Export thread

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/us/05prop.html

.S. Court Overturns Calif. Same-Sex Marriage Ban
By JESSE McKINLEY and JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: August 4, 2010
FACEBOOK
COMMENTS
E-MAIL
PRINT
REPRINTS
SHARE

SAN FRANCISCO — Saying that it unfairly targets gay men and women, a federal judge in San Francisco struck down California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday, handing supporters of such unions a temporary victory in a legal battle that seems all but certain to be settled by the Supreme Court.
Enlarge This Image

Jeff Chiu/Associated Press
Opponents of Proposition 8 celebrated the ruling outside the Phillip Burton Federal Building in San Francisco.
Related

Read the Decision (pdf)
Enlarge This Image

Jeff Chiu/Associated Press
Opponents of Proposition 8 stood alongside proponents outside the Phillip Burton Federal Building in San Francisco.
Wednesday’s decision is just the latest chapter of what is expected to be a long legal battle over the ban – Proposition 8, which was passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote.

Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, who heard the case without a jury, immediately stayed his decision as pending appeals by proponents of Proposition 8, who confidently predicted that higher courts would be less accommodating than Judge Walker. But on Wednesday, at least, the winds seemed to be at the back of those who feel that marriage is not, as the voters of California and many other states feel, solely the province of a man and a woman.

"Proposition 8 cannot survive any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause," wrote Mr. Walker. "Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest."

Supporters of Proposition 8 said that the decision flew in the face of the people of California.

“In America, we should respect and uphold the right of a free people to make policy choices through the democratic process--especially ones that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the foundation of the country and beyond,” said Brian Raum, a senior consel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which argued for the defense.

On its face, Wednesday’s decision seemed to apply only to California and not to the dozens of other states that have either constitutional bans or other prohibitions against same-sex marriage. Nor does it impact federal law, which does not recognize such unions.

Still, the very existence of federal court ruling recognizing same-sex marriage in California, the nation’s most populous state, set off cheers of "We Won!" from crowds assembled in front of the courthouse in San Francisco. Evening rallies and celebrations were planned dozens of cities across the state and several across the nation.

The plaintiffs’ case was argued by David Boies and Theodore Olson, ideological opposites who once famously sparred in the 2000 Supreme Court battle beween George W. Bush and Al Gore over the Florida recount and the presidency. The lawyers brought the case -- Perry v. Schwarzenegger – in May 2009 on behalf of two gay couples who said that Proposition 8 impinged on their Constitutional rights to equal protection and due process.

For gay rights advocates, same-sex marriage has increasingly become a central issue in their battle for equality, seen as both an emotional indicator of legitimacy and as a practical way to lessen discrimination.

“Being gay is about forming an adult family relationship with a person of a same sex, so denying us equality within the family system is to deny respect for the essence of who we are as gay people,” said Jennifer Pizer, the marriage project director for Lambda Legal in Los Angeles, who filed two briefs in favor of the plaintiffs. “And we believe that equality in marriage would help reduce discrimination in other settings because the government invites disrespect of us when it denies us equality.”

The trial, which began in January, was closely watched in the gay community, drawing large crowds to courtrooms, and inspiring re-creations by actors which were posted online. The plaintiffs offered two weeks of evidence from experts on marriage, sociology and political science, and emotional testimony from the two couples who had brought the case.

Proponents for Proposition 8, which was heavily backed by the Mormon church and other religious and conservative groups, had offered a much more straightforward defense of the measure, saying that same-sex marriage damages traditional marriage as an institution. They also argued that marriage was essentially created to foster procreation, which same-sex unions could not, and was thus fundamental to the existence and survival of the human race.

On Tuesday, those supporting Proposition 8 telegraphed their view that they had likely lost this round as the defense’s leading lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, filed a notice with the court requesting that Judge Walker keep the ban on same-sex marriage in place while they appealed his decision.

The defendants requested a ruling at the same time as Judge Walker issues the opinion, setting the stage for a quick appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "and, if necessary, the Supreme Court."

On Wednesday, lawyers for Ms. Perry responded with a letter of their own, requesting that Judge Walker not automatically rule on such questions without a hearing, asking that they be allowed to respond to the "obviously premature" motion before any action is taken.

The decision could also play into the state’s gubernatorial race in California though the race has been centered largely on economic issues thus far, with unemployment running more than 12 percent and a $19 billion budget gap.

Democrat Jerry Brown has been vocal in his support of gay marriage in his current role as California attorney general. Republican Meg Whitman has taken the position that marriage should be between a man and a woman – in line with the language of Proposition 8 – though she says that she strongly supports the state’s civil union laws, which afford many of the same rights as marriage.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a statment said that he supported the ruling, saying it "affirms the full legal protections" for thousands of gay Californians.

There were also signs that Judge Walker’s personal life – several published reports have said he is gay -- might become an issue for those opposed to his ruling. Hours before the decision was announced, a commentator on Fox News.com – Gerard Bradley, a professor of law at University of Notre Dame – posted an editorial questioning the judge’s impartiality.

“I do not doubt that Judge Walker made up his mind about Prop 8 before the trail began,” Mr. Bradley wrote.

Some in the gay rights community were initially upset by the case fearing that a loss at a federal level could set back their more measured efforts to gain wider recognition for same-sex marriage, which is legal in five states and the District of Columbia.

But those concerns seemed to fade as the trial began, and on Wednesday, the mood was of elation and cautious optimism that Mr. Boies and Mr. Olson’s initial victory might change the debate.

Kate Kendell, executive director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said that she believed that there were members of Supreme Court who “have a very deep seated bias against LGBT people,” meaning lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender. But, she called Wednesday’s ruling “potentially game changing.”

“This legal victory profoundly changes the conversation,” she said, “for folks in the legal world and the policy world who were previously unmoved by this struggle.”

Jesse McKinley reported in San Francisco and John Schwartz in New York. Malia Wollan contributed reported from San Francisco.

Today is a dark day for intolerance. Also, hooray!

Yay!! I hope this law will stay overturn. I know the "conservatives" will continue to fight it (I put it in quotes cause not all conservative think the same way)

This isn't the end of it, but it is a step in the right direction.

