Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's a clip of an amusing "debate" between David Boies, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Prop 8 challenge, and Tony Perkins, the virulent bigot who heads the Family Research Council. Boies absolutely destroys Perkins. It's not a close call who wins.
It cracks me up that Perkins compares this to Roe v Wade in the sense that Roe was not so controversial when it was handed down and grew more controversial over time. The exact opposite will happen here. In 30 years, we will look back and be absolutely befuddled by the fact that gay marriage was ever a big deal.
Politics
Comments
One reason Roe became more controversial over time is that the right conducted an extremely clever PR campaign, aided by the media. It's very rare to find a television drama where the young girl who finds herself pregnant against her will decides to abort.
Posted by: xebecs | August 14, 2010 10:34 AM
"In 30 years, we will look back and be absolutely befuddled by the fact that gay marriage was ever a big deal."
No. We're already befuddled about why *anyone* cares about who others choose to love.
Posted by: LickMyToad | August 14, 2010 11:11 AM
What Mr. Boies does especially well is note that anti-science/anti-intellectual advocates like Tony Perkins only thrive in the public square when they're able to dishonestly promote false arguments. Put them in a fair public square venue like a courtroom and the defectiveness of their arguments are immediately revealed as they were again in this case.
I also loved how Mr. Boies clearly pointed out that Perkins was lying; this is the sort of bright clear language I wish the left were more voluminous in promoting.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 14, 2010 11:11 AM
"Studies that don't say what you say they do"
"Debates, where you can't be cross examined."
"The witness stand is a lonely place to lie"
Gotta love it.
Posted by: BaldApe | August 14, 2010 11:34 AM
Judicial activist Judge Walker chose to ignore precedence and through judicial supremacy ruled same sex options to be more important than traditional ones. Walker and gay activists want to plant in my mind gay marriage is equal to things like the abolition of slavery, or women overcoming patriarchy! Well that just gives the gay side a false sense of credibility by exploiting those past struggles. Furthermore, I am insulted by your racist attitude that claims I don’t know any better. Who are you narcissist Judge Walker to label my thoughts as irrational? You claim anyone who opposes your view is a bigot or homophobe! I guess that helps you and the activists justify your actions, but it's clearly not reality. Your reasoning? It's gays right because you say it is!! Who are you to marginalize opponents to your point of view? Oh I see gay ideas of what should be redefined are more important then everyone else’s. Combining homosexual life styles to redefine the importance of man and woman in child-rearing and the value of traditional marriage is not within the judiciaries subject matter jurisdiction, that’s why we had such a one sided 136 page trial, and the public deserves better. I guess I am supposed to cave and accept redefining marriage and morality. I am supposed to shut up and openly accept the stage set for an anything goes society and not see the legal, cultural, and political consequences to follow this precedent. After marriage is conquered, the activists wont' shut up, because marriage is just the first step in the far-reaching agenda to redefine.
Like many Americans, I am completely disinterested in other "adults" sexual behavior. If two people of the same sex want to love each other I DON'T CARE! I would venture to say its not the average Joe blow homosexual that is obsessed with redefining marriage…it’s the activist extremists! Homosexuality cannot be merged with the traditionally recognized institution of marriage between one man and one woman. Same sex relationships could be called whatever they want. Then let both have equal benefits. Minimal discrimination to either side!
To communicate or debate, one has to decide what their issue is with prop 8, gay marriage or judicial activism?. My issue has nothing to do whether or not I am in favor or against gay marriage.
According to judge walker the current "credible" motivation for banning gays and lesbians from marrying is a desire to mark them as second-class citizens. Well I say, then why be married? Why try to change the ancient traditional foundation that exists? Do they really think a piece of paper will change anything? Well from experience I found that kind of ownership of another person just makes life more complicated. Well as a divorced agnostic, its easy for me to feel that way emotionally! Also, you never herd me complain with my choice to become a minority as a single dad back in the 1990s with custody of my kids. I was discriminated across the board compared to single moms, so I have some personal experience with discrimination.
Shouldn’t we all be up in arms working together over something sooooo much more important? Like decades of sloppy capitalism, and all its trickle down effects that has our country in such a terrible economic mess? We need to wake up collectively and look what’s happening to our country?...look where we are at? Shouldn’t there be hundreds of other more relevant issues to get this country up in arms? Yeah, I know I am changing the subject……Hello!
Now if the issue for you is solely gay marriage, weather for or against it, then you are talking about your own life/emotions, and regardless if this decision is in your favor or not, that blinds you. That’s what the populous does! Again, wake up and look what’s happening to our country….look where we are!
I disagree with the power abuse used to implement amendment of prop 8, because of the extort tactics employed, not because of gay marriage in itself. If they want to be as miserable as hetero couples its fine with me! Just as Obama, I do not endorse gay marriage, but have no problem with benefits. There is an issue here bigger than, beliefs, religion, homophobia, sin, or gay marriage, all of that is just the stage!! My interest here is what is going on behind this gay smokescreen? Perhaps it’s the constitution being manipulated to fit a judicial agenda? to redefine for people in the populous like themselves? Well, constitutional interpretation or reconstructing the constitution certainly can not be left to an activist judge, and should not be left to the judiciary alone. They should require input from the citizens.
Why is Obama against gay marriage? How can a president sit back and concur with Judicial inability to recognize its limitations as a political entity undermining democratic favor?.
