Activist judges ruining America one immoral judgement after another. 

“California voters, basically just two judges said, ‘you know what?’ We don’t really care about you!” O’Reilly exclaimed.

That is such a ridiculously lame and grossly distorted oversimplification of what the justices ruled that it’s not even worth arguing with. This is just another perfect example of how Fox News viewers are constantly fed this paranoid party line about how the world is against them and they’re under siege from elitists who want to take their guns, stop their Christmas celebrations and force them to gay marry.

I for one am glad to see Bill standing up as a paragon of marriage and the family. I wonder what Andrea Mackris has to say about it though?

Oh don’t worry, this decision doesn’t make you less manly.  You’re fine.  It’s gonna be okay.

Democracy – two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner!

No majority should be able to deprive a minority of a basic right that does no harm to the whole of society.

This issue makes me think that we in America have really just p*ssed away whatever heritage of liberty and individualism we may have once had…Our country has become nothing more than a judicial theocracy…it doesn’t make any difference what laws may be passed – the real, ultimate authority always lies with a panel of appointed judges..
.How is this any different than a bunch of Imams in Egypt or Iran being the ultimate last word on just exactly what the law must be???  The will of the people, or the actions of our legislatures have , apparently, absolutely no real authority regarding what is or is not acceptable, or legal…
 Who would have thought that the United States, after the turn of the American Century, would look so far to the east for guidance going forward?
I don’t want to offend anyone, or start any kind of argument by using the “G” word,, but to borrow an old phrase, “God help us all!”

Legislation by referendum has many problems. I find the process to be unmindful of unintended consequences.

Remember that the ban on interracial marriage was also the will of the
people and such a marriage considered immoral until unbiased
interpretation of the law prevailed.

It’s social evolution. Try joining the rest of us in the 21st century.

 Really? I have friends, a gay couple, who have been in a committed relationship for over thirty years. Please tell me how their relationship is ruining America. I’m not being snarky, I’d really like to know how you come to this conclusion.

Perhaps O’Reilly might try arguing the issue with Ted Olson. I doubt he would be as tongue-tied as O’Reilly’s handpicked guest punching bag.

Bill has never liked the 9th. circuit, he disagrees with every decision they make, constantly calling them liberals and once falsely claiming that they had more decisions overturned by the Supreme Court more than any other court.

People like that have never actually thought any of these issues through carefully. If they did, they’d realize that what they’re saying is divorced from reality and is hostage to traditions that are only still with us because they’re “time-honored” rather than truly rational.

You’re silly.

Until the end of time, Gay marriage will be associated with the cantankerous, curmudgeonly, and unkempt 71-year-old Barnyard Fwank. Which is as it should be.

It absolutely amazes me how O’Reilly (and even Wiehl) do not understand the US Constitution. The Constitution does NOT give us rights! We already have these rights by virtue of us BEING! Read the 9th amendment.
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” To me it’s AMAZING the O’Reilly presents Wiehl as an “Is it legal” person representing the left. Bill, get some balls and invite Glen Greenwald.

 Sophistry notwithstanding, it’s the tyranny Robe!

An activist judge is a judge who renders an opinion you don’t like — Justice Anthony Kennedy (SCOTUS)  (Just my paraphrase)

Will of the people be damned – the MONARCHY has spoken!

All hail Obama!

 It’s the “Tyranny of the Robe” precedent it sets.

Memo to Bill: Activist judges, really? Come on, Bill, read the 14th Amendment. Pay particular attention to the “equal protection” language. Once a state bestows a right, this right, according to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, must be applied equally.

 Not for anybody with a brain.

Yaaawnananann… More of Billo’s tired rants, more Zzzzz

Yeah, Ted ran circles around Chris Wallace during the aftermath of the first trial in an interview.

 And they think if they’re screaming, “Gay marriage!”, “Abortion!”, “Muslim!”, we won’t notice their profound hypocrisy. They think everyone is as intellectually challenged as they are.

VICTIM!

The Opressors are victimizing you!  

Lynching black people in the South was “time-honored” as well.  What’s your point?

Did either one of them actually read the 128-page argument since it was posted this afternoon?

Someone’s challenged.

For the anti-intellectual perhaps.  

Really?  I performed a marriage between two female friends of mine last Summer, and Barney Frank’s name didn’t come up once at the ceremony or at the reception, unless I missed it.  I always associate their marriage with two loving, caring people who want to spend the rest of their lives together. That, and really good beer. They made sure that there were a few kegs of excellent micro-brew for the reception guests.

