.... subordinates... and otherwise other what nots.....

here is my request for all you big mouthed lawyers.... Marry Me and My Boyfriend in Florida.

the challenge is laid....

the price is yours... get the first same sex marriage in Florida....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

I, for one, hope they don't stay the order pending appeal. And I'm happy that according to my favorite popular legal commentator, it's a spectacularly written decision. She thinks he wrote it specifically for Kennedy, which is certainly the right way to go about it.

Lithwick notes that the decision is full of elaborate findings of fact - expressly argued as points of fact - which is, indeed, the best play in the book for getting your opinion to stick.

And, having said that, I'm off to exercise a little of that advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I scanned the decision. Here it is for anyone who wants a look:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL

It was struck down on both due process and equal protection grounds. Re equal protection, It's pretty amazing that proponents of proposition 8 couldn't even get past a rational basis standard. On due process: once you decide that the fundamental right to marry means a right to marry anyone regardless of gender, then it's a pretty easy opinion to write.

Looking at the factual record, it appears that proponents proffered tv pundit types you might see on Fox News as experts.

Btw, Judge Walker is gay. He was nominated by Ronald Reagan, twice, and was finally confirmed to the federal bench after being nominated for a third time by President H.W. Bush. His nomination was opposed by the usual suspects:

Coalitions including such groups as the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the Human Rights Campaign, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force worked to block the nomination.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... not so far.. seems Florida has several little... ttitles.... subordinates... and otherwise other what nots.....

here is my request for all you big mouthed lawyers.... Marry Me and My Boyfriend in Florida.

the challenge is laid....

the price is yours... get the first same sex marriage in Florida....

I find myself tempted to say something about "One Small step for man, one Giant leap for man on man..."

Seriously though, I may be from the other side of the isle, as it were, but I wish you luck. I've never been a supporter of gay marriage, but I've always felt that it was wrong to outlaw it. So, by way of atonement for my inability to be supportive I will offer this... If the lawyers get the legal issues out of the way and you find yourselves in need of a minister, I'd be happy to dust off my ordination in exchange for travel expenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

Looking at the factual record, it appears that proponents proffered tv pundit types you might see on Fox News as experts.

That's really just some kind of wonderful, isn't it?

Btw, Judge Walker is gay.

It's got to be awfully fulfilling to do something both so socially and personally significant during your career. Cheers to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find myself tempted to say something about "One Small step for man, one Giant leap for man on man..."

Seriously though, I may be from the other side of the isle, as it were, but I wish you luck. I've never been a supporter of gay marriage, but I've always felt that it was wrong to outlaw it. So, by way of atonement for my inability to be supportive I will offer this... If the lawyers get the legal issues out of the way and you find yourselves in need of a minister, I'd be happy to dust off my ordination in exchange for travel expenses.

:rofl: I hope they take you up on that - this post has got to be the most lukewarm lack-of-support for gay marriage ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beg to differ. I found it, in context, to be a surprising and almost heartwarming episode of the Blauer Hour.

I really didn't mean it come across as a lack of support for Blauer, i'm sorry if it did. Its just that offering to officiate a gay marriage seems like an unlikely way to end a quite brief post that begins with how one dosen't support gay marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the decision yesterday. The decision is very, very detailed. Vaughn explains the facts that LEAD to THIS particular case and then details the trial that followed. What I found to be astonishing was just how poor a case the proponents (and the state) made against the Plaintiffs. It was more than just "mailing it in"; they just could not put on a case (as Louis CK has always asked, "What could they possibly argue? 'Your honor.... THEIR FUCKIN' QUEER!!!!'). Two of the Pro-Prop 8 crowd actually testified during their depositions IN FAVOR of gay marriage (to one degree or another) and the Pro 8'ers only real witness - Blackenhorn -was a horror show. Vaughn easily picked apart his arguments with ease (and also stated that other than cross-examination, the Pro Prop 8 people had no real case).

The ultimate decision is then broken down into layers, first defining the Prop 8 position, tearing it to shreds and using the evidence presented to distill the law. That was the truly extraordinary part of this case: it was an actual trial, not a Summary Judgment or a lifeless appeal. The judge ONLY uses what was contained in the transcript and case law. When synthesized down to size, the state's case was, in effect, pro-creation matters, and the judge basically reminded them that all of Supreme Court Law aw is against them on that one.

The judge then laid out the Equal Protection and Due Process arguments. Its here that the decision ties together case law and the facts of the case; its a remarkably well-reasoned opinion. However, the judge does make some perilous turns in what appears to be vacillations between "strict scrutiny" and "rational basis", but does ultimately say that the law cannot survive Rational Basis. I also think the judge should have done a slightly better job in quelling the idea that the voters have the ultimate say here (they do not). If this case is going to be overturned, I think it will be because the judge did not properly address the weight that the voters' decision could carry (do not mistake me, though; he's ultimately correct: the voters cannot vote to discriminate or create a second-class of citizens).

Overall, it was a great and needed decision. And I hope it is well received once it makes it to SCOTUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barry Goldwater disagrees.

Funny that his name would come up in this thread. Back when I was new to Arizona and working as a food service delivery driver, we frequently had to deliver to the house of his grandson. Barry Goldwater III (or was it IV?), was a skinny junkie living an alternative lifestyle. There would frequently be large quantities of various drugs (ranging from high end, to the lowest of the low end) and their associated paraphernalia laying all over his house. From what I could gather by the acquaintances, their attitudes, and the various states of dress (and intoxication) at our times of delivery... Young Mr. Goldwater went a multitude of ways. You would think that his family would try harder to hide him away somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

Its just that offering to officiate a gay marriage seems like an unlikely way to end a quite brief post that begins with how one dosen't support gay marriage.

Yeah, I wish my officiant had been as supportive of atheism. *sigh*

However, the judge does make some perilous turns in what appears to be vacillations between "strict scrutiny" and "rational basis", but does ultimately say that the law cannot survive Rational Basis.

No doubt that's intentional - sort of dicta, but intended to pave the way for showing that non-heteros are entitled to intermediate scrutiny, or perhaps rational basis-plus. Which they should be, seeing as its an immutable characteristic and a numerical minority.

Of course, there's always Scalia's foolproof argument that since there is (1) a pink mafia, and (2) gay people have recently made headway in the political system, they (3) therefore are not in need of extra constitutional protection because the pink mafia is clearly very powerful. Brilliant.

Also, I'm starting to get concerned about the idea that the other side just did a poor job stating their case. Could it not be that when the argument consists of scientific evidence and rational argument based on secular principles, there just isn't much of a case to make?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, Judge Walker is gay. He was nominated by Ronald Reagan, twice, and was finally confirmed to the federal bench after being nominated for a third time by President H.W. Bush. His nomination was opposed by the usual suspects:

Wow, this just...wow. Let's watch conservatives tie themselves in knots trying to get around this one.

Actually, forget what I just said. If there is anything I have learned about the right-wing noise machine, it's that truth is no impediment to a good slogan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...