Society cannot separate due to physical traits. It does separate based on things that society deems immoral or dangerous. If this is discrimination, which side or who defines morality? Each side has a different definition? To communicate or debate our words need to have the same meaning or were not speaking the same language and we get nowhere, for example look at the abortion debate.
How far can the supreme court break down the majority of citizens conventional ideas of morality? Where and how could they find an acceptable limit that does not discriminate against anyone’s morals? Will the Supreme court decide for society the definition of correct and moral behavior for all mindsets? If so, are we still a constitutional representative democracy? If not, and we are to "evolve" into something more modern, meaning we are beyond those old age parameters, should that be up to the Supreme court to decide?
I would say every time judicial supremacy replaces constitutional supremacy It goes against our best ideals constitutionally, that is regarding the intended understanding of the values outlined in our founding documents. We are currently living through two battles: One is between the Constitution and the judges, the other, supreme law and the judiciary. Activist judges know they have judicial immunity, so Walker knows he is immune from lawsuit and has selfishly decided to just go for it!
Judge Walker says: "the ruling struck down Proposition 8 as a violation of federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process"
So if it’s unconstitutional to prohibit same sex marriage…. Using that same ideology is it even more unconstitutional to force this on all of society? Now, if “moral disapproval” violates constitutional rights as Judge walker stated, then is he contradicting himself? Constitutional politics is known to, and accepted to use, persuasion to initiate change. This Judge has just used political coercion. He has personally, through the court, used the morality of rights from a minority, to displace the morality of consent with all of California. Will the supreme court follow suit?
Every time we allow judicial review to impose judicial supremacy, to replace constitutional supremacy, It goes against our best ideals constitutionally, and
we alter the constitution without public acceptance and or awareness. This supremacy is a slippery slope, presently the subject matter is insignificant compared to what it will become down the line, leading to more problems that are significant, to the point where someday we may end up a dictatorship. California has already voted twice that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and approved Prop 8. 30 states have voted the same, over 60 million Americans. Are we a constitutional representative democracy? If we no longer accept the current benchmark of our citizens individual voting preferences, it goes against our best ideals constitutionally. If I remember correctly the Constitution belongs to the people!
I project that if the supreme court (through what would have to be a narrow victory) forces this down society's throat, with all the societal changes that would follow, for example, all children being taught that homosexuality is a healthy life choice……the complete disgust for homosexuality by the heterosexual majority in this country will not only persist, but increase, as it is a natural response for them. That could end up worse for the same-sex marriage movement , which could lead to a constitutional amendment that would eliminate same-sex marriage in all states. In the end, regardless of political pressure applied from homosexual or religious bias, the decision handed down by the highest court in the land must reflect a common sense decision, and that decision may be to avoid making a decision at all, and leave it to states!
Lets see what happens!
Posted by: jeff chiacchieri | August 14, 2010 11:36 AM
I'll give jeff chiacchieri his due- he did use paragraphs and refrained from excessive all caps use.
Posted by: Jeremy Shaffer | August 14, 2010 11:48 AM
Re Jeff chiacchieri @ #5
Mr. chiacchieri took several hundred words to say that anal sex is icky.
Posted by: SLC | August 14, 2010 11:49 AM
Jeff C wrote: "Who are you narcissist Judge Walker to label my thoughts as irrational?"
Naw, Jeff, you did a great job of that all by yourself.
Posted by: Doc Bill | August 14, 2010 11:51 AM
jeff c.,
Now, please go back and read what Judge Walker actually wrote:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/California-Prop-8-Ruling-Augusst-2010
...and try again.
Damn. Why be a stereotype?
Posted by: LickMyToad | August 14, 2010 11:51 AM
I'll give jeff chiacchieri his due- he did use paragraphs and refrained from excessive all caps use.
True, but he did have the "forces this down society's throat" thing in there. He probably won't appreciate your compliment though. (It's a spam copy and paste.)
Posted by: 386sx | August 14, 2010 11:55 AM
Mr. Chiacchieri's comment has been submitted on various website articles concerning SSM almost verbatim, with a few variations here and there. Also, I performed a search on his name and filtered the results specifically to look over political activities, and a Jeff Chiacchieri donated significant amounts of money to Barack Obama's presidential campaign, which is consistent with his mentions of Obama in relation to SSM (although he did not seem to say that he actively supported his campaign).
All in all, his posts aren't particularly compelling and he all too often falls back on generic arguments against SSM when you start to take him seriously, such as "Think of the children!" and vague references to the Gay Agenda.
Posted by: swedishskinjer | August 14, 2010 12:02 PM
jeff c.,
Is there an objective, rational definition of "activist judge,"? Or, is it just a term you use for judges that hand down decisions you don't like?
I ask because I most often hear the term used by conservatives wrt decisions handed down by liberal judges like Walker (appointed by G.H.W Bush) and Jones in Kitzmiller (appointed by G.W. Bush).
Posted by: LickMyToad | August 14, 2010 12:03 PM
Yes, Jeff, the nasty judge imposed the Constitution on millions of people who chose to ignore it by trying to strip an entire class of people of their rights. That was a horrible thing to do wasn't it?
Posted by: bigjohn756 | August 14, 2010 12:04 PM
@ 1
A while back I read a lengthy review on Amazon on Palin's "book."