People are going apeshit over this around here. Prop 8 has a strong polarizing effect in California, as you can imagine.

The evidence does not support a finding that California has an interest in preferring opposite-sex parents over same-sex parents. Indeed, the evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes. Moreover, Proposition 8 has nothing to do with children, as Proposition 8 simply prevents same-sex couples from marrying. Same-sex couples can have (or adopt) and raise children. When they do, they are treated identically to opposite-sex parents under California law. Even if California had an interest in preferring opposite-sex parents to same-sex parents—and the evidence plainly shows that California does not—Proposition 8 is not rationally related to that interest, because Proposition 8 does not affect who can or should become a parent under California law. . . .

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result,see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Click to expand...

emphasis added

Not true! My little cousins are raised by my aunts and they've turned out better than most kids I know.

Baerdog said:

Today is a dark day for intolerance. Also, hooray!

Click to expand...

Hey, I said that earlier!

Yeah Krisken I stole your thing. I don't even feel sorry!

Whooooooooo!

Good.

Not if Central Valley rednecks have anything to do about it! rly:

“In America, we should respect and uphold the right of a free people to make policy choices through the democratic process--especially ones that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the foundation of the country and beyond,” said Brian Raum, a senior consel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which argued for the defense.

Click to expand...

LAWMAKING DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!

Yeah, gotta love the "The majority has spoken, so it must be right" argument. You know, at one point in America the majority thought that owning a black person like property was okay. Doesn't mean it was right.

Cheesy1 said:

Yeah, gotta love the "The majority has spoken, so it must be right" argument. You know, at one point in America the majority thought that owning a black person like property was okay. Doesn't mean it was right.

Click to expand...

Not to mention that if it was the other way around conservatives would talk about how gay marriage is wrong, no matter what the majority says.

mr_thehun said:

Woohoo now I can finally leave my wife for a man in California... if I wanted to.

Click to expand...

You could always leave her for a man, now you can marry him now too.

I hope this ruling stands through the courts.

sixpackshaker;423891][QUOTE=mr_thehun said:

Woohoo now I can finally leave my wife for a man in California... if I wanted to.

Click to expand...

You could always leave her for a man, now you can marry him now too.

I hope this ruling stands through the courts.[/QUOTE]

There really isn't much you can do to overturn this decision except go to the SCOTUS at this point. It's not like they can boot it back to federal court ether, so if it DOES go that far, they'll be forced to make a decision. So it's likely that the next decision is going to be the one that is going to stick, at least for awhile anyway.

AshburnerX;423935][QUOTE=sixpackshaker;423891][QUOTE=mr_thehun said:

Woohoo now I can finally leave my wife for a man in California... if I wanted to.

Click to expand...

You could always leave her for a man, now you can marry him now too.

I hope this ruling stands through the courts.[/QUOTE]

There really isn't much you can do to overturn this decision except go to the SCOTUS at this point. It's not like they can boot it back to federal court ether, so if it DOES go that far, they'll be forced to make a decision. So it's likely that the next decision is going to be the one that is going to stick, at least for awhile anyway.[/QUOTE]

Thats what I had heard, that the Supreme Court was the next stop. Hopefully it will stick there too and move us closer to truer freedom for all.

Espy;423942][QUOTE=AshburnerX;423935][QUOTE=sixpackshaker;423891][QUOTE=mr_thehun said:

Woohoo now I can finally leave my wife for a man in California... if I wanted to.

Click to expand...

You could always leave her for a man, now you can marry him now too.

I hope this ruling stands through the courts.[/QUOTE]

There really isn't much you can do to overturn this decision except go to the SCOTUS at this point. It's not like they can boot it back to federal court ether, so if it DOES go that far, they'll be forced to make a decision. So it's likely that the next decision is going to be the one that is going to stick, at least for awhile anyway.[/QUOTE]

Thats what I had heard, that the Supreme Court was the next stop. Hopefully it will stick there too and move us closer to truer freedom for all.[/QUOTE]

It will be abortion case where Supreme Court made it stick.

I think the conservatives may not fight it to the Supreme Court, but they might, if the U.S. Supreme Court rule against Prop 8, does that make it legal in all states?

that is a risky battle for the conservatives.

AshburnerX;423935][QUOTE=sixpackshaker;423891][QUOTE=mr_thehun said:

Woohoo now I can finally leave my wife for a man in California... if I wanted to.

Click to expand...

You could always leave her for a man, now you can marry him now too.

I hope this ruling stands through the courts.[/QUOTE]

There really isn't much you can do to overturn this decision except go to the SCOTUS at this point. It's not like they can boot it back to federal court ether, so if it DOES go that far, they'll be forced to make a decision. So it's likely that the next decision is going to be the one that is going to stick, at least for awhile anyway.[/QUOTE]

Not going there quite yet.

The defendants requested a ruling at the same time as Judge Walker issues the opinion, setting the stage for a quick appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "and, if necessary, the Supreme Court."

Click to expand...

The craziest things happen when I go on vacation.

Prop 8 gets overturned, the oil spill got stopped for real.

Did I walk into a bizarro reality where good things happen?

Last I checked, the supreme court was swinging conservative. I don't think there'd be a better time (for people against gay marriage) to send it their way.

Joe Johnson said:

Last I checked, the supreme court was swinging conservative. I don't think there'd be a better time (for people against gay marriage) to send it their way.

Click to expand...

I honestly suspect they will refuse to make a ruling and let the current ruling (that it's unconstitutional) stand. They may be conservative, but I think they'd be loathed to condemn huge communities to second class standing, if only because they don't want to be the ones remembered for doing it.

But they recently ruled against a school group that was excluding gays, right?

On social issues, the High Court is more liberal. 4 to 4 with a swing vote that is a social liberal, conservative on government powers.

You can view a reenactment of the trial on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/user/MarriageTrial

It's really quite interesting.

Fuck yes.

Cheesy1 said:

Yeah, gotta love the "The majority has spoken, so it must be right" argument. You know, at one point in America the majority thought that owning a black person like property was okay. Doesn't mean it was right.

