Man 1: Long ceremony. Judge: ...And after thorough review of all the evidence and testimony, I now pronounce you husband and husband! It now goes on to appeal... Tom: ...A romantic ceremony of balls and strikes.
I see a world where a divorce form is printed on the back of marriage certificates … and a part of me wants to invest in the company printing the forms.
Toles Friday rant is here:
rottenprat, the history of marriage is long and uneven. For the record, divorces are lower today than they were 30 years ago. Part of that is because people are waiting to marry till they are older. But divorce has always happened - the big difference in the last century or so is that women can actually do it, too. Remembering that in Europe weddings did not even exist for the lower classes for many centuries, there really isn’t a single model for it.
The integrity of any marriage is solely dependent on the couple who has committed themselves to each other.
Legal rights are just that, religious rites vary. As an American you can choose your religion, if any, but your individual rights should not be altered by the myopic.
Here’s how I think a lot of the folks going bonkers over this ruling see themselves…
We take you now to the Pearly Gates:
Saint Peter: “Well according to our records sir, you were a heartless, greedy monster, who cheated on his wife, neglected his children, lied like a rug, and cheated everyone from here to downtown Peoria. What in world makes you think tht YOU’RE entititled to enter heaven?”
Rightwinger: “I was militantly opposed to gay marriage!”
Saint Peter: “WHAT?! Oh I’m sorry sir. there’s been a dreadful mistake; you go right to the head of the line, and wait over there. Your limo will be here shortly. Uh, excuse me a second? Gabe…break out the red carpet, we got another anti-gay-marriage guy! There we are sir, just make yourself comfortable. Is there anything I can get you while you wait? Champagen? Caviar?
Oh, and have you got a few minutes? Jesus would really like to have His picture taken with you. ”
4 out of 5 Baptist divorcees believe that same-sex marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage.
The haters on the right are livid that this Republican-appointed judge is gay. They claim he is biased. Somehow, according to their twisted, abysmal lack of logic, a straight person would be “less biased.” It wasn’t a problem for them for a judge with oil assets to decide on the oil moratorium… but since this ruling didn’t work in their favor, they’re upset. They ignore the fact that they have absolutely NO BASIS in FACT, LOGIC, or REASON for this law, and instead legislate religious oppression.
They preach about the Constitution and how this is so wrong. Well guess what, the Constitution covers more than Corporate “people” and unlimited guns.
Perhaps this is one reason the Right wants to remove the 14th Amendment. It’s inconvenient to their making the U.S. like Iran, the perfect Republican state.
A hypothetical question but of interest to me.
For a judge are moral conflicts acceptable while economic ones are not?
Again a hypo. Judge W is gay, madly in love and wants to get married but the Constitution was amended so he can’t. If he votes to invalidate the constitution he personally will be able to get married. Is that a conflict and should he be forcibly recused?
Hypo case B. Obama temporarily stops all oil drilling in an area. Oil companies sue. If the Judge owns 1 share of the oil companies stock in his 401K should he be forcibly recused?
Under the 1st Ammendment, all laws regulating or repsecting such a sacrosact institution as marriage are void.
“Again a hypo. Judge W is gay, madly in love and wants to get married but the Constitution was amended so he can’t. If he votes to invalidate the constitution he personally will be able to get married. Is that a conflict and should he be forcibly recused?”
The same people who championed Feldman’s decision to stop the moratorium are now calling for Walker’s removal. I never called for Feldman’s removal. How interesting it is when a situation doesn’t work out for one, that they contradict their own previous stances.
But this can go on and on and on. His [Walker’s] ruling is impartial, read it. The opposition’s case was bunk, they had no facts, they had nothing. He left NOTHING for even a conservative judge to debunk. It’s entirely based on the case.
You waffled on my question and changed it to a straight judge etc. My question is if there is a direct personal benefit to the judge. The straight judge would get no personal benefit. Similar the black/white male/female judges would get no personal benefit.
Here in NYC the Speaker of the House, Sheldon Silver, is a trial lawyer. He is a member of a law firm that litigates trials He gets paid from them every year, a large salary. He routinely refuses to even consider any type of tort reform. For Democrats that is perfectly acceptable.
But-but -but homophobia is SOOOO profitable.
“You waffled on my question and changed it to a straight judge etc. My question is if there is a direct personal benefit to the judge. The straight judge would get no personal benefit. Similar the black/white male/female judges would get no personal benefit.”