The reviewer is a former minister who was in seminary in Texas at the time of the decision. He said at that time it was a total non-issue.
Oh, and did I mention this was a SOB (Southern Baptist) seminary? In freakin' Texas?
"You claim anyone who opposes your view is a bigot or homophobe!"
Your own words make that case quite plainly.
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | August 14, 2010 12:04 PM
Jeff: bullshit!
The only rational statement above is your conclusion: "Let's see what happens." Your idea of the consequences of this ruling are difficult to support. My prediction (if the ruling stands) is that nothing much will happen at all. The number of folks who want to enter a same-sex union is, and will remain, small. It will have no effect whatever on heterosexual unions. Whyever should it? Traditional marriage? How far back do you want to go? Polygamy in the bible is common.
And, who are you addressing above as a bigot? Ed? The judge? Maybe if you were as poor a typist as I am, you would have time to think a bit and generate a more readable post.
Posted by: Bob Carroll | August 14, 2010 12:06 PM
@ 12
A few weeks ago in my local paper a writer on the anonymous comments section blasted Environmental Working Group* for posting the list of farmers and the amount of government subsidies they receive. He said they were "activists." Which apparently means "stuff I don't like."
... And the fundie/conservative word redefinition project continues full steam ahead.
* For anyone who's interested, the farm info is at ewg.org. I live amongst farmers and I can affirm that the majority are conservatives who hate government spending. (Of course, they're special; they help us put food on our families).
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | August 14, 2010 12:11 PM
Why not?
Posted by: Gretchen | August 14, 2010 12:12 PM
jeff chiacchieri,
U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Sec. 1:
Judge Walker had a constitutional obligation to overturn Prop. 8 based on the plain meaning of the text of the Constitution. Especially since the only possible recourse for anti-gay advocates at this trial given the 14th Amendment and assuming it was a fair trial, was to present evidence to the Judge that a person or persons' superior rights were infringed upon by allowing gays the exercise of their and their families' rights. No such evidence was found at this trial, which is why the ruling overturned Prop. 8 and why the Judge recommends CA cease the prohibition of gay Californians from marrying next week after first allowing the 9th Circuit to review a stay which expires on 8/18.
Given the finding of facts, Judge Walker has executed his constitutional duties flawlessly in terms of the results of the ruling and his recommendations regarding the stay. In fact I can not imagine any other ruling given the facts unless the judge abdicated his obligation and instead sought out a ruling in line with their political position. The fact this ruling might also correspond to the judge's political position is irrelevant given the correctness of the ruling, the obviousness of what options were available given those findings of fact, and the plain text of the Constitution.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 14, 2010 12:21 PM
Tony Perkins is very likely gay.
Most rabid homophobes are. His friend and colleague, Rekers has already been outed.
Scott Lively the Exodus gay genocide planner, most likely is too.
Posted by: raven | August 14, 2010 12:38 PM
You know, one could grant the claim, as an Eddington concession, that children are better off parented by one man and one woman, it still doesn't help the Prop 8 argument. Banning gay marriage is not going to increase the number of children under the care of heterosexual couples in the slightest.
Posted by: TheDude | August 14, 2010 1:02 PM
I think that a child would be much better off with a loving gay couple than they would be with bigoted straights.
Furtermore they would be a hell of a lot less likely to kill
themselves if they end up being gay themselves.
Posted by: Paen | August 14, 2010 1:36 PM
It's very rare to find a television drama where the young girl who finds herself pregnant against her will decides to abort. (xebecs @ 1)
Yes, but is that because of a political agenda, or because having baby generally offers richer dramaturgical choices than having an abortion? (For example, if the girl in Juno had an abortion, the movie would have been virtually plot-free and over in about 10 minutes.)
Posted by: Molly, NYC | August 14, 2010 2:23 PM
One could have developed a completely different plot for a movie like Juno. No, I believe that the purpose of Juno was to show a pregnant teenage girl that doesn't abort.
Single-episode characters or one that are written out with the story anyway don't have the excuse of richer dramaturgical choices.
Maybe it isn't political in all cases, but I think it's more often than not. Of course, it could be that having the baby is better than an abortion for advertising.
Posted by: Chris From Europe | August 14, 2010 2:35 PM
I could listen to David Boies all day, but Tony Perkins made me physically ill. How can any human being say that kind of thing and live with themselves?
Posted by: Mara | August 14, 2010 2:57 PM
@19
Can we stop with this idea? It doesn't have any grounding, and has a certain homophobic twang to it. It's almost like saying people who bash Muslims are actually Muslims themselves.
People pick on gays not because they are insecure about their sexuality, but because they feel a need to pick on a group which is different from them. I'd say that homophobes demonstrate all the characteristics typical of bullies (insecurity, lack of success, etc.), but are probably no more or less likely to be gay.
Posted by: Objective Scrutator | August 14, 2010 3:11 PM
Aw, I can't edit my comment.
After a little thought, the homophobic charge of people who think said idea is likely wrong. My point still stands, though.
Posted by: Objective Scrutator | August 14, 2010 3:14 PM
Fifth Dentist "...they help us put food on our families..."
Ew...
Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 14, 2010 3:29 PM
@5 I call Poe.
@25 No, we can't. Perkins is a big ol' ball of flaming queen ready to burst out at any moment.
