Which we already knew, but now the gummit knows it too.

Details

Comments

  1. #1 Herod the Freemason
    August 4, 2010

    California’s Gay Marriage Bad

    That might be a typo, but it works for me.

  2. #2 Greg Laden
    August 4, 2010

    fixed

  3. #3 Rich Wilson
    August 4, 2010

    Would that you could fix the real problem so easily. I get the feeling the defendants don’t really care about this round or the next (9th circuit?) They’re just biding their time to throw everything at SCOTUS.

  4. #4 Tybo
    August 4, 2010

    Of course they want to take it to SCOTUS, but I’m honestly impressed with this ruling. It takes O’Connor’s Equal Protection argument from Lawrence and puts it to the test and finds rational basis sorely lacking. Not that I suspect some of the justices on SCOTUS will justify whatever they want however they want, but it puts the movement (to ban) on the defensive in a way that should, at least by the letter of the law, make them squirm.

  5. #5 iota
    August 4, 2010

    The comment by Isabar is satire, right?

  6. #6 ppnl
    August 4, 2010

    I’m calling Po. But if so “Homersexualism” was a touch of genius.

  7. #7 Tony Sidaway
    August 4, 2010

    At times like this, a guilty pleasure of mine is to visit the freepers in their “Homosexual Agenda” forum and read the screeching and caterwauling and predictions of the end of civilization or the coming popular uprising.

    This time I expect that much will be made there of Judge Vaughn Walker’s sexuality. Having been appointed to the District Court by that notorious socialist George H. W. Bush, no doubt his credentials as a judge will also be questioned.

    Ironically, Judge Walker’s original District Court nomination, by Ronald Reagan, stalled because among other issues he was perceived to be anti-gay.

  8. #8 Stephanie Z
    August 5, 2010

    No, Isabar is just the resident right-wing loon of a thousand sock puppets.

  9. #9 6EQUJ5
    August 5, 2010

    At the time I was born, interracial marriage was illegal in many states. That changed, and the haters got used to it. Now this is changing, something more for the haters to get used to.

    This was never about what marriage is or isn’t: this was about being cruel. Haters love cruel.

  10. #10 Stephanie Z
    August 5, 2010

    A jealous underwear puppet? Can anyone even make a guess as to what that is?!?

  11. #11 TiredOfIt
    August 5, 2010

    Yup… and several years from now (or several years AGO, if talking about more developed countries – Canada, for instance), people will say the same sort of thing.

    Except this time around, instead of the “DUH!” subject being “Well interracial marriage is still one man and one woman!”, it’ll be “Well Gay marriage is still 2 HUMANS”

    And that’s really what matters, to the non-rednecks amoung us.

  12. #12 Stephanie Z
    August 5, 2010

    Shorter Isabar: Yeah, things really aren’t going my way right now, but just you wait ’til I tell my god!!!

  13. #13 TiredOfIt
    August 5, 2010

    Actually Isabar, as a Canadian living in the USA, I just feel really bad for your type. You go ahead and call me a socialist babykiller all you want, it really doesn’t affect me.

    I imagine that my experience moving here is very similar to what you would experience if you moved to a poor 3rd nation somewhere. Hard to feel much else but pity for the less developed, for savages, etc.

  14. #14 Vorn
    August 5, 2010

    Except this time around, instead of the “DUH!” subject being “Well interracial marriage is still one man and one woman!”, it’ll be “Well Gay marriage is still 2 HUMANS”

    I wonder what’ll happen when we start uplifting other species.

  15. #15 TiredOfIt
    August 5, 2010

    Are you seriously comparing affording all humans equal rights to OTHER SPECIES?

    Gay people are people. Man, your kind kinda scares this shit out of me. I wish you’d evolve a bit… much as your culture teaches ANTI-evolution.

    Savage.

  16. #16 Father Thyme
    August 6, 2010

    The majority of Californians, rightly, voted that marriage is between a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman. This gay-loving judge is legislating from the bench and should be disbarred. Period.

  17. #17 Stephanie Z
    August 6, 2010

    Actually 41% of California’s eligible voters voted for Prop 8. Not quite the same thing. Either way, a bare 52% majority of the vote does not constitute a groundswell of voices, and a majority does not indicate the legitimacy of a position. And that wasn’t what the proposition said.

    By the way, judges don’t have to be on the bar. They don’t even have to be lawyers. And overturning a law for unconstitutionality is not only not legislating, it’s exactly the job description.

    So much wrong in one little paragraph.

Current ye@r *