Welcome to PatsFans.com

Prop 8 Overturned in California by federal judge

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Holy Diver, Aug 4, 2010.

  1. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

  2. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,213
    Likes Received:
    223
    Ratings:
    +313 / 7 / -3

    #12 Jersey

  3. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/08/prop-8-ruling-today

    After all, this is the same Judge Walker who was appointed by President HW Bush after a failed appointment by President Reagan, the same Judge Walker who was harshly criticized by Nancy Pelosi for being insensitive to gays, and the same Judge Walker who prevented the "Gay Olympics" and put a lien on an AIDS-stricken organizer's home.


    10 points to the person who guesses if this judge's sexual orientation?




    frickin Activist
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2010
  4. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Judge defies the voters...
  5. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,814
    Likes Received:
    93
    Ratings:
    +145 / 2 / -1

    Not everything should be voted on
  6. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    speaking as one of the people who voted on this prop, it was worded in an odd way...enough so that I had to go into the booth already understanding the verbage and already understanding how I was going to vote.




    Thats what a judge's job is...to judge.



    where were all the conservatives screaming about Judges overturning the votes of the people during the 2000 presidential election???
  7. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I am glad this ruling was issued, because it brings the whole matter one step closer to the Supreme Court. I don't mind temporarily "losing" one state or one federal district when the end of the road will result in the proper law being applied across the country.
  8. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    No, but it turns out he is homosexual. That fact alone will guarantee a speedy appeal.

    Nope! No bias by a gay judge on this issue! :rofl:
  9. DisgruntledTunaFan

    DisgruntledTunaFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Messages:
    2,534
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Well, remember what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah for pretty much the exact same thing. From what I understand too, these activities also happened during the days of Noah.
  10. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Whats the emotocon I use for "Thinks all gay people think the same, and didnt look into this judge's background, past rulings or criticisms on gay issues"?

    I cant find that one....
  11. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    of course..I too always use the bible to justify court rulings.

    I wish more of our judges used passed down heresay to use faith in such works to rule in ALL of our courts.
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,645
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    It's called tyranny of majority in a democracy when the majority exercises its power to deny the minority equal rights or protect the special rights of the majority.
  13. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Zackly........ Screw the will of the people. Most are just too stupid to know what's good for them. :rolleyes:
  14. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Two questions...

    1. Are you saying that the voters were 'saving' gay couples from the horrors of the institution of marriage?

    2. Are you married?
  15. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,814
    Likes Received:
    93
    Ratings:
    +145 / 2 / -1

    While I do think people are pretty stupid, that has nothing to do with it.

    Matters of rights shouldn't be subject to popular vote.

    :rolleyes:
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2010
  16. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    You think that a determination of "what a state OFFICIALLY recognizes" as a "marriage" is a right that is constitutionally ensured? Really? I've read the constitution several times and I never saw that part.

    Marriage is a social union......... nothing more. Domestic Partnerships are legal and do the same GD thing. If a state like MA can determine that they want to recognize same-sex unions as "marriage". Swell, all the power to them.

    If Californians DON'T, then the WILL OF THE PEOPLE should prevail.

    Marriage is not a friggen right....... It's a friggen contract between people. It's up to each state to determine what constitutes what sex organs those need to people have. Get the Gubment out of the GD marriage business.
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2010
  17. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,814
    Likes Received:
    93
    Ratings:
    +145 / 2 / -1

    This is the heart of the matter to me, and I agree wholeheartedly.


    The problem with the rest of this is that the government is in the marriage business, and as a part of that, it grants myriad rights to married couples. Marriage isn't merely another contract or a social union as things currently stand, and domestic partnerships do not "do the same god damned thing."

    --------------------------------------

    (Personally, I think government should solely issue civil unions. Leave marriage to religious institutions or anybody else who wants to call people married, and get it out of the law.

    Somehow, though, I think many of the people who are most opposed to gay marriage would similarly oppose my preference as well.)
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2010
  18. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Well, then lets agree then.......

    I agree. Civil Unions should without question have the same rights as a "married couple" does. However....... If a PEOPLE of a state decide to "recognize" a marriage as a man+woman (or man+man, or woman+woman) then the gubment needs to butt the eff out and let that state decide what is right for it.

    Unless it has to do with the big three rights (that ARE in the constitution), then let each state decide.
  19. DisgruntledTunaFan

    DisgruntledTunaFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Messages:
    2,534
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Religious leaders who say they have "dreams" and "visions from God" over such and such calamities happening should be taken with a grain of salt, HOWEVER...

    There's been numerous blogs recently over Christians having dreams and visions from God over a massive EQ happening in CA early next month.

    Again, I'm not endorsing what they're saying, but it's coming from numerous blogs on the net(ie-one of them being "weatherbill", I think that's his name, who has his own youtube channel).

    Also, back in early Sept 2001, FEMA "predicted" 1) A terrorist attack would hit NYC, 2) A massive hurricane would wipe out New Orleans, and 3) SF would get "the big one". Thus far, they're batting 1.000
  20. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Fail. Judges are not legislators. You're in the whole wrong branch of government here.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>