Posted by: usagi | August 14, 2010 3:32 PM
No, but that's the way it generally works out.
If someone's opinion happens to be the same as that of bigots and homophobes (as yours is), and his rationales for holding those opinions are the same as those of bigots and homophobes (as yours are), you're pretty much in the "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" territory.
You haven't given any reason for anyone reading your post to think you're anything but a bigot and a homophobe.
Of course!--just like the average black American was perfectly delighted with Jim Crow laws until those activist extremists in the Civil Rights Movement came along.
If they didn't have a problem with Bush v. Gore (and I've never heard of any who did), then they obviously don't care about "judicial activism," no matter how much they whine about it when a decision doesn't go their way (and only when a decision doesn't go their way).
You might look up the "three branches of government" concept, or "checks and balances." Most of us got those in high school, or grammar school even. I'm sorry your formal education was such crap, but it does explain a lot.
IOW, legalized same-sex marriage could be bad for the legalized same-sex marriage movement.
Ooookay.
Oh, for sure. The marriage-is-sacred-to-straights crowd (led mainly by divorced guys and people you wouldn't marry if the survival of the human race depended on it) can pull a constitutional amendment directly out of its collective ass. You betcha.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | August 14, 2010 3:37 PM
Another tard who doesn't know what the "rational basis test" actually means.
Of course, if Walker had said anything about voters overall being irrational, he would have been right, but every adult with a functioning brain actually knew that.
Posted by: Escuerd | August 14, 2010 4:25 PM
Well, you are wrong. Flaming homophobes usualy do turn out to be gay.
Them's the facts. Ted Haggerd, Rekers, a lot of Assembly of god officials, a lot of RCC homophobe priests, Larry Craig, and on and on.
It is so common that no one is surprised anymore when some xian fundie homophobe outs themselves.
Posted by: raven | August 14, 2010 4:28 PM
Objective Scrutator - My impression is that homophobes usually have a problem with everyone enjoying sex, not just homosexuals. (1)
That said, it's surprising how many of them prefer men when they finally cut loose.
____
(1) They'll (grudgingly) give you a pass if you're male and only enjoying it for a second or so as a by-product of actively trying to propagate the species, but the rest of us are S-out-of-L. Moreover, this is frequently not merely a "moral" value, but an overarching one--these people see not getting any as a more critical moral behavior than not lying, stealing or killing.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | August 14, 2010 4:29 PM
I'd say gays are far overrepresented among homophobes than their small percentage in the general population. There is no shortage of examples.
Posted by: raven | August 14, 2010 4:41 PM
Don't forget that the lists of gay homophobic bigots are only the ones that were careless or unlucky enough to out themselves. One has to assume that those gays who make a decent income from hating gays aren't going out of their way to ruin their careers as bigots. Cthulhu knows how many are still deep in their closet. Tony Perkins and Scott Lively, we are looking at you.
Posted by: raven | August 14, 2010 4:51 PM
What case is Perkins talking about in 2005 in Nebraska in which the "similar" ruling was overturned "unanimously" by the appellate court?
Posted by: Spanish Inquisitor | August 14, 2010 5:08 PM
Jeff Chiacchieri's last name roughly translates to "chatterbox" in Italian. Unfortunate coincidence or clue that we're dealing with a Poe?
Posted by: Lauren Ipsum | August 14, 2010 5:13 PM
I think the all-too-common argument that we shouldn't be concerned about x because y is more important is one of the weakest ever devised. Especially when that argument is buried in 16 paragraphs which are all about x.
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | August 14, 2010 5:39 PM
Wow. That was one impressive rant there Jeff. On the one hand, it had paragraphs in, on the other, it made about as much sense as a Dr. Bronner's bottle. Am I the only person picturing that comment in multiple colored fonts?
Posted by: DuWayne | August 14, 2010 7:09 PM
"Re Jeff chiacchieri @ #5
"Mr. chiacchieri took several hundred words to say that anal sex is icky."
Posted by: SLC | August 14, 2010 11:49 AM
Has he never heard of all the straight men who want to have anal sex with their wives fiancées, and girlfriends because they expect it to be tighter than PIV sex?
Posted by: June | August 14, 2010 7:35 PM
So, who had "1439" in the Word Salad Word Count pool this week?
Posted by: CTC | August 14, 2010 7:50 PM
RE: Jeff Chiacchieri @5
"Same sex relationships could be called whatever they want. Then let both have equal benefits. Minimal discrimination to either side!"
Didn't the Supreme Court already declare "separate but equal" unconstitutional?
Posted by: camanintx | August 14, 2010 9:00 PM
"Furthermore, I am insulted by your racist attitude that claims I don’t know any better."
There's nothing at all racist about Ed's attitude.
Bigoted morons come in all colors.
Posted by: Ian Gould | August 14, 2010 9:50 PM
The issue is hot today, and may become normal life in the future. I remember when interracial dating and marriage was a little . . . strange. It still feels a little odd at times, which shows how deeply-rooted these norms can be, since my own parents are Korean, and I am married to a caucasian woman. My own marriage is strange for other reasons (being a strange person to begin with, I suppose it's inevitable).
My childhood prejudices are not a constant part of my viewpoint, but they still exist in the back of my thoughts. What once was 'unnatural' and controversial is now the life I live.
