Well, IT has happened. . .already yet. . .
Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Mon, August 16, 2010 -- 6:58 PM ET
-----
California Gay Marriage on Hold as Case Is Appealed
A U.S. appeals court panel on Monday ruled that same-sex
couples could not marry in California while the court
considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage
ban, according to wire reports.
But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel set a relatively
aggressive schedule for hearing the case, ordering lawyers to
produce a series of briefs between Sept. 17 and Nov. 1.
The Monday decision by the appellate panel reverses a ruling
last week by U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker,
who had said marriages could resume while higher courts
considered the matter.
Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com?emc=na
10 comments:
Yeah, I did. but I am naive! What the hell is the point of a judge making a ruling which can be overturned by some shithead who says I dont wanna play by your rules!. .the which shithead has far less authority than Judge Walker.
Oh well, who gives a damn any more. . it is all messed up(expletive deleted). . .and the mindless can go play in the streets of Jungle Land and make fools of themselves.
Huuuaaaahhhh! I think I better go back to bed. Too much sugar in the bun. . ..ho ho ho
Since when does "challenge" = "nullify" ?
Law sure gives power to "the great unwashed" ! Where do we peons acquire some of that power????
"J"...????
You are overreacting about this 9th Circuit stay. Given the magniture of the issue and its impact on the electorate, it would probably be an abuse of discretion to order immediate implementation of the District Court decision without a thorough appellate review. If I had to guess, there is a decent chance if not a liklihood that the Circuit panel will uphold the lower court decision, but that doesn't mean even the Circuit judges will order implementation pending a Supreme Court review.
Again, I know it is heresy, but I'm more and more convinced the Supremes aren't ready to buy into this, and the best thing that might happen would be for the 9th Circuit to reverse and the Supremes refuse to hear the matter on appeal. That would at least preserve the issue for another day when public opinion is more accepting. Remember, the Texas consensual sodomy decision, Lawrence v. Texas, was decided in 2003 with Kennedy in the majority. It overruled a rather recent decision, Bowers v. Hardwick, decided in 1986, which upheld a Georgia law that punished those who engage in even private consensual sodomy. The odds are more likely to improve when the California referendum results get old and cold.
I'll bet a majority of the Supremes don't give a shit whom anyone sleeps with, or whom they decide to marry. But they don't like acting like an unelected legislature, and they don't want to get out in front of any political parade. You have to remember that it took the Supreme Court 58 years to overturn the racial segregation declared constitutional in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), and that was because the public had reached the conclusion that race equality's time had come.
When you talk about major social issues and the Supreme Court you should measure time in decades, if not generations.
It always seemed to me that the government shouldn't be in the business of issuing "marriage" licenses anyway. Marriage is a sacrament best left to holy men, and that all people should be free to apply for a civil union that confers all the benefits formerly bestowed by marriage. That in hand, the celebrants ("suckers" in the eyes of those who have had to fight through a nasty divorce or custody case) are free to repair to the cave of their local guru to obtain the divine blessing of marriage. Given the divorce rate, the whole idea of white weddings with cake, orchestra and Dom Perignon is anachronistic, like public defloration, and things like the Clinton wedding quite vulgar. Why, pray tell, to so many gays want this?
You are overreacting about this 9th Circuit stay. Given the magniture of the issue and its impact on the electorate, it would probably be an abuse of discretion to order immediate implementation of the District Court decision without a thorough appellate review. If I had to guess, there is a decent chance if not a liklihood that the Circuit panel will uphold the lower court decision, but that doesn't mean even the Circuit judges will order implementation pending a Supreme Court review.
Again, I know it is heresy, but I'm more and more convinced the Supremes aren't ready to buy into this, and the best thing that might happen would be for the 9th Circuit to reverse and the Supremes refuse to hear the matter on appeal. That would at least preserve the issue for another day when public opinion is more accepting. Remember, the Texas consensual sodomy decision, Lawrence v. Texas, was decided in 2003 with Kennedy in the majority. It overruled a rather recent decision, Bowers v. Hardwick, decided in 1986, which upheld a Georgia law that punished those who engage in even private consensual sodomy. The odds are more likely to improve when the California referendum results get old and cold.
I'll bet a majority of the Supremes don't give a shit whom anyone sleeps with, or whom they decide to marry. But they don't like acting like an unelected legislature, and they don't want to get out in front of any political parade. You have to remember that it took the Supreme Court 58 years to overturn the racial segregation declared constitutional in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), and that was because the public had reached the conclusion that race equality's time had come.
