Prop 8 - Judge rules to put marriages on hold (Imperial: unemployment rate, authority)

[Voyageur]

Originally Posted by revelated

You did not answer my question. I know they have the authority. I asked you to point me to one example where they exercised that authority. You likely won't find many, if any, and those that did shortly got overturned thereafter.

Yes, I did. You asked me for one example, and I gave you two - Amendment 73 in Arkansas and Initiative 695 in Washington. And of course you won't find many such examples, because well over 99% of all laws we have are not enacted by voter initiative. If you understand that, and can do simple math, it should then be glaringly obvious that most laws overruled won't be those passed by referendum.

How did you manage to miss this in my previous post?
One example is Amendment 73 in Arkansas, passed by referendum, which would have enacted term limits for Arkansas members of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. A state circuit judge ruled the law unconstitutional, the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed, and so did the United States Supreme Court in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995).

Another example is a Initiative 695 in Washington:
Judge rules I-695 unconstitutional

Originally Posted by revelated

Judge lifts Prop. 8 stay - gay marriages on hold - SFGate

Lift = overturn. Same difference.

Sorry, if you're going to discuss legal issues, use legal terms correctly. Judge Walker did not overturn or lift the stay that he imposed. Rather, he scheduled the stay which he had imposed to end on August 18 of this year. He did not have to issue a stay, and he did not have to delay its end for a week. He did both.

Point is, after the ruling, the only thing he should have done is say "okay. Now, we need to allow a REASONABLE amount of time for the appeals process to go through". Not two weeks which is what he did, knowing full well the appeal wouldn't be heard for months.

TRANSLATION: "I wish he would've done something different!"

Too bad. The court system doesn't revolve around what revelated wants. The hearing of the appeal of the decision (if that ever happens) and the stay are two different things.

They scrambled to stop the runaway train that was Judge Walker. Normally, they would have taken their time. Walker cramming things through was a ploy to prevent the Prop 8 crowd from formulating a better argument. Same strategy they used to steamroll OJ up in Vegas.

I suggest you stop being so medodramatic. No one scrambled. They issued a simple, perfunctory order of two paragraphs that a law clerk probably wrote after a brief consultation with the court scheduler and one of the three Ninth Circuit judges:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...otion_stay.pdf

And, no, normally judges don't take their time issuing two-paragraph, routine rulings. They probably have a template for just this sort of issuance. And a week is a very long time for such a simple act as consideration of a stay. Almost every time there is an execution in the United States - and there have been 36 of them this year - a judge has literally hours to decide whether to grant cert, a more weighty decision than whether or not to extend stay. Hours.

Look, I get it. You don't like this ruling. Why don't you articulate your problems with Judge Walker's ruling? All you're doing is attacking the judge and in doing so you're simply revealing that you just don't realize that these sorts of judicial actions we're discussing are ordinary and typical.

But all your claims don't amount to more than the fact that you just really wish this ruling had gone the other way.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

WAY more than a few...

true

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Cyanna

This issue reminds me of the "Age of Consent" issue which became a hotbed of controversy and animosity during the late 19th century. In the 1880's it was legally acceptable for a man to have sexual intercourse with a girl as young as 10 years old, and in the State of Delaware, as young as 7 years old, provided the man had her so-called "consent." To us this sounds horrific, but to men of that era it was commonplace and acceptable. Women and some men tried desperately for YEARS to have this age of consent law changed, only to have it knocked down over and over again, until finally the law was changed in 1890, and made the age of consent for females age 16 years in most states.

It was men, some church pastors and female madams who did not wish for this law to change due to their own self-interests. It did not matter to them that this was an issue about protecting the rights of a segment of society. These men (most of whom were good "Christian" men with children of their own!) and madams, and even some church pastors most certainly were not thinking in a very "Biblical" way about the rights of these female children. The law was changed because it needed to be changed.

Yet the religious "right" now wants to prevent consenting ADULTS from having the right to be a legally married couple? Why? Because it doesn't fit in with THEIR personal religious beliefs. The institution of marriage is a legal civil ceremony, and as such falls within the realms of a judge's decision, and not that of any religious organization. Its no different than laws being made about the use of cellphones while driving or drinking while drunk.

