Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[mattkime]

Filliam H. Muffman wrote:
[quote=Seacrest]
I vote everybody gets ponies!!

Who else wants one?
my pony wants a pony! and a vote!

[DaviDC.]

Didn't the upstanding citizens of Utah funnel billions of dollars into California to defend Prop 8? Bless their pointed little heads; how are they gonna react to this?

[Kiva]

DaviDC. wrote:
Didn't the upstanding citizens of Utah funnel billions of dollars into California to defend Prop 8? Bless their pointed little heads; how are they gonna react to this?

I know...isn't it great?

[davester]

Unfortunately, it's not over until the fat lady sings, and the fat lady is Clarence Thomas.

[Ted King]

davester wrote:
Unfortunately, it's not over until the fat lady sings, and the fat lady is Clarence Thomas.

We know what note Thomas will sing. The fat lady that really matters is probably Kennedy since he may go either way. But, your admonition is definitely worth keeping well in mind - it's the Supreme Court that is going to be the court that ultimately determines the fate of loving homosexual couples in California (and perhaps other states as well) that are married or want to become married.

[Uncle Wig]

I think davester means Thomas has already made up his mind and that no legal argument, no matter how compelling, will sway him.

And that he will write the majority opinion, hence the "sing" reference.

[Grace62]

.

[Rolando]

I think that Uncle Dave is right. I hope he gets to write the minority report.



I just keep thinking...only one more to go. One more to flip the court. Too bad we can't get a liberal as radical as Thomas, Scalia and Roberts are conservative fascist reactionary

[Trouble]

Grace62 wrote:
Looks like we're going down a path similar to Loving v. Virginia, as was long predicted. A state cannot pass a law that treats one class of people differently without some compelling reason, and that reason cannot be religious belief. And marriage is a basic right. We've had gay couples marrying in the US for 8 years now, and longer in other countries, and the predicted calamities have not come to pass.

Sorry haters.

Marriage isn't a right and if the litmus test is 8 years then who cares about global warming, right? By the way, nice demonization with calling everyone who thinks marriage is between a man and a woman a 'hater." Classy move.

[Grace62]

Trouble wrote:
[quote=Grace62]
Looks like we're going down a path similar to Loving v. Virginia, as was long predicted. A state cannot pass a law that treats one class of people differently without some compelling reason, and that reason cannot be religious belief. And marriage is a basic right. We've had gay couples marrying in the US for 8 years now, and longer in other countries, and the predicted calamities have not come to pass.

Sorry haters.

Marriage isn't a right and if the litmus test is 8 years then who cares about global warming, right? By the way, nice demonization with calling everyone who thinks marriage is between a man and a woman a 'hater." Classy move.

A pair of federal judges has now reached the conclusion that the basis for Prop 8 was dislike of gay people, pure and simple. I am far from alone in that "classy move."

And the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a right. See Loving V. Virginia, 1967.
In its decision, the court wrote:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival..."

Trouble, I accept that you disapprove of gay people getting married. That's fine. We've had the argument before, and as I recall it was not particularly fruitful.
I think your side is going to lose. Don't really have anything to add.