Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[New Chalcedon]

I don't want a higher tax burden because gays can get married.

ZOMFG, YOU GUISE, TEH TAX MONSTAH'S GONNA GIT US!!!

Considering government services in the US, taxes are pretty goddamn high.

The point TRP's making is the complete lack of substance behind Zephie's argument. He's just throwin out right-wing buzzwords, as if they justify his entire homophobic, bigoted argument.

News, Zephie: they don't.

[Tmutarakhan]

I can give you five reasons: Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Roberts.

I do not think it is fair to Kennedy or Roberts to lump them in with the other three.

Roberts worked pro bono (for free) to attack a Colorado constitutional amendment which would have prohibited discrimination (Romer v. Evans).

That was the pro-gay side he was working for. You seem to have gotten tangled up in the double negatives: the Colorado amendment would have prohibited anti-discrimination ordinances, and Roberts was against that (in favor of anti-discrimination ordinances). It's easy to get lost in counting whether the number of negatives is even or odd: "The Bakke Court declined to overturn an appeals court ruling vacating a district court finding that reverse discrimination is not unconstitutional."

Kennedy, while he authored Lawrence v. Texas, he also voted to uphold the Boy Scouts of America's organisation right to bar gay people from joining in 2000

On grounds that they were a private organization, not a public facility: he approves of decisions that the Scouts cannot take public funds if they violate public policies against discrimination (unlike Scalia and Thomas, and probably Alito, who would let them pocket my tax dollar and lock me out).

[New Chalcedon]

I can give you five reasons: Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Roberts.

I do not think it is fair to Kennedy or Roberts to lump them in with the other three.

Roberts worked pro bono (for free) to attack a Colorado constitutional amendment which would have prohibited discrimination (Romer v. Evans).

That was the pro-gay side he was working for. You seem to have gotten tangled up in the double negatives: the Colorado amendment would have prohibited anti-discrimination ordinances, and Roberts was against that (in favor of anti-discrimination ordinances). It's easy to get lost in counting whether the number of negatives is even or odd: "The Bakke Court declined to overturn an appeals court ruling vacating a district court finding that reverse discrimination is not unconstitutional."

Kennedy, while he authored Lawrence v. Texas, he also voted to uphold the Boy Scouts of America's organisation right to bar gay people from joining in 2000

On grounds that they were a private organization, not a public facility: he approves of decisions that the Scouts cannot take public funds if they violate public policies against discrimination (unlike Scalia and Thomas, and probably Alito, who would let them pocket my tax dollar and lock me out).

Ah, yes. Too many double negatives for a half-asleep boyo like me. I stand corrected: Roberts worked pro bono getting the Amendment overturned, but the amendment wasn't enshrining anti-discrimination protections, it was prohibiting them. My apologies.

Regarding Kennedy, citation please.

[The Resurgent Dream]

The whole Boy Scouts decision. It was entirely about the right of expressive associations to discriminate in their own membership. It didn't involve any discrimination by the government and it applied equally to all. After Boy Scouts, a gay organization is free to deny membership to straight people or to deny straight people leadership positions. Some do. As long as the organization is around to express or teach or advocate a viewpoint, whatever that viewpoint is, it can reject members who undermine that viewpoint. For example, lower courts have applied Boy Scouts to allow a private meeting, addressed by Louis Farrakhan to exclude women. I don't think the court made that ruling because they like Farrakhan or approve of sex discrimination. For judges, if not for all members of the public, that one's settled. I disapprove of Farrakhan's sexism and the Boy Scout's homophobia but I respect their right to advocate their point of view, including regulating membership in their associations. I will not join or support either!

For those who don't know, the Girl Scouts do NOT discriminate based on sexual orientation. So you can buy Girl Scout cookies without a guilty conscience. They're separate organizations.

[Soheran]

If you're going to count Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, you have to count CLS v. Martinez, too--actually, CLS v. Martinez probably counts for more, considering its rejection of the status/conduct distinction as applied to sexual orientation.

Justice Kennedy has a very good record on gay rights. My worry with him is simply that he will not be willing to go so far so fast, at a time when forty-five states prohibit same-sex marriage and substantial national majorities still oppose it. His joining the majority in Hollingsworth v. Perry does not bode very well for this specific case either.

[Wiztopia]

Why does anybody care if it was overturned? If you're not gay then quit being a homophobe.

[Ermarian]

I don't want a higher tax burden because gays can get married.

What if people don't want a higher tax burden because some people can avoid tax by pooling their income in "religious" organizations?

[Our Constitution]

Seriously, Judges should not be given this power. A *single* Judge should not be given this power. It is unconstitutional that a *single* judge can block these measures.

No, there needs to be a change. Before any of these "stays" or "injunctions" can be brought a majority of the judges need to agree. A single judge should not be able to rule over a vote.

Here, let me illustrate:

People vote to legalize alcohol.
8/9 judges are silent on the issue.
1 judge decides the vote violated the constitution.
The law is made void until the Judges hear an appeal.