Sorry to disappoint.

Three words for the defender of straight marriage:  felafel

WAAAH!  VICTIM!

You prefer Mob rule instead?

–Cobra

I think you’ll find we’re on the same side here. My point was that sticking to a tradition simply because it’s “time-honored” is a lazy man’s argument.

Most overturned court in the United States
Of the 80 cases the Supreme Court decided this past term through opinions, 56 cases arose from the federal appellate courts, three from the federal district courts, and 21 from the state courts. The court reversed or vacated the judgment of the lower court in 59 of these cases. Specifically, the justices overturned 40 of the 56 judgments arising from the federal appellate courts (or 71%), two of the three judgments coming from the federal district courts (or 67%), and 17 of the 21 judgments issued by state courts (or 81%).
Notably, the 9th Circuit accounted for both 30 percent of the cases (24 of 80) and 30 percent of the reversals (18 of 59) the Supreme Court decided by full written opinions this term. In addition, the 9th Circuit was responsible for more than a third (35%, or 8 of 23) of the High Court’s unanimous reversals that were issued by published opinions. Thus, on the whole, the 9th Circuit’s rulings accounted for more reversals this past term than all the state courts across the country combined and represented nearly half of the overturned judgments (45%) of the federal appellate courts.[10]
The 9th Circuit also hears the most cases of any of the circuit courts and thus has the most decisions move on to the Supreme Court.

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit#cite_note-9

Is that what he’s saying? Was that his argument?

Or was it about judges reversing the will of the people? Hmm.

Yet again, tonight’s situation isn’t about gay marriage itself, rather it’s about the role of the court system in overturning the will of the people.

I support marriage equality for all… but don’t like the idea of the courts overulling the people like this.

Was it ever voted on on the whole, like this was… or was that just the popular view at the time, but never actually voted upon?

BillO is just too dumb to understand the legal logic.

 Giving people freedoms is ruining America?

Why we recommend you the man in military? The reason is simple: They are
not only dependable, but also romantic. They are brave and strong but also warm
in heart. Now it’s a new year, find your strong and warm
arms for a new beginning at —- uniformedkiss*c’o’m —-

Glenzilla would anihilate OReally.  It would be an utterly pathetic experience for OReally since no one can accuse Glenzilla of being shy about talking over people.

Even more conservative legal opiners aren’t making the absurd arguments OReally is.  Here are two from Volokh Conspiracy (Ilya Somin and Eugene Volokh):

http://volokh.com/2012/02/07/same-sex-marriage-bans-and-sex-discrimination/
http://volokh.com/2012/02/07/thoughts-on-the-ninth-circuits-same-sex-marriage-decision/

And here’s Jason Mazzone from Balkinization:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/02/marriage-and-ninth-circuit-thumbs-down.html

None of the blustering by OReally touches on what may be at issue in an appeal or further up the chain to the Supreme Court.  (As in none of the “will of the people” sh*t)

Billy & the panel are wrong on what will happen in the Supreme Court, because the plaintiffs designed & ran their case with Justice Anthony Kennedy specifically in mind, got a ruling & an opinion from the trial judge that’s critically based on precedents that Kennedy has always said are controlling, and reasoning & language which looks precisely like the sort of reasoning & language Kennedy would use. If it’s 5:4, then it’s going to be 5:4 to uphold the trial judge & this appeals court & strike down Prop 8.  

Not that Billy allow either of the fuppet legal analysts much room to work with, but they also did a pretty fuppet-poor job of describing the reasoning. It’s true that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t provide for a right to marry – BUT - it DOES provide for continuation, preservation & protection of all rights that aren’t specifically mentioned or otherwise provided in it, in the often overlooked 9th Amendment: 

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” 

So when the Constitution was ratified, was there a right to marry “retained by the people”, even though it was not specifically “enumerated” in the Constitution? Even though no one sued for it, it’s actually a breathtakingly easy question to answer: of course the people retained a right to marry. It’s just that in those days marriage ceremonies were carried out in church & in private home with no interference or regulation by the state, whether federal or state – because the right pre-dated the creation of the republic & its constituent states. 