Click to expand...

I think the phrase is, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

Wonderful. Also, gotta love some of the proponent arguments: "marriage is for procreation" - okay, what about childless couples?

North_Ranger said:

Wonderful. Also, gotta love some of the proponent arguments: "marriage is for procreation" - okay, what about childless couples?

Click to expand...

This reminds me of the conversation I had with my dad on the issue. It ended with him admitting he had no good reason for being against gay marriage.

Krisken;424045][QUOTE=North_Ranger said:

Wonderful. Also, gotta love some of the proponent arguments: "marriage is for procreation" - okay, what about childless couples?

Click to expand...

This reminds me of the conversation I had with my dad on the issue. It ended with him admitting he had no good reason for being against gay marriage.[/QUOTE]

+1 Internet

North_Ranger;424048][QUOTE=Krisken;424045][QUOTE=North_Ranger said:

Wonderful. Also, gotta love some of the proponent arguments: "marriage is for procreation" - okay, what about childless couples?

Click to expand...

This reminds me of the conversation I had with my dad on the issue. It ended with him admitting he had no good reason for being against gay marriage.[/QUOTE]

+1 Internet[/QUOTE]
Well, I didn't say he was suddenly for it! When I finally said "So... why are you against it then?" and he responded "I just do!" We had a laugh at that and then talked about other stuff. Sometimes all you can do is talk about it and hope it sinks in over time.

Krisken said:

Well, I didn't say he was suddenly for it! When I finally said "So... why are you against it then?" and he responded "I just do!" We had a laugh at that and then talked about other stuff. Sometimes all you can do is talk about it and hope it sinks in over time.

Click to expand...

I did the same with my Mom and her dislike of the Roma. In Finland, they have something of a reputation as scoundrels, conmen and thieves.

North_Ranger;424053][QUOTE=Krisken said:

Well, I didn't say he was suddenly for it! When I finally said "So... why are you against it then?" and he responded "I just do!" We had a laugh at that and then talked about other stuff. Sometimes all you can do is talk about it and hope it sinks in over time.

Click to expand...

I did the same with my Mom and her dislike of the Roma. In Finland, they have something of a reputation as scoundrels, conmen and thieves.[/QUOTE]

You mean gypsies aren't thieving conmen? What a gyp.

My friends are in this video, starting around the 3:15 mark.

Video Library - cbs5.com

Ravenpoe;424070][QUOTE=North_Ranger;424053][QUOTE=Krisken said:

Well, I didn't say he was suddenly for it! When I finally said "So... why are you against it then?" and he responded "I just do!" We had a laugh at that and then talked about other stuff. Sometimes all you can do is talk about it and hope it sinks in over time.

Click to expand...

I did the same with my Mom and her dislike of the Roma. In Finland, they have something of a reputation as scoundrels, conmen and thieves.[/QUOTE]

You mean gypsies aren't thieving conmen? What a gyp.[/QUOTE]

Who doesn't like getting a free dog with your caravan, after all?

D'ya like dags?

Baerdog said:

D'ya like dags?

Click to expand...

He's supposed to be a Traveler not a Roma. Similar reputations but very different.

Sorry Pikey could be either. But they act like Irish instead of Romanian.

klew said:

My friends are in this video, starting around the 3:15 mark.

Video Library - cbs5.com

Click to expand...

The main problem I believe is that even in one state totally allow same sex marriage, many state oppose it, but then we get into Federal laws where one license issue in one state is legal in another right? (there a limits)

some license are
Marriage - at this time they are limit to hetro couples
Driving - valid in all states until expired.

Some that are not valid in all states
Real estate - varies from state to state and thus need to be tested and issue. My mom is a broker in Texas, but she can't be a broker in California for example until she gets a license there. (that is what she told me)
hunting/fishing? (I don't know about this one)
Liquor license? (specific location)

these are some that pop in my head, I'm sure the forum can give more/better example.

Appeal filed over gay marriage ruling in Calif. - Yahoo! News

I love this. So the original driving force was "it is bad for children" - proven false. and kids could get "the gays" in schools??? that was the defense?? seriously?

I hope prop 8 goes down in flames or reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The country has too many other issues to worry about and should put away petty fears of same sex couple having the same rights as hetro couples.

sixpackshaker;424089][QUOTE=Baerdog said:

D'ya like dags?

Click to expand...

He's supposed to be a Traveler not a Roma. Similar reputations but very different.

Sorry Pikey could be either. But they act like Irish instead of Romanian.[/QUOTE]

Romanian =/= Roma, mate

sixpackshaker;424089][QUOTE=Baerdog said:

D'ya like dags?

Click to expand...

He's supposed to be a Traveler not a Roma. Similar reputations but very different.

Sorry Pikey could be either. But they act like Irish instead of Romanian.[/QUOTE]
1. Gas' joke was clearly in reference to Snatch.
2. Gypsies don't have anything to do with being from Romania.

Cheesy1 said:

Yeah, gotta love the "The majority has spoken, so it must be right" argument. You know, at one point in America the majority thought that owning a black person like property was okay. Doesn't mean it was right.

Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate here, just remember you quote when the Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade...which the majority of people support, but may be struck down by the courts. That "The majority isn't always right" thing can (and eventually will) cut both ways.

Jonzac the majority is only wrong when they don't agree with me. Duh.

Jonzac;424414][QUOTE=Cheesy1 said:

Yeah, gotta love the "The majority has spoken, so it must be right" argument. You know, at one point in America the majority thought that owning a black person like property was okay. Doesn't mean it was right.

Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate here, just remember you quote when the Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade...which the majority of people support, but may be struck down by the courts. That "The majority isn't always right" thing can (and eventually will) cut both ways.[/QUOTE]
Much less cut and dried issue, but sure, tell yourself it's the same.

---------- Post added at 01:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 PM ----------

Espy said:

Jonzac the majority is only wrong when they don't agree with me. Duh.

Click to expand...

I just had flashbacks to the Iraq war.

lol, for the record, I don't think the majority is "right" in this case, but I do think an awful lot of people use that double standard whenever it's convenient.

