Jump to content

Wow.. Now I can Marry Him


Lucky Pierre

Recommended Posts

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.

"Hank Hill Voice" man that Johnston was a master propagandist I'll tell you what.

Oh you just have to have faith Mr. Glen Beck always finds a way when he's not crying or talking about the Weather Men or other student radicals.

Original Poster Florida's time will come just be patient. I've never understood this particular issue I thought conservatives were all about a lack of government. Who has any right to an adult couple of legal age what to do in the privacy of their own home? Who gives a damn who you marry. Oh to live in a sane country where the conservatives couldn't care less about God, Gays and Guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Yes it is true. Also reference Judge John E Jones III decision in the "Dover Monkey Trail." It's a great smackdown, in the legal sense, of creationism and Intelligent Design and affirmation of the Theory of Evolution.

This is one of many quoteables from his decision

“The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial,” he wrote. “The students, parents and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.”

And just like in this case the conservatives best reply is the Reagen appointed conservative judge is a "liberal activist judge." Nothing like an Ad Hominem attack to really drive in the point at how weak you argument really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

I wish I could find a way to use the phrase "breathtaking inanity" in a decision.

I just did a search of all federal court opinions and, indeed, the Kitzmiller decision you quoted is the only one.

Also, you can tell from reading the decision that things went really, realy, disastrously bad during cross-examination. I'm sure the Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the ACLU brought in the big guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TR Strongly disagrees.

*******************

Tangent alert

*******************

TR was a racist, power-abusing scumbag who was largely responsible for the debacle in the Phillippines, encouraged the Japanese to seize Korea, and generally did more damage to the Pacific region than any President in history. Not even close.

******************

End of Tangent

******************

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's never occurred to me until now....who proposes in a homosexual marriage? Is it just kind of...whoever summons up the guts or is there some sort of tradition there?

Part of the fun in being the outsider is we can do whatever we want regardless of "tradition."

That said, I am under the impression that nowadays, women would feel okay to "propose" to their boyfriends just as men would propose to their girlfriends.

FWIW, I did the proposing, on one knee, with a ring, after dinner at our favorite steakhouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

It has to be. This could be what he's remembered for, especially if its affirmed (not likely in my book).

I'm glad Theodore Olson is on our side for this one. I actually got to see him argue in the Supreme Court in person once, while he was Solicitor General back in 2004. The guy is pretty incredible. Olson is supposed to be on Fox New Channel this Sunday. Could be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*******************

Tangent alert

*******************

TR was a racist, power-abusing scumbag who was largely responsible for the debacle in the Phillippines, encouraged the Japanese to seize Korea, and generally did more damage to the Pacific region than any President in history. Not even close.

******************

End of Tangent

******************

Even if you take TR out, the Republican Party has produced their fair share of great Presidents. Lincoln, Taft, Eisenhower, Ford... if you're really generous, you can probably even toss in Nixon.

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?

The problem is that the whole argument seems to be based on, "Gays are icky." That's weak, even for bigots. They didn't even bother to fabricate any good stereotypes, like the Hulking Black Man Who Rapes White Women and Needs To Get Lynched that their predecessors in this field used with great success for nearly forty years after the Civil War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that the whole argument seems to be based on, "Gays are icky." That's weak, even for bigots. They didn't even bother to fabricate any good stereotypes, like the Hulking Black Man Who Rapes White Women and Needs To Get Lynched that their predecessors in this field used with great success for nearly forty years after the Civil War.

Indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Is that really the crux of his argument? Apparently he's some sort of genius at reading the tea leaves of the constitution and what not. It always seems a bit like interpreting the Bible, if you know what I mean.

Anyhoo, so what if the judge is gay. Gay marriage is supposed to affect straights (so the argument goes), so having a straight judge is also a matter of bias. If in fact a straight judge is deemed to be impartial, you should allow that gay marriage does not in fact affect straights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carrying over from the US Politics thread, per TP's request:

That's ironic, because as I see it, as usual, the board liberals have trouble putting together a coherent legal argument. With a few exceptions, the posts in response to the "usual suspects" have been weak ass snipes by people like DG who either do not try or lack the mental faculties to understand the legal issues at play.

Funnily enough, my entire stance has been that this needs to be decided on legal interpretations and not on some dim, nebulous appeal to the "will of the people" which people keep trying to bring up. The "will of the people" is too evenly split for it to be much of a factor in the court's decision. It's as dumb an exercise to argue "the will of the people" as it is to project "the founding fathers' intent."

By all means debate the precedents and constitutional interpretations relevant to the ruling. If you keep bringing up sideshow shit like calling the judge a publicity whore or implying his sexual orientation makes his judgment suspect, don't expect your argument to be treated like anything more than the stale Limbaughite clowning that it is. Lev and I both objected to your focus on the side issues and your response is to whine like an Oppressed Conservative Martyr and make noises about "substance" when we were both calling out the lack of substance in your "OMG the judge wanted the trial televised!!!" canard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

Is that really the crux of his argument? Apparently he's some sort of genius at reading the tea leaves of the constitution and what not. It always seems a bit like interpreting the Bible, if you know what I mean.

I've read more of his opinions than I can count, and I think they're - occasionally amusing - transparent trash the majority of the time. When he spoke at my law school, I did not even go, so disingenuous do I think he is as a Justice. Easterbrook et. al. are not my favorites, but at least they are logical. Scalia's just a rhetorician.

But anyway, yeah, they say fundamentalists make great lawyers, yay for me.

And Tempra, I want to hear this straight out. I am a Board liberal. Do I, in your esteemed opinion, have problems putting together a coherent legal argument?

ETA to DG: Anyone talking about "will of the people" doesn't have a working understanding of constitutional law, particularly the equal protection clause, designed, specifically to protect the minority when the "will of people" is against them. Please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carrying over from the US Politics thread, per TP's request:

Funnily enough, my entire stance has been that this needs to be decided on legal interpretations and not on some dim, nebulous appeal to the "will of the people" which people keep trying to bring up. The "will of the people" is too evenly split for it to be much of a factor in the court's decision. It's as dumb an exercise to argue "the will of the people" as it is to project "the founding fathers' intent."

By all means debate the precedents and constitutional interpretations relevant to the ruling. If you keep bringing up sideshow shit like calling the judge a publicity whore or implying his sexual orientation makes his judgment suspect, don't expect your argument to be treated like anything more than the stale Limbaughite clowning that it is. Lev and I both objected to your focus on the side issues and your response is to whine like an Oppressed Conservative Martyr and make noises about "substance" when we were both calling out the lack of substance in your "OMG the judge wanted the trial televised!!!" canard.

Like FloW, I have no desire to piss on anyone's parade in this thread. I enjoy talking about the legal arguments. You have accused me once before of implying that Judge Walker's sexual orientation played a role in his decisions. I told you that I absolutely did not say or imply that his sexual orientation played a role in his decision. But here you are yet again accusing me of the same thing. Quote where I stated that his sexual orientation played any role in his decision or go away already. You have zero desire to have any discussion on the merits, but instead rely on making up shit to cover your deficiencies. Pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

If you like to talk legal arguments, get out of the Crossfire thread and come over here, or start another one. Because I'm certainly going to talk about legal arguments here. I hate that thread - it's format promotes shallow discussion. Anyway, I'm settling in to the read the whole decision right now.

And if you think it's rude to piss on someone's rights to their face, that should tell you something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...