Now, the Constitution also provides that regulation of non-enumerated areas is left to the individual states, meaning if any state actor was going to regulate marriage, according to the Constitution it would have to be the individual states who would be doing that. As far as I can tell, two states haven’t sought to regulate marriage: Rhode Island, except for registry purposes, and New Mexico. But the other 48 (or 55 if you like that) have all passed into law bills regulating marriage. As soon as they did that, automatically the 9th Amendment kicks in to prevent states regulating AGAINST the right to marry, because the right to marry was retained by the people. All a state can do is regulate in ways that do not abrogate from the right.

What happened in California is classically illustrative: first the state legislature passed a law regulating marriage, mostly for statistical purposes, because it didn’t interfere with the right to marry, or at least in any meaningful way – it simply regulated that right, for example by ensuring that the couple seeking to marry first obtained a state license to ensure that they were sufficiently old that they could give their ‘adult’ consent to marry. Then many years later it passed a law that restricted the right to marry to opposite sex couples. THAT is the law that the California Supreme Court struck down – and it’s against the striking down of that law that Prop 8 was aimed.  

The problem is obvious: If the California legislature cannot pass a law restricting the right to marry to opposite sex couples, then obviously the people of California cannot pass such a law either, because the legislature is simply a device to express the people’s will. 

People who imagine that Justice Kennedy would rule otherwise just don’t know Justice Kennedy. All you have to do is read Justice Kennedy’s decision in even just Citizens United & you can see exactly where he will go with this case. But I actually don’t think this will be a 5:4 decision – I am reasonably sure that Alito will join with the majority, & I’m actually thinking it’s more probable than not that Chief Justice Roberts will also. The only ones I’m not sure about are Scalia & Thomas, but I’m not even sure Scalia wants to be on the wrong side of history here: I’m thinking there’s a good chance this will be an 8:1 decision.

 CLOWN.

Yet most
Americans told pollsters they still had doubts about the civil rights
movement. In May 1961, most people (57 percent) told the Gallup poll
that sit-ins at lunch counters and the “Freedom Riders” would hurt
African Americans’ chances for integration. In 1964, Harris found 57
percent who disapproved of the “Freedom Summer” effort by civil rights
workers to organize black voters in Mississippi.

Are judges supposed to uphold the constitution, or the will of the people?

Yet most
Americans told pollsters they still had doubts about the civil rights
movement. In May 1961, most people (57 percent) told the Gallup poll
that sit-ins at lunch counters and the “Freedom Riders” would hurt
African Americans’ chances for integration. In 1964, Harris found 57
percent who disapproved of the “Freedom Summer” effort by civil rights
workers to organize black voters in Mississippi.

 Activist Judges = Republicans do not agree.

Conservatives cant stand it when you force them to hate fewer people.

 Judges uphold the constitution, not the will of the people.

WHY DO YOU HATE THE CONSTITUTION?
WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?

Note I didn’t even have to get into the 14th Amendment’s providing for equal treatment under law. That’s also in play here, making the plaintiffs’ challenge to Prop 8 that much stronger, even though it’s not necessary. Note also I left out the fact that arguing the case before the Supreme Court for the plaintiffs will be Ted Olsen, former Solicitor General in the Bush administration; that’s huge. Note also that the appellants challenging the over-turning of Prop 8 managed to have the trial record ‘sealed’ for this appeal, because the trial record shows exactly how ugly their evidence was – but the Supreme Court will never overturn the trial judge or the circuit appeals court without opening up that trial record first – & the appellants will oppose them on that. The appellants are done like dinner. 

 WHO CARES?

Would you agree that blacks do not have civil rights if 51% voted for it?
Would you agree women do not have rights if all men (women could not vote) voted for it?

 Except when they are activist republican Judges.

Activist judge = does not rule with republican view. 

… except that Obama had zero to do with Prop 8 or the Prop 8 challenge or the trial or this appeal; other than all that, F**k Yeah! 

If you don’t support gay marriage, don’t get one. 

The courts aren’t overruling the people.  One of the duties of the court is to decide whether or not laws are constitutional.  They did exactly that.

Better than the tyranny of the majority that our Founding Fathers feared. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Like the activist Supreme Court did in overturning decades of campaign finance laws with their Citizen’s United decision.