Espy said:

lol, for the record, I don't think the majority is "right" in this case, but I do think an awful lot of people use that double standard whenever it's convenient.

Click to expand...

No argument here

Krisken;424426][QUOTE=Espy said:

lol, for the record, I don't think the majority is "right" in this case, but I do think an awful lot of people use that double standard whenever it's convenient.

Click to expand...

No argument here [/QUOTE]

none from here either

Goddammit people! This is the internet! Stop agreeing!

North_Ranger;424133][QUOTE=sixpackshaker;424089][QUOTE=Baerdog said:

D'ya like dags?

Click to expand...

He's supposed to be a Traveler not a Roma. Similar reputations but very different.

Sorry Pikey could be either. But they act like Irish instead of Romanian.[/QUOTE]

Romanian =/= Roma, mate [/QUOTE]

That I know, I posted that because Romania is the Roma's jumping off point into the rest of Europe. Their culture and ethnicity has been heavily shaped by the Balkans.

Interview with Ted Olson, awesome stuff.

Oh Fox. Where would we be without you?

No, I really want to know.

It'd be like the whole new world part of Aladin, but forever.

We'd have flying carpets and wonder? Oh, I am so excited!
Stupid reality. Always mucking up my fun.

Krisken said:

We'd have flying carpets and wonder? Oh, I am so excited!
Stupid reality. Always mucking up my fun.

Click to expand...

hardly.

JONJONAUG said:

Interview with Ted Olson, awesome stuff.

Click to expand...

I love it. It looks like California's law might get overturn permanently. I guess FOX is trying to play Devil's advocate? or does Chris really really believe in the question he is asking? (I didn't like the tone personally)

Ted does bring up an important point. The U.S. Constitution protect our rights. There are times where the popular vote shouldn't apply when the people are trying to restrict certain rights.

I also agree that same sex marriage, different sex, and even interracial marriage are on the same level. Some people just can't see it that way.

Ted Olson pwned the fuck out of Fox. What people haven't said yet is the judge that overturned Prop 8 is not only openly gay - which has been touted by Fox - but they are NOT telling people he was appointed by the Lord High Conservative Ronald Reagan and raised to the appellate court by W. This is a CONSERVATIVE JUDGE! Game. Set. Match.

Dave said:

Ted Olson pwned the fuck out of Fox. What people haven't said yet is the judge that overturned Prop 8 is not only openly gay - which has been touted by Fox - but they are NOT telling people he was appointed by the Lord High Conservative Ronald Reagan and raised to the appellate court by W. This is a CONSERVATIVE JUDGE! Game. Set. Match.

Click to expand...

Of course not. It doesn't fit into the narrative they are trying to push of the Liberal Activist Judge tm.

Dave said:

Ted Olson pwned the fuck out of Fox. What people haven't said yet is the judge that overturned Prop 8 is not only openly gay - which has been touted by Fox - but they are NOT telling people he was appointed by the Lord High Conservative Ronald Reagan and raised to the appellate court by W. This is a CONSERVATIVE JUDGE! Game. Set. Match.

Click to expand...

I heard about that, but I don't believe that being gay shouldn't matter on the courts (my opinion) because my co worker ask me this question.

Can men rule on abortion case? since they can't produce children.
Can single women/men judge deal with divorce cases?
can non-parent judge deal with children cases?

I feel if the judge can prove that he/she is being impartial, then, let them do their job.

Chibibar;425305][QUOTE=Dave said:

Ted Olson pwned the fuck out of Fox. What people haven't said yet is the judge that overturned Prop 8 is not only openly gay - which has been touted by Fox - but they are NOT telling people he was appointed by the Lord High Conservative Ronald Reagan and raised to the appellate court by W. This is a CONSERVATIVE JUDGE! Game. Set. Match.

Click to expand...

I heard about that, but I don't believe that being gay shouldn't matter on the courts (my opinion) because my co worker ask me this question.

Can men rule on abortion case? since they can't produce children.
Can single women/men judge deal with divorce cases?
can non-parent judge deal with children cases?

I feel if the judge can prove that he/she is being impartial, then, let them do their job.[/QUOTE]

None of those are good analogies. None of those would have them rule a certain way that would benefit them.

crono1224;425337][QUOTE=Chibibar;425305][QUOTE=Dave said:

Ted Olson pwned the fuck out of Fox. What people haven't said yet is the judge that overturned Prop 8 is not only openly gay - which has been touted by Fox - but they are NOT telling people he was appointed by the Lord High Conservative Ronald Reagan and raised to the appellate court by W. This is a CONSERVATIVE JUDGE! Game. Set. Match.

Click to expand...

I heard about that, but I don't believe that being gay shouldn't matter on the courts (my opinion) because my co worker ask me this question.

Can men rule on abortion case? since they can't produce children.
Can single women/men judge deal with divorce cases?
can non-parent judge deal with children cases?

I feel if the judge can prove that he/she is being impartial, then, let them do their job.[/QUOTE]

None of those are good analogies. None of those would have them rule a certain way that would benefit them.[/QUOTE]

ok... how about can a married judge a case that could set precedent for future marriage/divorce case?
Can a judge who had an abortion can rule on future abortion case?

Is that better?

Of even further, what if the judge knew someone (related) who had an abortion only because the law allow at the time. Would that judge rule differently? or may use personal experience on it?

I know it is nearly impossible to be truly impartial o the case. Someone would know someone and somebody would benefit from the ruling one form or another.

Now of course there are some cases where if the judge is directly related to the person or involve with someone ON that particular case, then the case suppose to pass on to another judge.

Chibibar;425343][QUOTE=crono1224;425337][QUOTE=Chibibar;425305][QUOTE=Dave said:

Ted Olson pwned the fuck out of Fox. What people haven't said yet is the judge that overturned Prop 8 is not only openly gay - which has been touted by Fox - but they are NOT telling people he was appointed by the Lord High Conservative Ronald Reagan and raised to the appellate court by W. This is a CONSERVATIVE JUDGE! Game. Set. Match.

Click to expand...

I heard about that, but I don't believe that being gay shouldn't matter on the courts (my opinion) because my co worker ask me this question.

