Comments on: Lowenstein: Judge orders speedy ruling on Prop 8 case

By: Ray

Ray — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:41:51 +0000

Gay Marriage will come to all states. One more states have legislation supporting gay marriage DOMA will fall. After all the arguments supporting traditioal marriage are flawed. Families are as diverse as the American culture to recognize some and not others is wrong. Rights cannot be legislated away.

By: Isaac

Isaac — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:04:12 +0000

@Bill – I would like to thank you for your comments, Bill. It is refreshing to know that the audience for this site is always expanding, reaching not only the psychotic religious but also the semi-literate. And you’re absolutely right – we “fags” really do need to stop whining about marriage. We simply don’t deserve it. No matter what we do, a marriage for us can never be the sacred union it is for you heterosexuals, what with your painfully high divorce rates and quickie marriages in Las Vegas, not to mention the relatively high rates of domestic violence and adultery. Marriage is a sacred union and it should never be available for same sex couples, if for no other reason than we are entirely incapable of treating it with the same level of disdain as you heterosexuals.

Well, Bill, you really have opened my eyes. I’m a convert. Not only am I abandoning my quest for gay marriage, but I’m also taking God’s “test” and abandoning my homosexual ways. In fact, right now I’m going to go out and find the cheapest, nastiest female prostitute available, bring her back to my place and shag her tits off. Then I may go pray for my immortal soul until my knees bleed.

Oh, wait, hang on a second – I’ve just realised something. You’re a prat, aren’t you? In that case forget what I’ve just said. It’s far easier to just say “piss off you small minded bigot” and continue with my life, which unlike yours happens not to be tainted by hatred. Turd.

By: Mercedes

Mercedes — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:31:15 +0000

The train wreck is the most likely outcome. Scalia and Thomas write decisions that fly in the face of logic, truth and precedent to reach the outcome they desire. I am certain Roberts is likely no different as he used to work for Reingquist who did as Thomas and Scalia have done. There is no truth that matters to these fools and they are willing to sacrifice our Constitutional values to obtain the political outcome they desire. As much as Olsen and Boise are correct, they will win all the way up until they reach that rancid U.S. Supreme Court.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:25:09 +0000

Conviction. This should proceed as we will be generations behind as it stands. Rosa Parks probably should have not been a trouble maker, if she were following the instructions of everyone else. But she didn’t. That’s brave. This lawsuit will put the cards on the table. Let’s see exactly what the highest court is made. Then we can move onward with our eyes fully open.

By: Prof. Donald Gaudard

Prof. Donald Gaudard — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 06:11:29 +0000

First, this is a Prop 8 challenge and it’s likely the courts will limit their holding to a narrow decision holding Prop 8 unconstitutional. Secondly, if the trial judge and the 9th circuit hold that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, it still could be heard by the Supreme Court. BUT, first the Supreme Court would have to agree to hear it (it takes 4 votes to agree to hear this limited appeal). Also, the two most recent gay decisions have been favorable to gays and both were written by Justice Kennedy. The first, Romer v. Evans, was assisted by Chief Justice Roberts when he was a lawyer in private practice, so it’s hard to know how he would vote. See the following article for how Roberts assisted in the favorable Romer case:

http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=611&Itemid=118

So, if the case gets to the Supreme Court, the court could issue a narrow ruling upholding Prop 8 by a 5-4 vote, or it could overturn Prop 8 by a 5-4 or 6-3 vote, or it could issue a broad ruling governing gay marriages in all the states (unlikely). Professor of Law Emeritus Don Gaudard

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 04:44:01 +0000

This could really go either way, so I’m not surprised to see all the leading LGBT groups backing away from it. First of all, I think they will win the Federal District Court, and maybe again at the appellate court level, but when it moves up the United States Supreme Court we will definitely get screwed by the 5-4 Conservative Republican majority. They will never do what is obviously right and fair when it conflicts with their inherent bias against gay & lesbian Americans. Like I said, we may win this one at first, but it will ultimately go against us, unless of course Scalia or Thomas dies or retires, and I don’t see that happening.

By: drewski

drewski — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 04:04:33 +0000

Said it before, say it again–go back to Scalia’s dissent on Lawrence v Texas. Scalia was the one who claimed that voiding sodomy laws against gays was essentially an endosement of gays getting married. HE put that out there, it wasn’t anybody else making a fuzzy inference. Can’t tell you how much I’d love to see that chicken go home to roost!

It’s the “wrong time”? When is the “right time”? You don’t fight to gain your rights after you already have them. It took fifty years to begin undoing Plessy v Ferguson, but it took less than twenty to undo Bowers v Hardwick. If your rights don’t exist under Federal law, they really don’t exist, so the argument about the awful consequences of losing this case are erroneous. Look at it like this: if you’re gay and married and you drive up 95 from DC to Portland you’re married but not here/maybe married but not here/not married/not married/kinda married/married but not here/married/maybe married but not here/married. Now imagine being a benefits administrator for a company headquartered in Atlanta but with major operations in each of those states. Then imagine that the company’s global headquarters are in Toronto. The status quo doesn’t work, and if some of you want to wait ’til it does, you’re gonna have to go to a voodoo priestess to stay alive that long. Grow a set and acknowledge that nothing worth having comes risk-free.

By: Anthony Garringer

Anthony Garringer — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:24:19 +0000

This may be as big as Brown v. Board, I hope these Lawyers are aware of the climate if this does go to the Supreme Court we may get our fondest hopes and wishes and our most horrid Nightmares

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:04:58 +0000

A number of you have mentioned the ‘conservative court.’ It was a conservative court that overturned the sodomy laws. Remember, we have 4 liberal justices and 4 conservative ones. And one in the middle who votes conservative most of the time, but has been consistently liberal in all the cases affecting gay rights to date.

Indeed, Justice Kennedy even wrote a rationale for overturning the sodomy laws that many legal experts claim he also laid the foundations for gay marriage in that opinion.

As it stands now, I think we’d win. With Souter retiring and Sotomayor coming in, there is a question mark in my mind. Some claim she is liberal and would vote like Souter, but she is Catholic and has voted fairly conservatively in her rulings on abortion.

If Souter were staying, I’d say go for it… With Sotomayor, I’m a bit more hesitant to see this case go to the Supremes.

I have no doubt Breyer, Ginsburg, Powell and Kennedy would vote in our favor. Scalia (the beast), Thomas, Alito and Roberts would likely vote against us (though Roberts may be a nice surprise).

That leaves Sotomayor, and where she stands is just too up in the air for me.

By: Mr. Coffee

Mr. Coffee — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:04:53 +0000

We may end up, indeed, with a fiasco in the Supreme Court this time ’round, but that isn’t necessarily permanent. Remember, the sodomy laws decision in the Clinton administration went against us, only to go the other way in a more conservative court.

Ultimately, as shown in the California marriage flip-flop, Gay marriage is NOT an issue for the voters. What the voters giveth, the voters can taketh away.

Our right to marry needs to be found enshrined in the constitution so that we are free from the tyranny of the majority for good (well, nothing is forever…)