Not exactly.  His point is a judge can’t create new rights.  If the government wants to do that they need to create a law and amend it to the constitution.  Once the law is created and added to the constitution a judge could ensure it is followed (in a limited manner).  What has happened here is a judge decided on their own to create a law (can’t do that), the voters quickly said hell no, a gay judge said I don’t care I say its legal, and its been going through its challenges since.   Unless  this went  through the CA legislature (may have, I don’t know) if the only cause for this to be CA law is a judge had a burr in his butt the Supreme Court will kill it or at least send it back and remind CA laws are created by the legislature, not the judicial branch of government.

Thank you for that wealth of statistical information.
 
I’m sorry that I wasn’t more precise regarding a date when Bill made that false claim, but in my own defense, I merely stated that he “once” made that false claim. On December 12, 2005 Bill falsely stated that decisions made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit are being overturned by the Supreme Court at a record rate, when in fact during its 2004-05 term, 3 other circuit courts were reversed by the Supreme Court at a higher rate than the 9th Circuit.  In the three terms prior to the 2004-05 term, the percentage of cases the Supreme Court reversed from those appealed by the 9th Circuit was almost identical to the national average for federal circuit courts — either slightly higher or slightly lower.

The will of the people is not always in line with the constitutional freedoms guaranteed to everyone. 

[See: Jim Crow laws]

I’m a conservative, and I don’t consider this judicial activism at all. You cannot put civil rights up to a popular vote and expect the courts to uphold the decision when the voters vote to discriminate against a specific group of citizens.

I have never heard one halfway decent argument against allowing the gays to marry. A vast majority of conservatives are on the wrong side of history here. This is the modern day equivalent of interracial marriage.

The one question I would pose to supporters of marriage equality is what they have to say regarding other groups seeking marriage equality. Do you draw a line at polygamy? Incest between consenting adults? I think it’s a fair question.

can one be “forced” to hate fewer people? lol

Usually you hate the people who force you to do anything you don’t want to do.  
Just sayin’…

Why does the community have to use the African-American plight, to justify their actions? The only reason why racism is such a sad episode is because of slavery!

They didn’t create a law, they removed a restriction on a freedom.

Also: divorce.

Notice that BillO doesn’t wear his wedding ring anymore.

Greenwald has zero credibility since he defended Osama bin Laden?

I don’t think the Supreme Court will even take this case under review because of the narrow approach that the 9th. Circuit took in making this decision. Because this case only deals with circumstances unique to California, I think the Supreme Court would be less likely to review it. The Supremes tend to handle  general principles that apply across the United States.

You can’t convince a bigot.

Blame the founders of this country.

Move to Saudi Arabia, I hear they have marriage laws that might be more in line with your wacko cultist beliefs.

And one more thing, will all the conservative crybabies bellyaching about judicial activism still be singing the same song if (and hopefully when) the Supreme Court overturns that abomination of big government called Obamacare? something tells me not so much. And I would assume the libs will be just outraged. All you people are sheep. You march to the orders of the talking heads of your respective parties. You have no principles. You don’t know what it means to be consistent in your views. And hear me now when I tell you that Obama, Mitt, Newt, and Santorum are no different. They all take the position that is most convenient for themselves at any given moment. Vote Ron Paul for a principled leader in 2012. A politician that will never sell out and will never cave to special interest. Ron Paul is the only candidate that will work for you – the people – not corporations, special interests, and lobbyists.

I am not sure how this has anything to do with Obama…It’s a state’s rights issue. Voted on by the people or CA, struck down a by federal judge.

Unless of course this judge was some how put in his/her seat by a super secret conspiracy by Obama?
Other than that, I can’t see how the two are connected.

You might want to realize that gays have every right you do to equal rights. No matter what state they live in.

Hmmmm  this is going to end in the supreme court and it will be an interesting case, whatever the court decides will have an effect on all 50 states.

Have the judges of the 9th circuit ever read the constitution?

Gay marriage opponents are right when they say that the constitution alone does not guarantee gays the right to marry.  However, the state of California put themselves into a position, by basically legalizing civil unions but explicitly banning gay marriage, where they created a type of “separate but equal law” which could be challenged on its constitutionality (and we know from history that “Separate but equal” never usually holds up because such laws rarely create situations that are truly equal).  

So this ruling is completely constitutionally sound, given the circumstances, and it doesn’t reflect a “tyranny” of the court.  The court exists to strike down laws which are unconstitutional.  Prop 8 was unconstitutional, so the court is just doing its job.  If anyone is to blame here it’s the people of California and its legislature for trying to have it both ways–i.e. allowing civil unions yet also attempting to bar gays from the full status of marriage.  Alot of time these sorts of “Separate but equal” half compromises are just begging to be smacked down by equal protect clauses in the constitution (and in various state constitutions–several of which are worded slightly different).