Can men rule on abortion case? since they can't produce children.
Can single women/men judge deal with divorce cases?
can non-parent judge deal with children cases?

I feel if the judge can prove that he/she is being impartial, then, let them do their job.[/QUOTE]

None of those are good analogies. None of those would have them rule a certain way that would benefit them.[/QUOTE]

ok... how about can a married judge a case that could set precedent for future marriage/divorce case?
Can a judge who had an abortion can rule on future abortion case?

Is that better?

Of even further, what if the judge knew someone (related) who had an abortion only because the law allow at the time. Would that judge rule differently? or may use personal experience on it?

I know it is nearly impossible to be truly impartial o the case. Someone would know someone and somebody would benefit from the ruling one form or another.

Now of course there are some cases where if the judge is directly related to the person or involve with someone ON that particular case, then the case suppose to pass on to another judge.[/QUOTE]

I would say a better one still is, can a judge who wants to get an abortion (if they are female, if they are male their SO or whoever) rule on a case that makes it legal to get abortions, if at the time it was illegal.

You are assuming that the judge wants to get married.

It's more like:

An African American judge ruling on inter-racial marriages.

But what the hell does that matter? Heterosexual, white judges make decisions all the time. Why does nobody question their impartiality?

Dave said:

But what the hell does that matter? Heterosexual, white judges make decisions all the time. Why does nobody question their impartiality?

Click to expand...

Because heterosexual white males are the target of the message. Be afraid of everyone not like you.

Dave said:

You are assuming that the judge wants to get married.

It's more like:

An African American judge ruling on inter-racial marriages.

But what the hell does that matter? Heterosexual, white judges make decisions all the time. Why does nobody question their impartiality?

Click to expand...

Yea... What about them white judges

(actually that one is better than my examples)

Nooooooo! The sanctity of marriage..it has been impugned!!! This is the first step. Socieiety will soon fall! Total chaos will soon rule....and it will be fabulous!

Where the white judges at?

News is reporting that the American Family Association (aka Psychotic Right-Wing Bigots) are pushing to have the judge impeached because he's gay, and according to their logic is unfit to oversee any case that involves gay issues.

Krisken said:

Oh Fox. Where would we be without you?

No, I really want to know.

Click to expand...

Like this.

::Wipes a tear away:: It's so beautiful, jonjon.

The Onion still owns.

I love the Onion.

Oh my stars, that whole thing was brilliant from beginning to end. I lol'd hard at the last line.

Jonjon... I love you. (none gay way ^_~)

Has anyone mentioned the White House's response to this decision yet?

"The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples." - David Axelrod

Just be happy that he does not have any control over the issue.

At least he isn't saying there are known unknowns and known knowns but there are also unknown unknowns.

sixpackshaker said:

Just be happy that he does not have any control over the issue.

Click to expand...

Well, he could be putting pressure on Congress to end DOMA like he promised in his campaign instead of doing nothing of the sort, but I guess I'd have to be on drugs to suggest something like that.

BUT THIS THREAD ISN'T ABOUT OBAMA SO I WILL STOP COMPLAINING in this thread.

Seriously though, Ted Olson and David Boies fucking rule. They destroyed the defense to the point where their own witnesses said that same-sex marriage was not harmful to children and did not hurt heterosexual marriage and that preventing gay couples from marriage was significantly harmful to them.

The defendants may decide not to appeal, though, because they are afraid of this actually going before the Supreme Court. Also, the 9th Circuit is trying to determine if they even have standing to appeal.

Also fuck anyone complaining about the judge, his decision is totally sound. This isn't legislating from the bench or creating new rights, it's pretty much exactly what the judicial branch is there to do.

Steven Soderburgin;429039][QUOTE=sixpackshaker said:

Just be happy that he does not have any control over the issue.

Click to expand...

Well, he could be putting pressure on Congress to end DOMA like he promised in his campaign instead of doing nothing of the sort, but I guess I'd have to be on drugs to suggest something like that.

BUT THIS THREAD ISN'T ABOUT OBAMA SO I WILL STOP COMPLAINING in this thread.

Seriously though, Ted Olson and David Boies fucking rule. They destroyed the defense to the point where their own witnesses said that same-sex marriage was not harmful to children and did not hurt heterosexual marriage and that preventing gay couples from marriage was significantly harmful to them.

The defendants may decide not to appeal, though, because they are afraid of this actually going before the Supreme Court. Also, the 9th Circuit is trying to determine if they even have standing to appeal.

Also fuck anyone complaining about the judge, his decision is totally sound. This isn't legislating from the bench or creating new rights, it's pretty much exactly what the judicial branch is there to do.[/QUOTE]

but the people voted on it........ *sarcasm*

How come any person against gay marriage is automatically a Homophobe, except for President Obama?

Covar said:

How come any person against gay marriage is automatically a Homophobe, except for President Obama?

Click to expand...

Because black men ain't scared of nothing?

Covar, I got you something for those generalizations.


You shouldn't leave that stuff lying around.

Krisken said:

Covar, I got you something for those generalizations.

You shouldn't leave that stuff lying around.

Click to expand...

Very nice thanks.

I do what I can.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that.

However, Obama has reasons to not actively support gay marriage while giving lip service to gays beyond simply wanting to marginalize gay people. Those reasons are lack of political capital, a desire to avoid what he and his party feels are controversial issues, and political expediency. That is not to say that his reasons are any more respectable or defensible, but they don't speak to a desire to actively keep gays as second class citizens as much as they speak to a desire to remain in power and not anger the base by being perceived as too radical.

Your average internet poster against marriage equality doesn't have those reasons to be against marriage equality. The reasons that most people against marriage equality cite - marriage's religious connection, procreation, tradition, protecting children - crumble under even the slightest scrutiny. This is what we saw in the Prop 8 trial when the defense's witness ended up proving the prosecution's case. David Boies gave an interview where he discussed how this defense expert who had given many speeches about why gay marriage was bad ended up admitting that not only was gay marriage a bad thing at all and that any claims about the harm gay marriage would do were false, but that preventing gays from marrying was actively hurting them. I don't recall the exact quote, but it's something to the effect of "When you give a speech, no one cross examines you."