My opinion is that anyone who advocates for 'traditional' marriage values should lobby against divorce first, before they can hope to convince anyone that they are serious.
Posted by: Daniel Kim | August 14, 2010 11:26 PM
I read all the way through the comments and was surprised to find that no one called out the first sentence in Jeff #5's word salad:
"Judicial activist Judge Walker chose to ignore precedence and through judicial supremacy ruled same sex options to be more important than traditional ones."
It's that old "special rights" argument, that recognizing someone else's equality is granting them something special. Taking away something from "us." Every time they bring up this idea that the judge ruled AGAINST heterosexual marriage, we need to call it out. If it's their main argument, and it's wrong, we need to call it out. Again and again.
Last week on PBS News Hour, Michael Gerson did it and no one -- not Ruth Marcus or the moderator -- picked up on it.
Posted by: Gerry L | August 15, 2010 1:12 AM
I am Ron Branson, National J.A.I.L. Founder. The current history Re Prop 8 is that the People first passed Pop 22, a law defining Marriage. The California Supreme Court overturned it. The People then made it a constitutional amendment. The California Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality. This decision was then challenged in Federal District Court. The Federal Court has now overturned this constitutional amendment, determining the California Constitution in part is unconstitutional. This determination now faces challenge in the Ninth Circuit.
There is a war between the Constitution of this country and its judges, between the supreme law of this land and the judiciary - only one can survive. Either judicial immunity will destroy the People, or the People will prevail over judicial immunity - there can be no third alternative. The overriding problem in our country is not the Constitution, Congress or the lack of laws, but rather a self-made doctrine created by judges, and for the judges, and that is the doctrine of "Judicial Immunity," which establishes "Judges can do no wrong!" In other words, judges cannot be held accountable to their Oaths of Office, the Constitution, or the laws of this land, as they are immune from lawsuit!
This country cannot survive without subjecting of the Doctrine of "Judicial Immunity" to the findings of a People's Special Grand Jury created for that purpose. Well stated is the proverb, "No man is above the law!"
Ron Branson
National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief
www .jail4judges.org
VictoryUSA @jail4judges.org
Posted by: Ron Branson | August 15, 2010 3:18 AM
My dear Ron, You stated that: "There is a war between the Constitution of this country and its judges, between the supreme law of this land and the judiciary...".
Well no, there is a war between those that uphold the constitution (particularly the 14th Amendment, in this case) and those who would prefer states to be able to make up their own 'Jim Crow' rules based on the favorite prejudice of the day amongst their voters.
The Judges' role is to determine if a law is constitutional or not, not how popular it might be.
Also there is the issue of state laws conforming with federal laws to remain inside the framework of the 'equal rights and immunities' clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution you claim to be upholding.
Then there is the issue of whether the state has a compelling interest in denying one group the right to marry. On that point the pro-8 legal team did a very poor job of showing any compelling reason to deny gays this right. (Because there really isn't any reason, whatsoever, IMHO).
If legislatures can't make constitutional laws, that's hardly the fault of Judges.
Just my $0.0219 worth - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | August 15, 2010 4:11 AM
Chris From Europe-
I remember an episode from the 90's drama "Party of Five" where Neve Campbell's character gets pregnant after she and her boyfriend have sex after getting drunk at her brother's wedding.
The original script had her getting an abortion (after a lot of dramatic conversations about the issues with the other characters) but the network applied pressure and the creators of the show changed the ending so she spontaneously miscarried instead (which is enormously rare for girls her age).
The creators stand by the episode anyway, saying (paraphrasing from the DVD commentary) "we got to explore all sides of the issue the way we did in the original script, but yeah, the episode is ultimately a copout. Julia got a get-out-of-teenage-motherhood-free card. We caved."
Posted by: Rick R | August 15, 2010 5:08 AM
I should modify the above- the creators of the show wrote that ultimately, Julia decides to get an abortion, then miscarries instead. So it's a get-out-of-having-to-go-through-with-the-abortion-after-you've-decided-to-have-one card.
Posted by: Rick R | August 15, 2010 5:12 AM
J.A.I.L.bird C-in-C-hole:
Some might say you're a bigot; that would be unfair. You're a hatefilled homophobic piece of shit and a fucking moron. Some people might say that I'm intemperate; fuck them and fuck you.
Posted by: democommie | August 15, 2010 8:27 AM
Re DingoJack post @ August 15, 2010 4:11 AM,
I'm piling on to his falsification of Ron Branson's dishonest representation of those favoring 'democratic conservatism' that would leave our rights unprotected and argues against judicial enforcement of the U.S. Constitution and those like DJ and myself who argue in defense of the Constitution and the judiciary's obligation to defend those rights against simple majorities.
Mr. Branson is fucking lying when he claims that mere majorities should hold sway rather than the defense of individual rights given a plain reading of the 14th Amendment which I quote in part:
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 15, 2010 10:39 AM
Regarding Ron Branson at #45: "The People then made it a constitutional amendment. The California Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality. "
My understanding of this case after Prop 8 passed was the case revolved around whether Prop 8 was a revision or an amendment to the California Constitution, not whether or not is was constitutional itself. I always thought it was the wrong argument, but since that was the only argument presented it lost. However, the court did not at that time find Prop 8 Constitutional only that is passed correctly as a revision and not an amendment.