Well said

[revelated]

Originally Posted by Voyageur

Look, I get it. You don't like this ruling. Why don't you articulate your problems with Judge Walker's ruling? All you're doing is attacking the judge and in doing so you're simply revealing that you just don't realize that these sorts of judicial actions we're discussing are ordinary and typical.

But all your claims don't amount to more than the fact that you just really wish this ruling had gone the other way.

The ruling doesn't bother me. His methods do. Don't go cramming to get people married. You know full well an appeal is forthcoming; let them appeal. If you're so confident that the argument is sound against Prop 8, let them go to appeal and let them fail. The only reason he was in such a rush is due to (A) his bias as a homosexual, (B) the pressure from the LGBT community (who admitted to being "lined up" at the offices waiting for the 18th to get married, and (C) politics to keep his bench. Period.

It's not about what a person can do. It's about what a person should do. Do the right thing. No different than any other high-profile case. If you're confident your argument will stick, don't try to cram it down the system's throat; sit back and let the other side appeal and fail if you think you've got a slam dunk case. Walker knew full well he was treading on thin ice. That judge down in Arizona is the same way; they're making decisions based on what they feel, not based on what the law says or what the voters say. That's dangerous. That's what I don't care for - runaway judges making knee-jerk decisions without FULL due process.



The bottom line is this: The appeal needs to go through. There should be no LGBT marriages sanctioned until the appeal is completed OR the appeals court lifts the stay. If/when the appeal is shot down, have at it and I'll put my entire support behind it, because then I'll know it's not just one homosexual judge calling the shots about an issue that affects him; that's called conflict of interest and it creates problems. It needs to be a panel of mixed people who collectively decide the fate of millions. This isn't a monarchy, dude.

[Voyageur]

Originally Posted by revelated

The ruling doesn't bother me. His methods do. Don't go cramming to get people married. You know full well an appeal is forthcoming; let them appeal. If you're so confident that the argument is sound against Prop 8, let them go to appeal and let them fail. The only reason he was in such a rush is due to (A) his bias as a homosexual, (B) the pressure from the LGBT community (who admitted to being "lined up" at the offices waiting for the 18th to get married, and (C) politics to keep his bench. Period.

It's not about what a person can do. It's about what a person should do. Do the right thing. No different than any other high-profile case. If you're confident your argument will stick, don't try to cram it down the system's throat; sit back and let the other side appeal and fail if you think you've got a slam dunk case. Walker knew full well he was treading on thin ice. That judge down in Arizona is the same way; they're making decisions based on what they feel, not based on what the law says or what the voters say. That's dangerous. That's what I don't care for - runaway judges making knee-jerk decisions without FULL due process.

The bottom line is this: The appeal needs to go through. There should be no LGBT marriages sanctioned until the appeal is completed OR the appeals court lifts the stay. If/when the appeal is shot down, have at it and I'll put my entire support behind it, because then I'll know it's not just one homosexual judge calling the shots about an issue that affects him; that's called conflict of interest and it creates problems. It needs to be a panel of mixed people who collectively decide the fate of millions. This isn't a monarchy, dude.

Yes, the ruling bothers you. Everything about Judge Walker bothers you because he is gay (which you just can't resist obsessing about, mentioning it repeatedly) and because you loathe the thought of gay people being allowed to married people to whom they are naturally attracted. So you demand examples of other cases where a single judge has overturned ballot initiavies, then ignore the examples I duly provided. You make up ridiculous claims that the Ninth Circuit is being rushed and demonstrate that you really don't understand how the courts function.

PS - do you even know what the term 'monarchy' means? Maybe the completely inappropriate analogy you're desperately reaching for is 'dictatorship'? Well, here's a clue for you - dictators (and absolute monarchs, which are just another sort of dictator) don't have their rulings subject to being reviewed by higher courts, nor are their rulings further checked by the legislative and state power of Constitutional amendment.

