Tune in Dec. 6 to watch prop. 8 be struck down

Left

Real Game Out Here
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
1,797
Location
AK or OR
And it better be or I will have egg all over my face.

Prop. 8 hearing on gay marriage will be televised by C-SPAN
November 17, 2010 | 5:10 pm

A federal appeals court Wednesday authorized the televising of a Dec. 6 hearing on whether Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage, should be struck down.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request by C-SPAN to broadcast the two-hour hearing, which is scheduled to start at 10 a.m. The court said C-SPAN would provide its tape to other broadcast media that receive court permission to televise the hearing.

The 9th Circuit is hearing an appeal of an August ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who presided over a trial that examined such questions as whether homosexuality could be changed and whether same-sex parenting harmed children. Walker wanted to broadcast the trial on the Internet, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 to ban cameras on the grounds that witnesses could be intimidated during testimony.

The December hearing will involve legal arguments by lawyers, not testimony by witnesses. The 9th Circuit has said the first hour of the hearing will examine whether the sponsors of Proposition 8 and Imperial County have legal authority, or standing, to appeal Walker's ruling.

Standing generally requires an appellant to have been directly affected by a court decision. The state has standing because it enforces Proposition 8, but Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declined to appeal. The second hour will be spent discussing whether the gay marriage ban violates equal protection rights.

Meet the lawyers!

Anti Prop 8: Ted Olson and David Boies, who argued against one another in Bush vs. Gore in 2000. They argue prop. 8 violates the 14 amendment - equal protection under the law.

Pro Prop 8: Charles Cooper, whose arguments apparently are not based on law at all.

Charles J. Cooper’s argument for upholding Prop 8 was that marriage is, by definition, a union between a man and a woman....

“Child-rearing and procreation is important in matrimony,” Cooper said. “but also to nature and society.”
http://qsaltlake.com/2010/09/16/pro-prop-8-lawyer-lectures-at-byu/

The judges!

Stephen Reinhardt, one of the most liberal judges (according to the WSJ), has been asked to recuse himself by the National Organization for marriage because his wife was involved with the case. Also a guy that gets his descisions reversed a lot, like the time he banned Christmas:
.http://www.theonion.com/articles/activist-judge-cancels-christmas,1856/

Michael Daly Hawkins, a "moderate democrat". Former Navajo Nation Prosecutor and US attorney in AZ.

N. Randy Smith, big time mormon, has undergrad and law degrees from BYU.
 
Let's hope it doesn't get voted down. Gay marriage is a contradiction of terms. They can have a Civil Union with the same legal benefits, but no marriage.
 
Wait, "gay" means "unmarried"? Does that mean that me and my girlfriend are gay? :huh:

No:)

Gay and marriage are a contradiction of terms because marriage means between a man and a woman, and I'd rather not California's state government be a bunch of Rednecks (Or any state government for that matter) who don't know what words mean.
 
I wonder why Libertarians are allowed to marry since they're not real men. :S
 
Hoping for the best!

Also, Dommy, marriage is two people who want to be with each other.
 
Booyah! There's still life in the old troll yet. :p

Anyway, I agree with Mr D. Marriage is for two people who love each other. A person's private beliefs are not sufficient justification to discriminate against gay people.
 
Gay and marriage are a contradiction of terms because marriage means between a man and a woman...
Unless it's a man and a man. Or a man and a genderqueer person. Or a man and two women. Or two women, a man, and a genderqueer person. Or Three genderqueer people. Etc.

I mean, yeah, you can say that such-and-such narrow little box is how you personally think marriage should be, or how your deity of choice regards it, but you can't reasonably declare it to be the only possible form which marriage can take, especially given that same-sex marriages are not only widely recognised in social and cultural terms, but, in some jurisdictions, by the state itself.
 
That same ridiculous argument comes in just about every debate on gay marriage I've ever seen. Do you believe in 50 years time we will have the technology to communicate with sheep, and that a sheep would express a desire to enter a lifelong marriage with a human??
 
What if in 30 years people who are attracted to animals complain they have the "Right" to marry their sheep? What then?
Are suggesting that gay people are not capable of giving informed consent? Or that sheep are? :huh:
 
What if in 30 years people who are attracted to animals complain they have the "Right" to marry their sheep? What then?

I don't get your point. Are you likening gay people to farm animals?

Gay humans are intelligent beings with the ability to consent to a contract and declare their love. An animal is (currently) incapable of consent, so its a completely different situation.

Slippery slope arguments are stupid. Look, I can reverse it: If gay marriage is banned, it'll only be a matter of time before straight marriage is banned too!
 
Are suggesting that gay people are not capable of giving informed consent? Or that sheep are? :huh:

It appears that he's suggesting that homosexuality is comparable to beastiality, just slightly more fabulous. :rolleyes:
 
Are suggesting that gay people are not capable of giving informed consent? Or that sheep are? :huh:

Well, maybe someone will produce a machine for allowing humans and animals to communicate. :D

If someone can prove an animal loves a human and is smart enough to understand marriage (straight from the horse's mouth?), then I'd see no reason to stop them.
 
Are suggesting that gay people are not capable of giving informed consent? Or that sheep are? :huh:

Neither, just that if they can change the meaning of marriage, it can mean literally anything. I believe homosexuality should be totally legal. I believe bestiality should totally be illegal. But the word marriage has something very specific in mind. If it doesn't, what I suggested could well become reality.
 
What if in 30 years people who are attracted to animals complain they have the "Right" to marry their sheep? What then?

this old fallacy oh but if 2 consenting adults can marry, it means people can marry animals who obviously cant really consent, lazy argument, borderline offensive-thats libertarians for you
 
What if in 30 years people who are attracted to animals complain they have the "Right" to marry their sheep? What then?

I see no reason why not people cannot have the "Right to Marry their sheep."
 
Top Bottom