So, again, don’t blame the courts.  They are functioning exactly as they should.  Blame the idiot politicians/legislatures who thought they could have it both ways by writing laws which, in essence, specifically single gays out as second class citizens. Given the wording of the California Constitution, Prop 8 was basically begging to be struck down since its inception.

Actually, O’Liely, marriage is a right. The US Supreme Court has already made that ruling. Loving v. Virginia (1967)

What’s going on with Bill’O ?… If he doesn’t watch it he’ll will be an anchor on MSNBC soon. 
“The Maddow and O’Reilly Show” … just kidding …

The precedent it sets is that unconstitutional laws are not valid. Actually, that precedent was set over 200 years ago.

It wasn’t the judges who reversed the will of the people. It was the Constitution.

This decision is an example of judges restoring liberty that was illegitimately taken away from a segment of the population.

Which excludes the person you’re replying to.

No, the Constitution has spoken. And it said:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You don’t recall correctly. No new rights or new laws were created by the court. The court struck down a law for violating the Constitution. Which is what appeals courts do.

The only reason? Are you serious? You think none of the other infringements on black people’s rights were a problem?

It is a fatal argument. No right to marry means no rights to anyone, hetrosexual or gay. Oreilly is mad.

I can appreciate both sides. The process people are not all bad. After all ,there is no solid precedent to work with.  The Cali law and then the Cali amendment were both legally valid. If there was a gay equality clause in the state or fed constitution then I could see a valid reason to strike it down. Other than that, tough luck fruits.

 Sanchia, that was because there were constitutional amendments and legal precedents than worked against the anti-miscegenation laws

I dunno, the process is all screwed up this way. Why can’t they get a different law passed? Is gay marriage such an imperative that we can’t use more traditional and democratic methods? There are no gay equality clauses in any constitution

 Well if we have a judicial theocracy, as you so lamely and stupidly put it, wouldn’t that be what GOD wants?

Wowie Zowie,  that was such an amazingly crude, stupid, and juvenile comment that I think you have set a new low for yourself here. Congrats, WTG!!

Equal protection is a Constitutional right…..Look it up before you make moronic comments like O’Reilly…

You mean like Justice Justice Scalia who happens to be a constitutional
originalist?

For some reason I don’t think Scalia realizes he is against the first and second amendment, things that fundamentally changed the original constitution.

Exactly – the Founders were the ones who inserted the 9th Amendment – & all the state bodies ratified it.

Most civil rights victories are accomplished by court rulings which eventually lead to popularly-supported legislation. To oversimplify it: the court rulings basically force the neanderthal-types to come kicking and screaming into the future. Once the basic constitutional principles are established, more complex protective legislation finds its way down the pipeline.

As far as the lack of specific clauses regarding gay equality in any given constitution we can look to the 9th amendment, which is instructive here:

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”  

 What this basically says it that just because a right isn’t specifically enumerated by the Constitution, that doesn’t mean that it’s not a right inherently held by the people–so the lack of specific “gay rights” clauses in our constitution isn’t really material.

Hope that helped. :-)

Well, you’re wrong, as usual. You could read the majority opinion – it’s brilliant & cautious. You could instead just read some of the comments above. Or you could even avoid all that & just read the 9th & 14th Amendments & figure it out for yourself – it’s really not difficult. 

The trial judge didn’t “make” any right. He wasn’t even the first court to consider the issue. The issue was first considered by whoever the trial judge in the state court, & then the state appeal court that ruled the California law restricting marriage from homosexuals unconstitutional. So, the federal district court trial judge had the third kick at the cat – & just like the others, he didn’t “make” any right, he simply recognized a right that existed already: the right to marry. Then the question became whether the state could take away that right – which it can’t – or could take away that right for on some sound basis – which the proponents of Prop 8 couldn’t come up with.  

So in these circumstances, what YOU call an “activist judge” would be a judge who decided to read things into the Constitution that aren’t there. The trial judge didn’t do that, nor did this appeals court – they took the “conservative” approach, taking the words as written to mean as they read.

Well put – for an ignorant bigot.

And most people today understand the earth to be round, so if a politically-appointed, black-robed ideologue says it’s flat…is it flat?