Covar said:

How come any person against gay marriage is automatically a Homophobe, except for President Obama?

Click to expand...

Kinda like how NOW just absolutely loved Bill Clinton, isn't it?

---------- Post added at 02:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 PM ----------

Steven Soderburgin said:

Your average internet poster against marriage equality doesn't have those reasons to be against marriage equality.

Click to expand...

I forget who it was who said it, but "There already is equal rights in marriage. Gay men have the exact same right to marry a woman that heterosexual men do. A heterosexual man doesn't have the right to marry a man either."

So you have to be careful with the "equality" terminology.

And I know the next step, the "gay people don't have the right to marry the person THEY LOVE" argument. For which the response is, "who says marriage has anything to do with love?"

The Bible?

Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

Krisken said:

The Bible?

Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

Click to expand...

You don't really want us to start using the bible in United States Federal Law, do you?

GasBandit;429086][QUOTE=Krisken said:

The Bible?

Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

Click to expand...

You don't really want us to start using the bible in United States Federal Law, do you?[/QUOTE]
Not really. I find this whole argument pointless. If men can marry women, men should be able to marry men and women should be able to marry women. I don't understand why people find it so threatening.

Homosexuals being able to marry doesn't lessen the marriage of straight people. They are often successful doing that on their own.

Krisken said:

Not really. I find this whole argument pointless. If men can marry women, men should be able to marry men and women should be able to marry women. I don't understand why people find it so threatening.

Homosexuals being able to marry doesn't lessen the marriage of straight people. They are often successful doing that on their own.

Click to expand...

That's a completely reasonable assertion. I was referencing that the law is equal... and this would be equal too.

I think some of the problem does stem from the fact that "marriage" is a word for a religious sacrament that over the time became the word to use, whether being performed as a religious sacrament or not. People who might not be opposed to "gay rights" get pissed off that they are using the word marriage, with all the religious implications attached, even though the word applies to both religious circles and secular ones now.

Applies, but not associated with.

Religiously speaking divorce is not allow in some religion but people still do that.......

So, using the religion "card" seems to only fit the "view" the religious people want to use it for.

fun fact: the white wedding dress began as a fashion statement not some divine wish or purity statement.

GasBandit said:

I forget who it was who said it, but "There already is equal rights in marriage. Gay men have the exact same right to marry a woman that heterosexual men do. A heterosexual man doesn't have the right to marry a man either."

So you have to be careful with the "equality" terminology.

And I know the next step, the "gay people don't have the right to marry the person THEY LOVE" argument. For which the response is, "who says marriage has anything to do with love?"

Click to expand...

This is an incredibly lame excuse, and you use it all the goddamn time. How about you learn who said it otherwise your just hiding behind anonymous words to deflect to. oh it wasn't me, it was some dude.
Can't marry who they love - Who says it has anything to do with love? What is love? don't hurt me.
who says this response? where did you regurgitate this little factoid to puff your chest with.
then it becomes, Can't marry who they choose - Who says it has anything to do with choice?
A straight guy can't marry another guy. boo hoo, the difference is he doesn't want to dumbass. So he can equally not get married just like a gay guy. equality would mean even he could have the freedom of choice to do so if he wanted. Semantics to scene bitches! But for you this is already done. "Oh it is equal see if you look at it this way it's equal, can't you see it? it's equal. Done over, next argument petty thinkers."
Is that not in your charter somewhere, freedom of choice? But then dogs and cats would start living together. equality means gay or straight you marry who you want, not the twisted logic you are displaying in that post.

what is the real argument against it, or do you have one? You're not good at arguments, you're just stubbon. go back to work and complain about pregnant women.

I propose the motion that no one (hetero, homo and in-between) should not be able to marry. Abolish marriage altogether. no common law either.

Disconnected said:

I propose the motion that no one (hetero, homo and in-between) should not be able to marry. Abolish marriage altogether. no common law either.

Click to expand...

I'm all for gay marriage but this is also pretty dumb.

It's all pretty simple: Two consenting adults have the right to be married. Denying it to people because they're of the same sex is discriminatory and unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. Civil Unions are not an acceptable substitute because "separate but equal" hasn't worked as an argument since Brown vs Board of Education. There is no logical argument to deny a couple the right to marry based on their gender.

Disconnected said:

it was not a serious proposal.

no one... not be able to marry.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, your general grammar was pretty bad throughout the whole post so I wasn't sure if you meant "everyone should be able to marry" or "abolish marriage altogether".

it was not a serious proposal.

no one... not be able to marry.

Chibibar said:

Religiously speaking divorce is not allow in some religion but people still do that.......

So, using the religion "card" seems to only fit the "view" the religious people want to use it for.

Click to expand...

Dude, that's pretty much what happens with every topic under the sun involving religion.

Heard the stupidest argument about gay marriage at a party I went to. This guy starts loudly talking over everyone who's for it... "I just wanna play devil's advocate here... why are gays buying into marriage anyway? It's such a stupid sham. They should just be the bigger person and go off and do their own thing." His fiance was sitting right there. She bristled at the "buying into marriage" thing. :laugh:

...Really? Reminds me of how people used Christianity to manipulate slaves. 'Be obedient and God will reward you.' --just another way of saying "be the bigger person.' Let the bully win because the meek will inherit the earth.

Chazwozel;429319][QUOTE=Chibibar said:

Religiously speaking divorce is not allow in some religion but people still do that.......

So, using the religion "card" seems to only fit the "view" the religious people want to use it for.

Click to expand...

Dude, that's pretty much what happens with every topic under the sun involving religion.[/QUOTE]

yea..... kinda sad huh?

Cajungal said:

Let the bully win because the meek will inherit the earth.

Spoiler

No they won't.

Click to expand...

Except when they do. Christianity didn't spread through the Roman Empire at the tip of a sword, it did it by appealing to the humanist values of the poor and unprivileged, and has managed to become the most popular religion in the world because of it.

