Prop 8 - Judge rules to put marriages on hold (Columbia: felony, office)

[BVitamin]

Cyanna, it's called voyeur, one who practices voyeurism; similarily this term doesn't have a silent 'ag' (kidding).

[Cyanna]

Originally Posted by BVitamin

Cyanna, it's called voyeur, one who practices voyeurism; similarily this term doesn't have a silent 'ag' (kidding).

Peeper, voyeur, they are still the same pervert, LOL! Okay, maybe not ALL voyeurs are perverts, but most peepers are

[revelated]

Originally Posted by Voyageur

you don't like gays

#1: Because a person doesn't like hasty justice, conflicts of interest, or haphazard rulings, they automatically "hate gays".


Whatever dude. Point is, the appeal should be allowed to continue, and let the chips fall where they may. I'll support whatever the final outcome is, regardless of what that outcome happens to be, because then it'll be the final authority making the decision - a group of judges who all weigh in and not a single judge with a clear bias in intent.

You feel differently - do you. ^that right there is what I believe. Period.

[BacktoBlue]

Now Imperial County wants to DEFEND prop 8.
Imperial County fights for spot in Prop 8 debate - SignOnSanDiego.com

[BacktoBlue]

^ bump

[Roaddog]

[Fontucky]

Wow, the ripples from this will be MASSIVE, considering the huge influence of a county with 185,000 people, 54,924 of whom are registered voters, 12,969 of whom turned out to vote in the last election.

[BacktoBlue]

Originally Posted by Roaddog

You're happy about that?!?!

[Voyageur]

Originally Posted by revelated

#1: Because a person doesn't like hasty justice, conflicts of interest, or haphazard rulings, they automatically "hate gays".

"hasty justice"...

The decision took months to come down after the trial was held. Do you have anything - anything at all - besides talking points that just don't jibe with reality?

I didn't say you hated gays - I said you didn't like them. I do understand, however, that you think your position looks better when you lie about what I said. Your dishonesty is no surprise, given the numerous false claims you've already made about this case and appeals in general, though I do suspect that as often as not, such claims are from utter ignorance rather than disingenuity.

Whatever dude. Point is, the appeal should be allowed to continue, and let the chips fall where they may. I'll support whatever the final outcome is, regardless of what that outcome happens to be, because then it'll be the final authority making the decision - a group of judges who all weigh in and not a single judge with a clear bias in intent.

Keep knocking down those strawmen...

No one has ever said the ruling can't be appealed. Again, just another red herring on your part, suggesting that it won't be appealed. It will be appealed. And, frankly, I don't find the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the stay unreasonable. I would have ruled otherwise, but I think their ruling is reasonable. And that's what differentiates you and I - I don't put forth the inane claims that you do when a decision comes don't with which I disagree. You've whined that this decision was "knee jerk", "arbitrary", forcing courts to "scramble", "screaming of desperation", "power tripping", "runaway judge", "one-sided decision". Because that's all you've got. You wouldn't understand the decision even if you read it, so you don't have an issue with it. You can't have an issue with it. What you dislike is the outcome. Period.

And, again, this is how our judicial system works. This has been explained to you - for over two hundred years, at the federal district court level individual judges have been issuing rulings. And you're acting like this is unusual. It's not.

You feel differently - do you. ^that right there is what I believe. Period.

Morally relativistic nonsense. This is not a mere 'difference of opinion'. You support oppressive laws designed to marginalize people you dislike because of who that are.

Instead of all this hysterical hyperbole, why don't you for once tell us what you don't like about the decision? Beyond the outcome, I mean. What part of the building of the case based on Lawrence v. Texas (2003) do you find inapplicable in Judge Walker's decision? How does Romer v. Evans (1996) not inevitably lead to Judge Walker's Due Process ruling? Which of the several dozen findings of fact from the trial do you reject, and why?

You have no commentary on any of these things. You don't care. All that concerns you is outcome. You couldn't care any less about precedent and caselaw.

And that's why you can do nothing but attack the judge and the ruling with vague and scary but meaningless adjectives.

[BacktoBlue]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

Wow, the ripples from this will be MASSIVE, considering the huge influence of a county with 185,000 people, 54,924 of whom are registered voters, 12,969 of whom turned out to vote in the last election.

HAHA Not to mention it has the highest unemployment rate in the whole country at around 34%