Marriage is not some Democratically-conjured “right”, it’s a specifically defined privilege. The people have spoken on that.

The judges had no standing to impose their beliefs on a non-Constitutional matter, and I think it’ll come down that way with the Supremes.

We know how much Obama despises Constitutional restraints on his Monarchy, but he’ll only have to put up with it for a few more months, and anyway – too bad!

And most people today understand the earth to be round, so if a
politically-appointed, black-robed ideologue says it’s flat…is it
flat?

Marriage is not some Democratically-conjured “right”, it’s a specifically defined privilege. The people have spoken on that.

The judges had no standing to impose their beliefs on a
non-Constitutional matter, and I think it’ll come down that way with the
Supremes.

We know how much Obama despises Constitutional restraints on his
Monarchy, but he’ll only have to put up with it for a few more months,
and anyway – too bad!

——————————————————————————————
also/
Obama was AGAINST Super PACs…..before he was FOR THEM!
- and spare the convoluted sophistry.
The biggest problem for Democrats? – They have no core principles, and will lie about anything.

Corporations are people, yet people aren’t people?

The only reason why racism is such a sad episode is because of slavery!

WTF?  Please tell me you are a troll and not serious.

Get over your Oedipus complex and fight your father so you can impress your mother and win her affection.  That way we’ll have less of your crybaby posts to ridicule in which you demonstrate your transparent problem with authority figures.

Don’t complain when your confused 6 yr. old wants to marry his G.I. Joe or a cheese grater.

How about stripper poles on every street corner? Do I have to wait for the 22nd century for that?

If gay marriage is okay then separate showers and bathrooms is against the law plus, according to the modernists here, immoral.

I refer you to a confused 8 yr. old boy who insisted he had a right to join the Girl Scouts. His mother agreed, it got on TV and a larger legal issue was made of it. There is a limit to mainstreaming confusion as it is being institutionalized. Good for gays, bad for the rest of America that doesn’t want their kids to pine lovelorn over a dresser or pick up truck.

Mother Nature is plenty rational for me.

Run over to a Muslim country and take a stand on Gay Marriage and abortion. You can stand in line to be hung like they just did in Iran.

Should we put slavery to a vote? Just to see what happens mind you. Just a thought experiment, a matter of academics. And live gladiator combat too.

To the death. Pay-per-view, natch.

Yes, do the same and come over to the dark side of the non-existent reasons for Islamophobia. You’ll come back with a different view about having wahabbi morons immigrating to America.

Falafel-Billy knows more about divorce and chasing skirts than legal matters.

Legally (and morally) the 2 judges made the right decision.

You really have to pull arguments out of your a** to justify a ban of same sex marriages.  And that´s exactly what the 2 judges said by making the point that the right on same sex marriages can´t be taken away of people without any justification:

“Although the
Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be
desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for
the passage of a law that treats different classes of people
differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been
enacted. Because under California statutory law, same-sex couples had
all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital
status, all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only. It
stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to
obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important
right—the right to obtain and use the designation of ‘marriage’ to
describe their relationships. … Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and
has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays
and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their
relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite sex couples.
The Constitution simply does not allow for “laws for this sort.”

Just out of curiosity, did anyone actually read the court opinion? 

I don’t know about you, but I knew which team I was on at age 8, when I fell in love with my 3rd grade teacher.  
I’ve been married for 25 years (not to the teacher)  and it hasn’t always been easy.  If a gay couple wants to make that commitment, God bless them.   

Maybe I am a troll and not serious. Or maybe I strongly oppose those who blacklist those who speak out against homosexuality by calling them bigots, homophobes, or just plain haters. In other words, violating my first amendment rights to free speech and religion. And don’t give me that separation of church and state nonsense, cause that’s only flaming the fires. Don’t agree with me? Fine. But do us all a favor and just let us express our beliefs the way you express your sexuality. Case closed.

I think when it comes to gay marriage the two sides are really failing to understand each other and unwilling to compromise.  This kind of situation is really common with American politics.  At some point we will reach a national consensus with the next generation and move onto another topic to fight about.

At the heart of this issue is whether being gay is a choice or not.  The people comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage are taking this for granted.  It has yet to be conclusively proven either way.  We have some scientific evidence that suggests some people are either born gay or straight, and some people have incorrectly decided that it’s fact.  