What you need to remember is that that line was referring to Christians and their faith as a whole, not individuals, and it worked for the same reason Martin Luther King's marches and Gandhi's hunger strikes did: By not reacting with violence to the oppressive authorities, they drew a clear parallel between themselves and their oppressors, making it very clear to the public which was the more moral side to support. It's really hard to support a side that's busting heads in the streets if you don't see the people getting harmed doing anything to deserve it.

There was a little bit of sword pointing going on after the Emperors converted. It was both grass roots, and the law of the land.

sixpackshaker said:

There was a little bit of sword pointing going on after the Emperors converted. It was both grass roots, and the law of the land.

Click to expand...

True, but it really doesn't invalidate the original sentiment of the message, especially considering similar tactics have been used successfully since. Besides, the brutal tactics of the Vatican are one of the many reasons Christianity split into a billion different denominations over the years.

AshburnerX;429371][QUOTE=sixpackshaker said:

There was a little bit of sword pointing going on after the Emperors converted. It was both grass roots, and the law of the land.

Click to expand...

True, but it really doesn't invalidate the original sentiment of the message, especially considering similar tactics have been used successfully since. Besides, the brutal tactics of the Vatican are one of the many reasons Christianity split into a billion different denominations over the years.[/QUOTE]

That's cart before the horse. The Vatican got brutal after the split.

The split was about corruption, wealth and power. Everyone wanted a piece to the God Business.

Disconnected said:

This is an incredibly lame excuse, and you use it all the goddamn time.

Click to expand...

When have I ever?

How about you learn who said it otherwise your just hiding behind anonymous words to deflect to. oh it wasn't me, it was some dude.
Can't marry who they love - Who says it has anything to do with love? What is love? don't hurt me.

Click to expand...

who says this response? where did you regurgitate this little factoid to puff your chest with.
then it becomes, Can't marry who they choose - Who says it has anything to do with choice?
A straight guy can't marry another guy. boo hoo, the difference is he doesn't want to dumbass.

Click to expand...

A guy still can't stab another guy either, even if he doesn't want to. The two examples are extremely different but it still demonstrates the equality of the law.

So he can equally not get married just like a gay guy. equality would mean even he could have the freedom of choice to do so if he wanted. Semantics to scene bitches! But for you this is already done. "Oh it is equal see if you look at it this way it's equal, can't you see it? it's equal. Done over, next argument petty thinkers."
Is that not in your charter somewhere, freedom of choice? But then dogs and cats would start living together. equality means gay or straight you marry who you want, not the twisted logic you are displaying in that post.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should do slightly less meth before you post, that way I might be more likely to follow your rambling, disjointed stream-of-consciousness rant.

what is the real argument against it, or do you have one?

Click to expand...

I do, which you would know had you paid attention to my earlier missives on the topic. I believe that the legal definition of marriage should not take gender into account.

Let that sink in for a moment, Mon Frere. I support gay marriage.

What I was saying is, you have to be careful with the "equality" statement, because the law as it stands IS equal. Unfair, unjust maybe... but it is equal. The gay marriage issue isn't an issue of equality, it's an issue of definition.

When pursuing goals such as this, it's important to do it in a way that doesn't shoot your side in the foot. Gays were making great headway until they decided it wasn't coming fast enough and started pulling out the "we're here, we're queer, get used to it" placards again, and started making aggressive statements intimating that not only would they be getting married, they were going to force the law to let them get married in the churches where gay marriage opponents attended... just to rub it in the face of those nasty evil breeders. The result? Prop 8. A heartwrenching, albeit temporary setback for those who are personally and emotionally invested in the legalization of gay marriage.

So once again the narrative changed. The push for gay marriage once again returned to measured steps through the legal system and the media that emphasized commiseration, not confrontation. And lo and behold, it's working again. Prop 8 is going away. We look, for all intents and purposes, to be on the very threshold of the long awaited change to marriage law that makes gender irrelevant. And once a few states have made it so, the others are literally bound to follow via "full faith and credit."

That's how you win. You have to do it right. If you make "equality" the focus of your argument, you run the risk of a judge who is unsympathetic to the plight of gay couples looking at the law and saying "well, technically, it IS equal already. COURT ADJOURNED!"

You're not good at arguments, you're just stubbon. go back to work and complain about pregnant women.

I propose the motion that no one (hetero, homo and in-between) should not be able to marry. Abolish marriage altogether. no common law either.

Click to expand...

Seriously, how high were you when you wrote this?

about 5'9

At OT:

Court Says Gay Couples Can't Divorce In Texas - CBS News

I wonder when the case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court (It might) when they rule that it is unconstitutional to ban same sex, would it void the Texas amendment?

The basic question that it will come down to is state's rights vs federal rights.

Remember that the US is a republic - it is a nation formed of individual states.

In the past marriage has always been a state issue, and the states have had to work out their own definitions and agreements.

If any of this makes it to the supreme court the question will hardly be, "Is gay marriage ok" it will instead be, "Do states have the autonomy to continue to define marriage."

It is unlikely that the states will cede even more power to the federal government, even if someone, somehow can prove conclusively to the 9 that the US constitution guarantees this as a "right", which certainly isn't nearly as cut and dried a case as many here seem to think.

The funny thing, though, is that the California issue is a microcosm of the US - it's a catch-22 for gay rights supporters. Right now no one is seriously considering an amendment to the US constitution to ban gay marriage because that decision belongs to the states.

If the supreme court rules that the federal government is now in charge of the definition of marriage, and takes that right from the state, then the opposition has a much simpler job:

Rather than amending each state constitution to ban gay marriage, they can do it once for the US constitution.

California is much more socially liberal than the rest of the US. It'll be so much easier to amend the US constitution with a gay marriage ban than it was to amend the california constitution.

Rather than taking it to the courts, the activists should have simply rallied the public behind them, and struck the amendment out. I really think they're shooting themselves in the foot by taking to the courts rather than the voters.

First Lady Puffinstuff said:

California is much more socially liberal than the rest of the US. It'll be so much easier to amend the US constitution with a gay marriage ban than it was to amend the california constitution.

Click to expand...

Huh?

Amending the California constitution requires a simple majority vote. Amending the US Constitution is extremely difficult to do in comparison.