So my understanding is as follows:
Prop 22 passed.
Prop 22 found unconstitutional against the California Constitution.
Prop 8 passed which revised the California Constitution.
Prop 8 challenged as an amendment and not a revision, which would have required a super-majority to pass.
Prop 8 found to be a revision and not an amendment.
Prop 8 tried in Federal Court as unconstitutional against the US Constitution.
Prop 8 found Unconstitutional.
This is a rather different series of event than what Ron states, yet rather vital to how this has progressed. It is not a case of one judge finding it constitutional and another disagreeing and finding something different. It was a case of two extremely different cases and arguments.
Someone please correct me if I am missing something.
Posted by: Todd | August 15, 2010 1:17 PM
Todd you are right with one exception. Prop. 8 was a constitutional amendment, not a revision. The CA amendment process requires a far less strenuous test for amendments than a revision to their Constitution.
One method to amend their Constitution which was used in Prop 8's case was a petition signed by at least 8% of the number of voters in their last gubernatorial race to get a proposal to be voted on by voters. Passage of the proposition requires a mere simple majority vote.
California continues to provide different lines of evidence that compelling argue more democratic government is harmful to optimal results relative to a constitutional republican form of government. California would do well to study James Madison's development of the U.S. Constitution.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 15, 2010 5:49 PM
Michael thank you for the clarification. Living in California I know what a messed up amendment process we have and agree that it needs to be fixed. In researching I was amazed to find that on at least one occasion, California has had to go an clean up the constitution of the many amendments passed by voter initiatives. I guess sometimes the people do not always know best.
Posted by: Todd | August 15, 2010 9:11 PM
@45 - Ron Branson, I already read your cut and paste spume in the LA Times today. Is this how you spend your time, pasting the same crap in every article your find on Prop 8? It's like those pain in the ass ads that keep showing up in comments sections. Check other posts. I'm sure you will find the identical comment.
Posted by: Mark C | August 16, 2010 12:54 AM
It seems the homosexual agenda wants "Evolutionary Psychology to substituted for the Constitution. Wouldnt the society they invision have less government control? But that wouldn't be good for the homosexual agenda? Where would it be without judicial supremacy!!!
Posted by: Jeff Chiacchieri | August 16, 2010 9:59 AM
"The exact opposite will happen here. In 30 years, we will look back and be absolutely befuddled by the fact that gay marriage was ever a big deal."
Maybe. But I think, unfortunately, the stone tablet that is the bible will still be the same, and our culture, with the standing christian majority, with slowly (but building) influx of islam and rapid influx of majorally fundamentalist-catholic hispanic immigrants, will still be religious in the majority, and possibly even more fundmanental in method.
Also, for this to occur (same sex couples to no longer be a big deal,) I think that exposure to it must be commonplace. It can't be an "event" to see a gay couple. The continuing anti-gay sentiment will probably restrict the actions of gay couples toward the sides of the bell curve (which, in itself fosters more discontent. What I mean by this: If the gay couples willing to be open in public are "fuck you, straight people" gays (the sides of the bell curve,) then you get a skewed view of gay people by representation. This is something I observed in college myself, so I have no facts and figures.)
The only reasonable analogy I have for my thoughts it to compare it to interacial marriage. Interacial marriage has been completely legal for.. How long? It has been socially acceptable for how much less time? It is still socially "awkward," as well, in quite a few places.
If blacks make up about ~12-13% of the population, and whites 75%, does it make sense that interacial couples are only about 7% of all marriages by late 2007.. 40 years after it was ruled legal? And even then, it's a commented-on and "interesting phenomena" even though it should be neither of those things.
Piecemeal approach to human rights makes for a long and completely unacceptable slog through the shit for these victims of society. These types of questions need to be faced head-on (see my disgust with the current admin over the DADT debacle) and the bigotry exposed at a national level, and not by implication, but directly in so many words. It may not be a popular view-point, but it's American and it's right.
Posted by: Buffoon | August 16, 2010 10:00 AM
CaliforniaAmerica continues to provide different lines of evidence that compelling argue more democratic government is harmful to optimal results relative to a constitutional republican form of government.CaliforniaAmericans would do well to study James Madison's development of the U.S. Constitution.With my modifications of Heath's great insight, I've developed what for me is the most rational distinction between the ideal meanings of "liberal" and "conservative."
Liberals would prefer the quick changes possible in a flat or pure democracy, even if it means individuals my suffer some curtailment of their rights.
Conservatives prefer the protection of indivual rights provided by slower, objective, constitutional repulican processes, even if it means that necessary improvements take longer.
In American right now, however, "liberal" means my definition above, "libertarian" covers more of my definition of "conservative" above, and "conservative" means: "We don't need no stinkin' Constitution!"
Posted by: LickMyToad | August 16, 2010 12:03 PM
"Conservatives prefer the protection of THEIR indivual rights FUCK EVERYONE ELSE."
Sorry, I couldn't read that as it was.
Posted by: democommie | August 16, 2010 12:09 PM
democommie,
Yeah. As I noted, right now, that is exactly what conservative means.
What I'm pointing to with my idealized definitions of liberal and conservative is the conflict between how much one wants to protect individual rights and how much one wants to impose one's ideals on others.
Most people believe: "If you'd just do it MY WAY, you'd be all right" and act accordingly.