^ Lies, I can’t get drafted, they haven’t repealed DADT. And as long as it isn’t repealed, the gay population will suddenly “spike” if there’s a draft.
Libertarian: You’re saying that a gay judge can’t legitimately rule on a gay marriage issue.
Do you REALLY want to slap the judge’s face on this?
Don’t answer until you REALLY think about how hard you want to slap his face.
For instance, are you equally willing to slap the face of any straight judge who ignores “strict scrutiny” and “rational basis” in order to rule against it? REALLY?
Since I’ve already linked to it elsewhere, today’s “Bad Reporter” is a good one:
(From the SF Chron site, “Ground Zero” on this issue.)
Clearly no judge who is gay OR straight can rule on this without a conflict of interest.
Seems like latent homosexuals are always the most homophobic, right Church?
the homosexual judge ignored human history….no nation ever flourished that tolerated open illicit sexual practises, including sodomy. (forgotten Sodom and Gomorrah?)
his “ruling” was a personal opinion screed denouncing the historical acceptance by every age and every country of “marriage” being reserved for husband and wife, just as God married Adam and Eve in Eden as our example…and gave the Law and the rules for marriage. this judge hates and slanders heterosexuality.
if our constitution is stretched to make same sex partners equal in “marriage”…..then our culture has been DEvolved.
What is next….man and beast unions? multiple partners?
Legal sex with small children? Religious sex as pagans in rebellion to God practised long ago?
this slope is 100% downward…personally and nationally.
It’s disgusting reading Disgusted’s rant. The judge ignored human history? How about the judge followed the laws of our country not the limitations of your church.
“(forgotten Sodom and Gomorrah?)”
“if our constitution is stretched”
“this slope is 100% downward…personally and nationally.”
“What is next….man and beast unions?”
“multiple partners? ”
“Legal sex with small children?”
“Religious sex as pagans in rebellion to God practised long ago?”
“grainbelt Genius_badge said, about 3 hours ago
A romantic ceremony of balls and balls.”
Well, find yourself a nice man and give it a try.
Who pays attention to baseball these days?
^ To me the term doesn’t really matter all that much, if I go through the government it should be a civil union, regardless, and as long as I have the legal protections it’s not that big of a deal to me. But as we both know, the Hawaii Republican Governor vetoed a bill that would give equal protections to same-sex civil unions, and as such, it’s made evident that terminology is not the issue here.
So 50 million people, as long as they’ve been to a baseball game, are enough to overrule the Constitution on Church’s planet?
You and Disgusted should hook up, Church…you’d get along just fine.
On your planet.
Geeze, you’re correct. http://tinyurl.com/omsmcs
Still, your attitude is lousy.
And who said socialists don’t like baseball?
Church says: “I don’t think a Judge can unilaterally redefine the word “marriage””
Do you believe a judge can apply the “strict scrutiny” and “rational basis” tests to determine if a government interest trumps a Constitutional right?
Church says: “I believe in Civil Unions with all the benefits afforded gays that straights have.”
So you believe in the doctrine of separate-but-equal. The Supreme Court no longer does, you know. Plessey vs Ferguson?
Anthony, I am amazed at you. You speak disapprovingly of the Supreme Court overturning well established law eg the CU case, Heller. Stare decisis!
How can you possible approve of a court overturning Plessy? It had been the law of the land for well over 50 years.
(To others this is my attempt at sarcasm).
Bottom line. If the original decision was wrong it must be overturned.
I never did like that three-fifths of a person business…
Presumably when the original decision was made a majority thought ti was right – a correct interpretation of the constitution. When it’s overturned a majority thinks it’s wrong – an incorrect interpretation of the constitution. Bottom line – both decisions are interpretations.
the name says it all…
just curious - still have to take blood tests before getting a license?
That’s state law, Parker. Most states no longer require blood tests, but you’d have to look up your state specifically.
I’m a smartass, not an elitist. Just ask Bruce.
Gotcha, Church. We are in agreement.
In the Prop 8 ruling, the judge did not redefine a word. He just performed a couple of time-tested tests to show that denying a right to one segment of the population is, in this case, unconstitutional.
Re: who catches?
Maybe they take turns.
Just remember, it’s the catcher who gives the signals.
And with some practices, pitching and catching is simultaneous and reciprocal. Rotational symmetry, donchya know…
April 12, 2017