Which I'm pretty sure George Dubya already tried to do, and it was shot down pretty quickly.

David said:

Which I'm pretty sure George Dubya already tried to do, and it was shot down pretty quickly.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say quickly. Thankfully you can't get 2/3 of Congress to agree on anything, much less a hateful amendment to the Constitution that would serve only to deprive a minority group of their equal rights.

First Lady Puffinstuff said:

California is much more socially liberal than the rest of the US.

Click to expand...

This is a media myth.

escushion;433539][QUOTE=First Lady Puffinstuff said:

California is much more socially liberal than the rest of the US.

Click to expand...

This is a media myth.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I thought it was split down the middle?

Krisken;433542][QUOTE=escushion;433539][QUOTE=First Lady Puffinstuff said:

California is much more socially liberal than the rest of the US.

Click to expand...

This is a media myth.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I thought it was split down the middle?[/QUOTE]

Most cities are more liberal (with the notable exceptions of Fresno and San Diego). This is especially true for LA and the SF Bay Area. The Central Valley, which is HUGE, is just as conservative as the Bible Belt. The mountain and desert areas are split.

That's roughly how it breaks down.

Ugh, the Central Valley is DEFINITELY more conservative than the rest of the state. Let me put it this way: the town I graduated high school in use to be the location for the annual California KKK rally.

Ok, that may be a generalization, but I think its pretty well established that california is more douchey.

Necronic said:

Ok, that may be a generalization, but I think its pretty well established that california is more douchey.

Click to expand...

A generalization? No, of course not. Perish the thought.

What, pray tell, makes us more "douchey?"

Troll;433691][QUOTE=Necronic said:

Ok, that may be a generalization, but I think its pretty well established that california is more douchey.

Click to expand...

A generalization? No, of course not. Perish the thought.

What, pray tell, makes us more "douchey?"[/QUOTE]

You know.... you're state is on the coast.... and has hollywood people.... also wine.... don't argue with the man he has sound reason why the most populous state is all douches.

crono1224;433694][QUOTE=Troll;433691][QUOTE=Necronic said:

Ok, that may be a generalization, but I think its pretty well established that california is more douchey.

Click to expand...

A generalization? No, of course not. Perish the thought.

What, pray tell, makes us more "douchey?"[/QUOTE]

You know.... you're state is on the coast.... and has hollywood people.... also wine.... don't argue with the man he has sound reason why the most populous state is all douches.[/QUOTE]

Well... he's right. We are kinda douchey. I just wanted to see what he would say.

Troll;433589][QUOTE=Krisken;433542][QUOTE=escushion;433539][QUOTE=First Lady Puffinstuff said:

California is much more socially liberal than the rest of the US.

Click to expand...

This is a media myth.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I thought it was split down the middle?[/QUOTE]

Most cities are more liberal (with the notable exceptions of Fresno and San Diego). This is especially true for LA and the SF Bay Area. The Central Valley, which is HUGE, is just as conservative as the Bible Belt. The mountain and desert areas are split.

That's roughly how it breaks down.[/QUOTE]

Isn't Northern California, particularly Sacramento area, extremely conservative?

Well I didn't think by "split down the middle" it would be every other person. I was pretty sure that in the lower cities it was generally liberal in nature while the less populous areas were strongly conservative.

So, Californians Halforumites, how is live in the opressive prop-8-less world?

I hear its all rainbows and gay sex and the foundations of society are literally tearing themselves apart.

Troll;433358][QUOTE=David said:

Which I'm pretty sure George Dubya already tried to do, and it was shot down pretty quickly.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say quickly. Thankfully you can't get 2/3 of Congress to agree on anything, much less a hateful amendment to the Constitution that would serve only to deprive a minority group of their equal rights.[/QUOTE]

Like I said earlier, you don't want to make this an argument about "equal" rights because the law is already equal, and that could just shoot this entire deal in the foot if you get the wrong judge.

Marriage in most places is currently defined as a union between a man and a woman. That does need to change. But as things stand, homo- and heterosexuals currently have the same marriage rights - the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex. No mention of "whoever they love." You could perfectly legally marry a woman you have absolutely no attraction to whatsoever (heck, or even despise), no matter be you straight or gay.

If progress is to be made here, it has to be for what it is, not for an inaccurate claim that becomes a potential weakness.

Heterosexuals can marry anyone they love over the age of 18. Homosexuals are not legally allowed to marry people they love. That is unequal.

Troll said:

Heterosexuals can marry anyone they love over the age of 18. Homosexuals are not legally allowed to marry people they love. That is unequal.

Click to expand...

Love is not a legal term. Nor should it be.

Heterosexuals can marry anyone of the opposite gender, whether they love them or not. Homosexuals can do the same. That is equal. But not right.

GasBandit;433973][QUOTE=Troll said:

Heterosexuals can marry anyone they love over the age of 18. Homosexuals are not legally allowed to marry people they love. That is unequal.

Click to expand...

Love is not a legal term. Nor should it be.

Heterosexuals can marry anyone of the opposite gender, whether they love them or not. Homosexuals can do the same. That is equal. But not right.[/QUOTE]

I see your point. Still, judges in the past have made a distinction between the wording of a law and its equality, compared to the application of a law and its inequality. I think that may happen again.

Troll;433978][QUOTE=GasBandit;433973][QUOTE=Troll said:

Heterosexuals can marry anyone they love over the age of 18. Homosexuals are not legally allowed to marry people they love. That is unequal.

Click to expand...

Love is not a legal term. Nor should it be.

Heterosexuals can marry anyone of the opposite gender, whether they love them or not. Homosexuals can do the same. That is equal. But not right.[/QUOTE]

I see your point. Still, judges in the past have made a distinction between the wording of a law and its equality, compared to the application of a law and its inequality. I think that may happen again.[/QUOTE]

Some judges have. Some other judges have also clung to the letter of the law regardless of all other concerns. I don't have the confidence to trust the outcome to ride on the case landing in the lap of a sympathetic judge. I think it'd be better for us to plainly and succinctly state what is needed: The definition of marriage to be a union between any two people (no gender descriptions at all).