A few believe: "Do what you want, but protect the rights of others to do what they want. And harm none" and act on their beliefs.
What the labels are for these two groups, I don't really care. That the people who wrote the US Constitution were of the second group is the best secular "blessing" we could ever have received.
Posted by: LickMyToad | August 16, 2010 12:41 PM
The underlying political ideology could be persuasive on me. Being somewhat of a political agnostic, I'm often influenced by my Libertarian friends. So...if the ideology here is less government, as in we want less rules, then hey, you're persuading me already! Yay!
So let's see, that means you get less government, and_I_get_less_government. So far, so fair, right? Hmmm, now when do we stop using public schools to promote the "gay" lifestyle? Freedom to associate with people I want necessarily includes not associating with people I don't want to be around, right? Can't be everywhere at once, you know. So if I as a professional opt out of photographing your "gay" wedding, or renting the "gay" honeymooners an apartment, it's just less government, right? Funny how elusive that "pro choice" mantra can be at times, eh? I mean, it's so...American sounding, you know? I wanna use it too! Please? Pretty please? Pro choice! Pro choice!
Not only all that, but now that we're all rooting for less government, when you contract a deadly disease, I don't have to pick up the tab, right?
Oh...SIGH... That was such a patriotic rush, funny how fast the high passes these days. I'm coming back down to Earth...it's beginning to look as though the homosexual agenda would just wither away without all this government excitement. Things getting lonely at the "gay" pride marches? Nobody paying any attention? That's exactly what would happen to the "gay" agenda without GOVERNMENT COERCION, nobody would pay any attention. A lot of people would rather not have to be reminded of your behavior.
Posted by: james | August 16, 2010 1:15 PM
James, you make the same arguments that the people made who didn't want to be around blacks and Asians.
Posted by: Chris From Europe | August 16, 2010 2:00 PM
Perhaps someday, to keep society normal, while we move ahead, we will forge a foundation beyond religious bias, or the bias rooted in the science of evolutionary psychology the homosexual activists are now using to find a way to ram this science down my throat!. I refuse to allow the homosexual activists, or judiciary to redefine morality for me. Its also hard not to notice every society that openly embraced homosexual relationships has then collapsed as a society, and I am sure religious and scientific bias assisted.
Posted by: Jeff Chiacchieri | August 16, 2010 2:21 PM
Jeff Chiacchieri, feel free to not marry a member of the same sex. While you're at it, feel free to not get an abortion. Feel free to not marry someone of a different color. If you're a girl, feel free to not vote. If your brown, feel free to also not vote (or, if you choose, feel free to go back to slavery).
Any other Amendments you'd care to ignore?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 16, 2010 2:49 PM
Every single society that openly embraced heterosexual relationships before the current societies has collapsed. That's just the nature of the game.
The Roman Empire collapsed when the Christians had murdered gays for some time. Wouldn't it be more reasonable then to assume that Christian morality leads to the decline of societies?
The judiciary also doesn't define morality for anyone, but decides about the application of laws.
Posted by: Chris From Europe | August 16, 2010 3:03 PM
Jeff
Once these societies get to the point where the government has to mandate acceptance of your fellow man, implosion seems inevitable.
Also, empires fall through the ever increasing demands of the stagnant population.
Posted by: Buffoon | August 16, 2010 3:53 PM
james, #60: That's exactly what would happen to the "gay" agenda without GOVERNMENT COERCION, nobody would pay any attention.
Uh, james, no one is going to force you to attend a gay wedding.
Posted by: Chiroptera | August 16, 2010 4:01 PM
Jeff Chiacchieri is a troll pasting the same comment in multiple sites. He appears unable to respond to reasoned discourse therefore you're wasting your time rebutting his idiocy, especially since I'd bet nearly all readers of this blog can easily 'refudiate' his arguments. He's convincing no one while humorously validating that moronic idiots exist and which side they take on this issue.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 16, 2010 4:03 PM
Jeff Chiacchieri, #62: ...the bias rooted in the science of evolutionary psychology the homosexual activists are now using to find a way to ram this science down my throat!
No one around here has even mentioned evolutionary psychology. People around here want gays treated like human beings because thats the decent thing to do.
Posted by: Chiroptera | August 16, 2010 4:03 PM
Buffoon "Also, empires fall through the ever increasing demands of the stagnant population."
If they're stagnant, how can their demands increase, hmmm?
Chiroptera "Uh, james, no one is going to force you to attend a gay wedding."
I will. It'll be a Mexican theme. I'll bring the stick. And he'd better be full of candy!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 16, 2010 4:05 PM
whoohoo Did ya hear the news on prop 8!
Posted by: Jeff Chiacchieri | August 16, 2010 7:24 PM
Jeff Chiacchieri - the homosexual activists are now using to find a way to ram this science down my throat!
Damn, Jeff! Why don't you just write that you're tired of the homosexual activists bending you over the foot of your bed and ramming their long, hard agendas up your morality.
Posted by: Taz | August 16, 2010 7:56 PM
The news out of the 9th Circuit is great news from the big picture. The court has set an incredibly aggressive date for getting appellant briefs by providing only one mere month. They've also set an aggressive hearing date of Dec. 6th. The 9th also ordered Prop. 8 proponents to show they even have standing.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 16, 2010 9:56 PM
69
Question for srs?