When you talk about major social issues and the Supreme Court you should measure time in decades, if not generations.
It always seemed to me that the government shouldn't be in the business of issuing "marriage" licenses anyway. Marriage is a sacrament best left to holy men, and that all people should be free to apply for a civil union that confers all the benefits formerly bestowed by marriage. That in hand, the celebrants ("suckers" in the eyes of those who have had to fight through a nasty divorce or custody case) are free to repair to the cave of their local guru to obtain the divine blessing of marriage. Given the divorce rate, the whole idea of white weddings with cake, orchestra and Dom Perignon is anachronistic, like public defloration, and things like the Clinton wedding quite vulgar. Why, pray tell, to so many gays want this?
WoW! You got a tad heavy handed on this one. . .LOL. . .their were 9 copies of your comment in my mailbox!
Were you making a point to me by the number? LOL
I am "over-reacting"? Quite likely. I am 22 yo, you know, like one of your sons, and I have a LOT to learn.
Thinking in decades doesn't come quickly when you are a hair over 2 decades old. A decade is a very very long time. . .ex experientia.
I think quite likely you are correct about the Supremes: I doubt they want to become known as the ones who destroyed the moral fabric of the US of A by their flippant acquiesance to scum of society, horrendous sinners bent on destruction of family life embedded in heterosexual marriage.
I wonder if a fitting response for gays in Massachusets, and the few other States which permit same sex marriage, to take all the civil rights provided us under the Law and turn our backs on all the social trappings of heterosexual marriage. . .ALL OF IT.
Gary has wondered in print about my being "cheeky", mischievous, and the like. Perhaps. Deep inside a spirit different or flowering from the cheeky mischief which is far more akin to stubborn rebellion, hopefully increasingly founded on facts and reality.
Increasingly I feel . . STOP! Enough is quite ENOUGH! Basta!
To those who ask WHY? I reply WHY NOT?
I am with you, partially, on who does the ceremony. Dad tells me that over the years he has heard many a clergyman say the church ought to get out of the marriage business. All should be civil unions. These are Catholic priests, mainly. Then, later on, if the couple wants the blessing of the Faith Community, they could have some sort of simple sacred ritual to "bless" their marriage.
Theologically the couple are the ministers of the Sacrament. The cleric is merely witness for the Church.
See "J" the benefits of years of experience. . .you have so many points in history to draw upon. For me the Civil Rights years and the Vietnam war debacle are photos and films I have seen, articles I have read. . .and a few families who lost sons in Vietnam.
Thanks for your balance, "J". . .
justin
To measure in generations is quite right and guess what... Justin's generation is coming up strong and fast. It is just a matter of time. This has been in the making since the sixties. And one thing that my experiences in the funeral business has taught me is that old people die. We have seen several states come around and I believe that the rest will follow. Some may take longer, but it will happen.
As for who issues marriage licences, I believe it should always be the government. And like Justin said, the church can give their blessing. And as long as they are going to call it a marriage application, they should be able to say "NO" every now and then to ANYONE that see should not be married.
Finally, I would have to agree with the stay, until it is settled for good. The fact that someone could pay for their licence as well as the ceremony and then have it revoked is absurd.
I agree with J about white weddings. I agree with J about the cake. And the orchestra. But I think the Dom Perignon should definitely stay.
In any case, this gay marriage debacle could be avoided if gays went straight. All you need do is follow the simple rules. Too easy, as this ex-gay demonstrates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYRhVcJsypg&videos=oNXXd8PcHI0
You received 9 copies because my office computer kept posting a notice that indicated the response wasn't going through. Sorry about that, and sorry that the version you received had a typo in the last paragraph. As for all this experience stuff, there isn't a thing in here that isn't in a few history books or a constitutional law course. You will, I suspect, develop a life long love of reading, and I hope you are around to tell us what your perspective is when you're 26 and out of graduate school. The intellectual distance between 22 and 26 is astonishing.
And in fairness to the Supremes, they wouldn't have handed down the Texas sodomy decision if they considered gays scum who were destroying society. Your greatest hope here is that a lot of them are philosophical libertarians who think government ought to let people alone.
Now here's something unexpected... a kid singing a song about Twee Vaders - Two Fathers. It's in Portugese so you might have to find a pastry cook to translate the lyrics. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX9y3cn-OVo&feature=related
By the way, that kid singing Twee Vaders is 16 now and has a girlfriend despite being raised by two gay men.
On the other hand, the two gay men who adopted and raised the boy were raised by straights. Hehe.
Go figure.
Post a Comment