DisgruntledTunaFan

SAN FRANCISCO – Lawyers arguing a landmark federal case involving California's same-sex marriage ban made their final arguments Wednesday, with supporters describing matrimony as an institution intended to promote childbearing and opponents saying the U.S. Supreme Court had recognized it as a fundamental right.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson delivered the closing argument for the two same-sex couples who sued to overturn voter-approved Proposition 8, claiming it violated their civil rights under the U.S. Constitution.

He told Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker that tradition or fears of harm to heterosexual unions were legally insufficient grounds to discriminate against gay couples.

"'We have always done it that way' is a corollary to 'Because I say so.' It's not a reason," Olson said at the start of the five-hour hearing. "You can't have constitutional discrimination in public schools because you have always done it that way."

read more

Lawyers give final arguments in gay marriage case - Yahoo! News

__________________
Scott A. Johnson - End Times Current Events and Bible Study

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Wolfpack

This case is a wonderful win-win scenario for those of us who oppose perversion and deviance. Either we win the case outright or we lose and get to appeal it to the USSC - and of course any ruling they make gets to apply nationwide.

I honestly hope we lose this round because I would much rather win the next. Similarly, if we win this round, I will guarantee you there is no appeal to the next level. Oh sure, the first thing they'll do is proclaim their desire for an appeal - but they'll back down because it's better to lose one district than the whole country.

chicowalker

Hey, there's the bigot!

Another "small government" (but only for what you believe in, of course) righty. Probably think intraracial marriage and marriage across religions are perverse and deviant, too.

Just a few more years 'til enough of the likes of you die for a majority across the nation to support equal rights.

Wolfpack

Typical strawman argument we have seen time and time again. It's the liberal response to everything... Do you want to lower taxes? Racist! Do you want to decrease government spending? Racist! Do you oppose gay marriage? Racist!
Well if it happens after I'm dead, then I guess it won't bother me too much. But in the meantime, I won't have to see my beloved country endorse perverse, deviant lifestyles.

Besides, when the most liberal state in the union votes down gay marriage, I am not sure I would be thumping my chest about how a national majority is just around the corner. Considering America's shifting demographics, I doubt such a majority will ever arrive.

chicowalker

Sad how fascist righties such as yourself have no sense of what liberty means.

But, hey, if you equate liberalism with equal rights, go for it.

Your words speak for themselves. I never said you're a racist (reading comprehension again...) but you're clearly a bigoted homophobe.

Funny for a guy who was so insistent that Patterson must be an anti- Semite simply because he doesn't unconditionally support Israel.

Wolfpack

My reading comprehension is just fine, the problem is you're too gutless to stand by your own statements. Seriously... You look like a fool by accusing me of opposing interracial marriage in one post, then meekly saying "I never called you a racist" in another.

I mean, at least have the courage of your own convictions. I never pegged you for one of the gutless types who backs down from his own statements, but I guess I overestimated your fortitude.

chicowalker

If it weren't for your many misunderstandings in other threads, I'd chalk it up to a matter of tone not coming across online. But the comment was sarcasm, intended to illustrate how ass-backwards your pov is. Of course, there's the equally likely possibility that you are being disingenuous and completely understood what I was saying.

For the record, though, I'll say it again since you get confused easily. I haven't seen anything here to indicate that you're racist or antisemitic.

But you clearly are a bigoted homophobe.

Furthermore, you share a belief with those liberals you so fear -- you want more government. Only difference us that they want govt spending, while you want more government intrusion into peoples lives. Neither of you really care much for individual liberty.

Patters

Wolfpack has been banned from this thread. The rules of the forum state:

"No attacks that stereotype all people of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, or who are serving in the US military. For example, if Widgets were a race, it would be against the rules to call all Widgets ugly, selfish, or cheap."

Calling gays "perverts" and "deviants" obviously violates this rule.

PatsWSB47

I'm not sure of this but the man and his running mate that you likely voted for in the 08 election publicly have stated their belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. Are you as anxious for them to die off too?

Look it. Like it or not some people have differing views on gay marriage than you do. That does not make them worse you. As a matter of fact, anxiously waiting for the day that” enough of em” die off is just as if not more bigoted and hateful than labeling a lifestyle perverse. Then at the same time you make the leap that the” likes of em” probably think interracial marriage is perverse, which is just a different way of calling ‘em” all racists.

Let me ask, how is this stereotyping excused from forum rules?

Harry Boy

They don't like to talk about how their President feels about Homosexual Marriage (he said "man/woman") they don't like to talk about who shot down Homosexual Marriage in the first palce in Calif (black community)
THEY DO THEIR BEST TO IGNORE IT

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself