CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › California Thinks Gays Are A-OK
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

California Thinks Gays Are A-OK - Page 2

post #51 of 84
5/15/08 at 11:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravedigger View Post
Your friends must not live in Missoula if they were turned so easily.
That's exactly where they live. I think it mostly comes from his family, which is awesome because his older brother is gay. Luckily, the older brother lives in Las Vegas, far away from any lynch mobs.
Reply
post #52 of 84
5/16/08 at 12:11pm
Wow, that's surprising. Missoula is really the most liberal town/area in the state.

I hope people in the other states that have this law on the books start to rise up and file lawsuits to get it overturned. It's so ridiculous that this is even an issue.
Reply
post #53 of 84
5/16/08 at 12:32pm
Sullivan has a few important points on his blog this morning. Some good talking points for arguing with your conservative relatives this weekend. This first quote is from Republican Bob Barr, who wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, but agrees with the court's decision (State's rights or whatever):

Quote:
The court agreed with the plaintiffs that the correct way to characterize the fundamental right question is whether there is a fundamental right to marry from which same-sex couples are unconstitutionally excluded, rather than, as the state argued, whether there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. The court referred to Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, its landmark 1948 ruling striking down the state’s law against interracial marriages. In Perez, the court had not treat the question as whether there was a fundamental right to interracial marriage; rather, the question was whether different-race couples were being wrongly denied the fundamental right to marry.
As far as the court "overturning the will of the people":

Quote:
The California court cited the 1948 Perez v Sharp anti-miscegenation law ruling prominently in its decision today. If you believe that courts should have no role in opposing public opinion in areas of social policy, then the polls at the time make for interesting reading. Ten years after the 1948 ruling, Gallup fund that 94 percent of white Americans opposed inter-racial marriage. As late as 1967, when Loving vs Virginia was decided, a majority opposed it. That remained the case through the 1970s. In fact, the Perez v Sharp ruling was fifty years ahead of public opinion.
And of course, the argument that this was a coup by "unelected judges":

Quote:
All seven members of the California court have been confirmed by the voters. Kennard -- confirmed 2006 with 74.5% Corrigan -- confirmed 2006 with 74.4% Werdegar -- confirmed 2002 with 74.1% Moreno -- confirmed 2002 with 72.6% Baxter -- confirmed 2002 with 71.5% George -- confirmed 1998 with 75.5% Chin -- confirmed 1998 with 69.3%
Oh, and...

Quote:
Six of the seven were originally appointed by Republicans.
Reply
post #54 of 84
5/16/08 at 12:51pm
Exactly, the claim that these were activist judges is complete and outright bullshit. And it annoys me to high hell that so-called "Conservatives" believe completey in the concept of states rights and yet want to federalize the issue of marriage.

On an unrelated note, much like how I enjoy having my degree with Arnold's signature on it. I love the fact he's got an appointee on the state supreme court. That's right, a Scwartzennegger appointee.
Reply
post #55 of 84
5/16/08 at 1:27pm
Michael Savage was just going ballistic over this last night. "Activist judges," "overturning the rights that thousands have died for," "radical Obama-ist," you name it, he was spewing it.
Reply
post #56 of 84
5/16/08 at 1:46pm
That Hardball clip where Mathews destroys the guy who doesn't understand what appeasement means sums up so much of the Bush-based-buzz-words. Activist Judges are your side, actually.
Reply
post #57 of 84
5/16/08 at 2:05pm
Score one for the good guys. This is a subject very close to me because I have a friend going through hell trying to stay in the closet because he's afraid of everyone's reaction. Things like this, I hope, will give him the courage he needs.
Reply
post #58 of 84
5/16/08 at 2:08pm
This is unrelated but I thought it gave me a good laugh:

Reply
post #59 of 84
5/16/08 at 3:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Michael Savage was just going ballistic over this last night. "Activist judges," "overturning the rights that thousands have died for," "radical Obama-ist," you name it, he was spewing it.
Obama-ist?

What was the anti-bigotry movement called before Obama came on the scene? What's a moderate Obama-ist?
Reply
post #60 of 84
5/16/08 at 3:40pm
Your average conservative radio host believes that Obama is about as far left as you can get, so they've simply replaced "leftist" with "Obama-ist".
Reply
post #61 of 84
5/16/08 at 3:45pm
That's amazing. Broadcasting Savage is a waste of good electricity.
Reply
post #62 of 84
5/16/08 at 3:49pm
And also waste of using your earholes.
Reply
post #63 of 84
5/16/08 at 3:53pm
I don't regularly listen to him, but I figured it would be a special day with this ruling having come down. I wasn't disappointed.
Reply
post #64 of 84
5/16/08 at 4:00pm
I'm sure Limbaugh and Coulter were livid also. Man that shit should've been hilarious.
Reply
post #65 of 84
5/16/08 at 4:11pm
Religious whackos railing against "activist" judges pisses me right the fuck off. I'm actually against activist judges, myself.

What these guys don't get, is THEY'RE THE ONES WHO WANT ACTIVIST JUDGES! Denying contractual rights to people based on their sexual orientation is the "activist" position, not vice versa.