"Stagnant population" implies (to me) no characteristic which precludes an increase in demands (viewed in this case as either the number of things which the empire is required to provide to the population contained in the empire or the recognition of the empire as that which can provide and is thus demanded of.)
"The stagnating workforce placed a great demand on the empire for unemployment assistance"
Posted by: Buffoon | August 17, 2010 12:47 AM
I refuse to allow the homosexual activists, or judiciary to redefine morality for me.
They aren't. You can do whatever you want. It's immoral to take thought for the morrow, or to uhhhh not have any figs if you're fig tree (I guess), but there isn't a law against those. Oh I forgot, you mean it's immoral for you to not stick your nose into other people's business. Oh, I forgot.
Posted by: 386sx | August 17, 2010 1:06 AM
Tony Perkins has very big ears and a tall forehead. He looks very goofy.
Posted by: 386sx | August 17, 2010 1:59 AM
386sx - Nice to see you're using sensible criterion for assessing his arguments* :) - Dingo
----
* oh, who are we kidding? You're probably using much more rationality than
Mr. Potato Head- sorry - Mr. PerkinsPosted by: DingoJack | August 17, 2010 4:13 AM
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted an indefinite stay in the Prop 8 case because Judge Walker chose to ignore precedence and through judicial supremacy ruled same sex options to be more important than traditional ones. It took 136 pages for Walker, with the help of a few hand picked intellectuals, to arrogantly portray the majority and their representatives in this country as too ignorant to have any part in defining marriage. UNBELIEVABLE! Our society has already slipped too far down the road of perversity, and its always been a minority that has pushed that agenda on everyone else…Perhaps someday, in the far future, to keep society normal, while we move ahead we will forge a foundation beyond religious bias, or the bias rooted in the current science of evolutionary psychology the homosexual activists are now using to find a way to ram this science down my throat!. I refuse to allow the homosexual activists, or judiciary to redefine morality for me.
Posted by: Jeff Chiacchieri | August 17, 2010 9:29 AM
Re Jeff Chiacchieri @ #77
Perhaps someday, in the far future, to keep society normal, while we move ahead we will forge a foundation beyond religious bias, or the bias rooted in the current science of evolutionary biology the secular scientists are now using to find a way to ram this science down my throat!. I refuse to allow the secular scientists, or judiciary to redefine the truth of biblical creationism for me.
There, fixed that for ya.
Posted by: SLC | August 17, 2010 9:40 AM
I refuse to allow the homosexual activists, or judiciary to redefine morality for me.
And I refuse to allow ignorant simpletons with clearly evil motives to lecture me about subjects of which they clearly have ZERO knowledge or experience.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 17, 2010 9:49 AM
Jeff - Let me just say upfront, you're a complete idiot.
Having said that:
a) Judge Walker followed precedence to find that there was absolutely no compelling state's interest in denying equal rights to straight and gay couples who wish to marry.
b) It took a really, really piss-poor pro-8 case to decide the issue. The witnesses for the the pro-8 case agreed that the issue had no effect on the rights of others and caused no actual harm. Did I mention not compelling case of state's interest?
c) The American Constitution, that you claim to love and defend, is designed to protect the minority (be they religious, political or sexual) from the tyranny of the majority. I'm a stupid foreigner, and even I know that!
d) 'evolutionary psychology'? Is that the best you can do, a straw-man so vague even you haven't the foggiest clue what it is supposed to be, really?
e) I bet you love to have man parts thrust down your throat. You revel in the 'mystery meat', you just don't like to talk about it in public. I bet you stance is, deep-down, a wide one.
f) Yep, seeking to have equal rights under the law is the 'Homosexual agenda*', because you would be happy to be a second-class citizen as a 'red-blooded' hetero, right?
Dingo
----
* and pray enlighten us, oh wise one, on what this agenda consists. We await you towering wisdom with bated breath
Posted by: DingoJack | August 17, 2010 10:00 AM
Jeff
"I refuse to allow the homosexual activists, or judiciary to redefine morality for me. "
That's the important part. YOU DON'T HAVE TO. YOU CAN HATE FAGS AND GAY MARRIAGE ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL YOU WANT UNTIL YOU DIE.
You just can't tell them what to do! You fucking moron!
Posted by: Buffoon | August 17, 2010 10:08 AM
Jeff ,
Could you explain your claim:
How does this ruling make SSM more important than "traditional ones"? I keep seeing that claim come up but I'm not getting how ruling that group B should be allowed to participate in activity X in the same way that group A does, somehow makes B's X more important than A's? Oh, noes, making them equal to me goes against by bigotry, and hurts my feelings and thus elevates them above me? Because now we're equal. And if we're equal then they're more equal. Or something like that?
Posted by: Don't Panic | August 17, 2010 1:05 PM
Don't Panic "How does this ruling make SSM more important than 'traditional ones'?"
Well, you see, treating Unpopular Minorities as equals is giving them special rights (since they wouldn't have those rights if the Popular Majority had its way), which makes them more important.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 17, 2010 2:58 PM
Jeff Chatterbox @77
Earlier in the thread, I was tempted to say that you had completely neglected to mention anything about homosexuals ramming things down your throat. I'm glad I checked back. Now the thread is complete for me.
Posted by: Dr X | August 17, 2010 5:33 PM