No, it should take a majority of the Judges until any law can be put under an injunction. I could care less about the ISSUE being debated here regarding *fagscoughfags* but the very power of a SINGLE JUDGE to overturn a Vote of a Majority of the People is wrong in the utmost.

Its Tyranny and for proof, allow me to show what our Founding Fathers thought of such abuses of power:

Declaration of Independence: He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them

5/9 Judges on the Bench to make an Injunction or Stay on a Law voted in by the Public. Giving a single judge this type of power is not what our Founding Fathers would have wanted.

[Our Constitution]

Susan Bolton & now this crazy Judge?

A single Judge should not have this kind of power. All these laws should continue until this single Judge can get the other judges needed for a majority to agree with him / her. If that judge is unable to do so, then this type of Judicial Authority should be unconstitutional. In fact, I'm sure it is. I can't imagine that the Founding Fathers would've set up a Judicial System granting a single individual to turn over a popular vote. Definitely not, the entire Bench would have to make this kind of motion to overturn a law, not a single Judge.

Gotta go pick up a law book again, I have a feeling this judge as well as Ms. Bolton should be impeached for over-reaching their authority, and of course any executive powers that are accomplises should like wise lose their jobs as well.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Meh.

[The Resurgent Dream]

Susan Bolton & now this crazy Judge?

A single Judge should not have this kind of power. All these laws should continue until this single Judge can get the other judges needed for a majority to agree with him / her. If that judge is unable to do so, then this type of Judicial Authority should be unconstitutional. In fact, I'm sure it is. I can't imagine that the Founding Fathers would've set up a Judicial System granting a single individual to turn over a popular vote. Definitely not, the entire Bench would have to make this kind of motion to overturn a law, not a single Judge.

Gotta go pick up a law book again, I have a feeling this judge as well as Ms. Bolton should be impeached for over-reaching their authority, and of course any executive powers that are accomplises should like wise lose their jobs as well.

Well, the Founding Fathers and 300 years of legislative and judicial history and precedent say you're dead wrong. Deal with it.

[Tahar Joblis]

Seriously, Judges should not be given this power. A *single* Judge should not be given this power. It is unconstitutional that a *single* judge can block these measures.

No, it isn't.

This has been the case for over two hundred years. Most of the founding fathers were still alive the first time a law was thrown out as unconstitutional. It's generally accepted that judicial review is part of the "judicial power" framed in the constitution:

Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

As you may note, the judiciary has the power to judge the law. The structure of the judiciary is not set by the constitution, except by providing for the establishment of a supreme court. Congress is permitted to structure inferior courts however they like. In this particular case, Walker (who, we may note, is a Republican appointee) was acting perfectly normally in the manner that district courts usually handle law. When the case is heard in appellate court, it is likely to be reviewed by a panel of three judges. When the case is heard in the Supreme Court, that number will go up to nine. I do not doubt that either this or a similar case will get pushed all the way up to the Supreme Court sooner or later.

If you want to have multiple judges reviewing every case that comes before federal courts, then it's going to require a significant increase in the number of judges. The current system works pretty well and is efficient.

It's also precisely what Congress has ordered, and thus constitutionally valid - because it is entirely up to Congress to determine the structure of the inferior courts.

No, there needs to be a change. Before any of these "stays" or "injunctions" can be brought a majority of the judges need to agree. A single judge should not be able to rule over a vote.

Here, let me illustrate:

People vote to legalize alcohol.
8/9 judges are silent on the issue.
1 judge decides the vote violated the constitution.
The law is made void until the Judges hear an appeal.

Which is precisely what the judge should do when s/he finds the current law to be both in violation of the constitution and immediately harmful, yes?

No, it should take a majority of the Judges until any law can be put under an injunction. I could care less about the ISSUE being debated here regarding *fagscoughfags* but the very power of a SINGLE JUDGE to overturn a Vote of a Majority of the People is wrong in the utmost.

Its Tyranny and for proof, allow me to show what our Founding Fathers thought of such abuses of power:

Declaration of Independence: He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them

5/9 Judges on the Bench to make an Injunction or Stay on a Law voted in by the Public. Giving a single judge this type of power is not what our Founding Fathers would have wanted.

=> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative#United_States

Direct democracy was not very quick in coming to the United States. It is not in the constitution. It is, in fact, conspicuously absent in the older Eastern states - eleven of the thirteen original states have no referendum/initiative process. Massachusetts and Maryland are it. Nor does the constitution make special provision for laws enacted by act of populace to be treated differently from acts of legislature; they are all subject precisely to the same judicial review as acts of legislatures.

That it was reviewed by a single judge is simply a consequence of the structure of the courts. There is no way that you could accept judicial review at all (and the United States would be quite a poor place if the Constitution was a non-binding guideline for authoring legislation, believe me) and not accept the ability of a single judge to strike down a law - because our courts are structured in such a manner that very few cases will be seen by more than one judge.