Again, I get it. You hate this ruling, you don't like gays, and you really wish it had gone another way. That, and meaningless babbling about monarchs and knee-jerks and 'fate of millions' is all you've got.

Too bad you have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century...

[BVitamin]

Voyageur, kudos for sticking it out and trying to get through revelated. But I think this two part video will explain it in laymen's term in a concise and direct way about the court case of Prop 8. It will also knock down revelated's so called 'arguments' as they are explained in the video as ad hominems and other fallacies.


YouTube - How Proposition 8 Went Down (Part 1 of 2)

YouTube - How Proposition 8 Went Down (Part 2 of 2)

Anyone who still have a problem or suspicion as to how Judge Walker exercised his judicial duty after watching these videos, well all there is left to say is

[Voyageur]

Originally Posted by BVitamin

Voyageur, kudos for sticking it out and trying to get through revelated. But I think this two part video will explain it in laymen's term in a concise and direct way about the court case of Prop 8. It will also knock down revelated's so called 'arguments' as they are explained in the video as ad hominems and other fallacies.

Honestly, I don't have any allusions that revelated can be reached. But there are others reading these threads who might accept revelated's claims (of the alleged extraordinariness of Judge Walker's actions, the alleged frantic actions of the Ninth Circuit to put a halt to an alleged out-of-control judge, etc.) and I've pointed out those false claims so that hopefully such readers don't necessarily accept revelated's assertions.

[Cyanna]

The gays and lesbians will be damned if they do and damned if they don't. Does anyone else remember how society would look down on homosexuals because they felt that they were indiscriminate, multi-partnered fornicators who just wanted to have sex without committment, while spreading AIDS? Now, they want the RIGHT to be married and monogamous just like the rest of us, and they still can't be left alone in peace to find happiness in their PRIVATE lives without religious nuts sticking their noses in where they don't belong!

And the Christians in my family wonder why I am so turned off by religion. Does anyone else get the impression that devout religious people have an unnatural morbid fixation on sex, while accusing the rest of us tro be the degenerates, perverts and fornicators?

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Cyanna

And the Christians in my family wonder why I am so turned off by religion. Does anyone else get the impression that devout religious people have an unnatural morbid fixation on sex, while accusing the rest of us tro be the degenerates, perverts and fornicators?

Dammit, this thing will not let me rep you again! This paragraph hits home to me in every way. I too was turned off by religion to the point where I was a non believer for years. This is why today, while I do believe, I refuse to be affiliated with any church or anyplace where my opinions are dependent on the opinions of others.

You're also right that those involved in organized religion do seem to be obsessed with the sex lives of others.

Now that I've said that, sit back and watch this....

[Cyanna]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Dammit, this thing will not let me rep you again! This paragraph hits home to me in every way. I too was turned off by religion to the point where I was a non believer for years. This is why today, while I do believe, I refuse to be affiliated with any church or anyplace where my opinions are dependent on the opinions of others.

You're also right that those involved in organized religion do seem to be obsessed with the sex lives of others.

Now that I've said that, sit back and watch this....

My personal beliefs are pretty eclectic, since I believe in reincarnation, or at least in its possibility I was raised a Catholic, but left that at an early age, and then found myself attending a non-denominational church with my older sister. I found both experiences to be very uncomfortable and since I am a big people-watcher I observed so much hypocrisy and nastiness coming from people who proclaimed themselves to be better than others that it really put me off. Later forays into religion also proved unsatisfying for me. But the real clincher for me was when the church my dad belonged to towards the end of his life played a major part in his death. That I can never forgive and I still get the urge to burn the place to the ground any time I drive past it. Fortunately I do not like playing with fire

I have a term for religious people who wish to control the sex lives of others...I call them "window peepers." They remind me of those puritan forefathers who would literally peek in people's windows to make sure they weren't fornicating at the wrong times or with the wrong people, LOL!

Now you've got me started, LOL! I really, really dislike those who would try and control another based onpersonal religious views. Grrrrrrrrr!

For the record, I don't believe we are NATURALLY heterosexual. I believe it is an artificial construct