Someone needs to call them on their rhetorical flip flop.
Reply
post #66 of 84
5/16/08 at 4:13pm
Like I said, these guy's want to federalize a state issue and yet supposedly believe in states rights. These guys have no principles and have hijacked the "Conservative" designation for their own.
Reply
post #67 of 84
5/16/08 at 4:14pm
Well, to them, "activist" means judges who overturn laws they like, or uphold laws they don't like.
Reply
post #68 of 84
5/16/08 at 4:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Well, to them, "activist" means judges who overturn laws they like, or uphold laws they don't like.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law defines judicial activism as "the practice in the judiciary of protecting or expanding individual rights through decisions that depart from established precedent or are independent of or in opposition to supposed constitutional or legislative intent."

I would argue that denying contractual rights to gays is a departure from the "established precedent" (since at least the 60s) that sexual orientation, race, etc. is not a valid reason for legislative differentiation.

I cannot believe, given the problems facing the U.S. and the world, that people actually have this on their agenda. Even if people did have a legitimate gripe (which I don't think they do), it should still rankly roughly 138727th on their list of things to care about on a daily basis.

Every time I think we're out of the Dark Ages, they pull me back in.
Reply
post #69 of 84
5/16/08 at 4:24pm
It's called people without lives or jobs.
Reply
post #70 of 84
5/16/08 at 4:37pm
This really warmed my heart.

http://www.people.com/people/article...200745,00.html
Reply
post #71 of 84
5/16/08 at 4:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Your average conservative radio host believes that Obama is about as far left as you can get, so they've simply replaced "leftist" with "Obama-ist".
....For real?
Reply
post #72 of 84
5/16/08 at 5:58pm
I swear any time I turn the dial to AM radio and it's not the news station. I'm risking a Bad Lieutenant on my radio anytime it's a talk show.
Reply
post #73 of 84
5/16/08 at 9:16pm
But it's nice homosexuals are no longer second-class citizens in California. I'm sure a lot of people sighed a sigh of relief yesterday, they just don't necessarily have radio shows.
Reply
post #74 of 84
5/17/08 at 4:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by electoral-vote.com/
The California Supreme Court ruling striking down all laws forbidding same-sex marriage is going to present John McCain with a bit of a a problem. He has been on the record for years opposing a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. He doesn't support same-sex marriage but says it is up to the states. If California wants to allow it and Alabama does not, that's fine with him. That's the theory. Now the practice. California is about to allow it and California is a bellwether in so many areas that once it is legal there, it will soon be legal in New York, Maryland, Oregon, and most of the blue states. It is already legal in much of Europe.

What does McCain do now? One of the reasons the Base distrusts him is precisely because he opposes a constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage. If he reiterates his long-standing position that it is up to the states, the Base is going to be reminded of why it doesn't like him. On the other hand, if he flip flops to make the Base happy (1) the Democrats will accuse him of flip flopping and (2) many independents will vote against him. Well-off suburban women in Missouri are by-and-large not into gay bashing and libertarian states in the West like Colorado don't like the federal government trying to regulate morality. It's kind of a no-win situation for him. It will be tough to please the Base and the independents at the same time and flip flopping is always dangerous.
So this will hurt Republicans instead of Democrats for once? lol pwned
Reply
post #75 of 84
5/17/08 at 9:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken View Post
Like I said, these guy's want to federalize a state issue and yet supposedly believe in states rights. These guys have no principles and have hijacked the "Conservative" designation for their own.
Agreed
Reply
post #76 of 84
5/17/08 at 9:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
But it's nice homosexuals are no longer second-class citizens in California. I'm sure a lot of people sighed a sigh of relief yesterday, they just don't necessarily have radio shows.
Yea, finally they are treated fairly. I think we go through stages, the womens right to vote, segregation, I think gays are due for some fair treatment.
Reply
post #77 of 84
5/18/08 at 3:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious View Post
Yea, finally they are treated fairly. I think we go through stages, the womens right to vote, segregation, I think gays are due for some fair treatment.
You're right! We need to go back to picking on women for a while!
Reply
post #78 of 84
5/18/08 at 4:57am
Equal suffrage, pfft. When did those uppity women get the idea that they were equals to the better sex? I'm with Ann Coulter - we need to take the right of women to vote away, because they always vote for Democrats.
Reply
post #79 of 84
5/20/08 at 12:45am
Dude, George Takei's getting married. BEST NEWS EVER.
Reply
post #80 of 84
5/20/08 at 12:56am
I'll get it out of the way: "Oh my."
Reply
post #81 of 84
5/20/08 at 1:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte View Post
Dude, George Takei's getting married. BEST NEWS EVER.
And . . . engage!
Reply
post #82 of 84
5/20/08 at 2:10am
They were together for 21 years, and just now they're getting married. Sigh.

But more importantly: will it be a Star Trek wedding?
Reply
post #83 of 84
5/20/08 at 9:50pm
Chris Crocker must be considering a move to California. I am not taking a shot at him, I am dead serious as he lives in an eastern Tennessee small town with pentecostal Grandparents. I am surpirsed that he hasn't been killed yet.

Quoth the California,"Leave the gays Alone!"
Reply
post #84 of 84
5/20/08 at 10:58pm
Thread Starter 
I seriously thought he was already here.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › California Thinks Gays Are A-OK