[The Rich Port]

Did we scare all the Conservatives away besides Our Constitution? It's no fun trolling them without them actually BEING here.

I don't want a higher tax burden because gays can get married.

ZOMFG, YOU GUISE, TEH TAX MONSTAH'S GONNA GIT US!!!

Considering government services in the US, taxes are pretty goddamn high.

The point TRP's making is the complete lack of substance behind Zephie's argument. He's just throwin out right-wing buzzwords, as if they justify his entire homophobic, bigoted argument.

News, Zephie: they don't.

I'm still confused as to WHY Zephie is flying Pinko colors if he's a jerk to Gays.

[NERVUN]

Did we scare all the Conservatives away besides Our Constitution? It's no fun trolling them without them actually BEING here.

How about you don't?

[Vindicaria]

This is a victory for civil rights. I don't understand why anyone should care about consensual bedrooms antics between adults. I'll never understand how a union of two men or women would dampen the values of my family. Besides for those pro-prop 8 who say well why can't just they just be together instead of getting married? Well what if one gets seriously injured in an accident or put into coma, the partner would legally have NO rights over the decision legally.

[The Rich Port]

How about you don't?

NERVUN, you offend me! I wouldn't THINK of it.

This is a victory for civil rights. I don't understand why anyone should care about consensual bedrooms antics between adults. I'll never understand how a union of two men or women would dampen the values of my family. Besides for those pro-prop 8 who say well why can't just they just be together instead of getting married? Well what if one gets seriously injured in an accident or put into coma, the partner would legally have NO rights over the decision legally.

Admittedly, I still don't think giving NAMBLA an inch would be a good idea. I get the feeling they'll abuse it real easy... Wait, I don't think I'm replying to this right.

[Grave_n_idle]

Seriously, Judges should not be given this power. A *single* Judge should not be given this power. It is unconstitutional that a *single* judge can block these measures.

Why?

We're not talking about altering the Constitution here, we're talking about stopping un-Constitutional action.

[The Rich Port]

Well, the Founding Fathers and 300 years of legislative and judicial history and precedent say you're dead wrong. Deal with it.

I know, right? That's what I said.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Seems like liberals have stopped screaming "America's a democracy!" since the popular vote is not in their favour. But anyway, I don't really care whether gays marry or not. Just don't tell the children 'bout it.

[DaWoad]

Seems like liberals have stopped screaming "America's a democracy!" since the popular vote is not in their favour. But anyway, I don't really care whether gays marry or not. Just don't tell the children 'bout it.

why not?

[Grave_n_idle]

Seems like liberals have stopped screaming "America's a democracy!" since the popular vote is not in their favour. But anyway, I don't really care whether gays marry or not. Just don't tell the children 'bout it.

Don't tell children that some of the kids in class might have two mommies or two daddies?

Seems pointless. Kids ain't stupid.

[Dyakovo]

Seems like liberals have stopped screaming "America's a democracy!" since the popular vote is not in their favour. But anyway, I don't really care whether gays marry or not. Just don't tell the children 'bout it.

Only the dim-witted "screamed 'America's a democracy'" anyways. Also, why not tell the children?

[Tahar Joblis]

Seems like liberals have stopped screaming "America's a democracy!" since the popular vote is not in their favour. But anyway, I don't really care whether gays marry or not. Just don't tell the children 'bout it.

2 percent per year. This is the rate at which support for gay marriage increases, on average. The fact is, demographics will bring gay marriage to the US state by state... but slowly. The law does not move quickly. It's going to be hard to reverse the assorted constitutional amendments that have been passed. Fact of the matter is, the generation that has grown up after the Stonewall riots is in favor of gay marriage. The younger you are, the more likely you are to be in favor of it, and their opinions aren't changing as they grow older. Right now, in fact, I'm pretty sure that a majority of Americans support gay marriage - or at least, aren't willing to ban it. 24% of the population, however, is too young to vote. Those children in school that you want to protect? They probably know more about gays than you do. And they're not interested in banning gay marriage.

Perhaps, in time, Jim Crow would have been extinguished piecemeal by now. Perhaps, under quiet pressure from its neighbors, the state of Alabama would have desegregated ... maybe as early as the 1990s. But the core of the matter is this: If you put rights up to a vote, those rights can and will be abrogated. Segregation enjoyed widespread popular support. Segregation was implemented with widespread popular support. And segregation was wrong.

[The Rich Port]

Seems like liberals have stopped screaming "America's a democracy!" since the popular vote is not in their favour. But anyway, I don't really care whether gays marry or not. Just don't tell the children 'bout it.

Well, they TRY to keep it a democracy. But ever since the Christian Right took over the Republican Party, it's hard to do it without a national stockpile of acetaminophen!

And I get the feeling "the children" already know. Clearly you've never seen "Spongebob" or "Brokeback Mountain".

[Ifreann]

It is unconstitutional that a *single* judge can block these measures.

I fucking dare you to back that up.