The truth is that more than likely some practicing gay people are born gay… and some are not.  We all know that in Ancient Greece virtually the whole male population practiced homosexuality.  They were not born that way.

So the problem is that many people, most often those who are religious, are afraid that by mainstreaming homosexuality and actively promoting it as the ancient greeks did, it will entice their children into that lifestyle.  

I think that is a very valid fear.  I believe that in the end parents will have to take a more active role in teaching their kids.  I think that whatever law comes into play to provide gays the legal rights they covet it will have to allow others the ability to personally object.

I’m a fairly conservative christian.  I believe God makes some people born gay.  I believe the government should allow homosexuals the same rights heterosexual couples… and the same responsibilities.  I believe the government also must allow people to make personal objections to such unions.

My prediction is the Supreme Court will refuse to take the case since:
1. Marriage isn’t mentioned in the Constitution.
2. Since this isn’t a federal law under litigation.
3. Marriages in California do NOT have an interstate impact.

Do you equally bless consenting incestuous or polygamous couples & triads?

If this goes to the Supreme Court then they may Reynolds v. United States into consideration.Heterosexual Unions clearly benefit the community because they are likely to produce off-spring, or the next generation of of the community.Since Homosexual Unions cannot produce offspring on their own, what is the community’s interest in regulating them?

Would the equal protection clause of the Constitution allow me to use a women’s restroom in a public building? Would equal protection allow me to sue any public university because I didn’t get admitted while a lesser qualified minority was admitted based on the color of their skin?

The Equal Protection Clause is a joke and the primary vector for judicial activism. Liberals love it because it appeals to their inner 5 year old child wining “But, it’s not fair!”

There is a difference between Democracy and a Representative Republic. I always find it ironic when Democrats find fault with actual Democracy.

 Yup – that is the likely progression.  Who illogical can you be.

Actually if you look at the full History of the United States the vast majority of Civil Rights came legislatively, and sometimes through amendments to the US Constitution.

Judicial rulings are the worst way to achieve change in a community since by definition they are foisted upon the populace by fiat, without regard to the communities voice or common consent. Legislative action for change is always preferred because it is much more likely to result in acceptance or at least a feeling of representation.

Yes it would…if you could get a Court to agree with your position…..Judicial activism is a political term used only when one disagrees with the court’s decision.
 It would appear that fairness is something you disagree with….how strange.

Would you marry me and my girlfriend? My current wife is cool w/ it and the 3 of us get along great. We are all in love.

I’m not so sure it would seem to be that because the 9th Circuit is a federal court and the ruling they made is constitutionally based, that it would naturally follow that the Supreme court would have an interest in this case… but those are my thoughts, I am a lay person and make no claims to being a legal expert.

Yes. Usually (particularly with the modern black Civil Rights movement) after several court decisions striking down various bigoted laws until enough people realized they were wrong and started passing comprehensive legislation. I’m not saying legislative action isn’t the preferred method, but the “will of the people” is often unjust & oppressive and requires checking by a higher judicial authority.

To lift a quote that’s been brought up a few times in these comments before:
“Are judges supposed to uphold the constitution, or the will of the people?

Yet most Americans told pollsters they still had doubts about the civil rights movement. In May 1961, most people (57 percent) told the Gallup poll that sit-ins at lunch counters and the “Freedom Riders” would hurt African Americans’ chances for integration. In 1964, Harris found 57 percent who disapproved of the “Freedom Summer” effort by civil rights 
workers to organize black voters in Mississippi.”"

Bill O’Reilly said that, if this was the case (no constituti­onal right to marry), then courts should have no place in deciding the constituti­onality of any marriage law.

But he misinterpr­eted the legal issue before the court. It is not about the constituti­onality of marriage (gay or straight).

As Lis Wiehl tried to explain to Bill, the issue is the following:
“Can the voters take away a right (in this case gay marriage) that was bestowed (by the court) upon a group of people (gays) — and did the voters decision include a legitimate reason to further a state interest?”

Perhaps an example would help.

What if in the 19th century a state like South Carolina had a law on the books that bestowed a right for white citizens to own slaves?

But then years later the  citizens voted to take that right away. In this case, voters have every right to take away a right because the court will use the equal protection clause of the constitution to argue that the voter’s decision includes a legitimate reason to further a state interest. This is the opposite of the Prop. 8 case where the court panel decided there was no legitimate reason to further a state interest.

Sorry Chris, but I just can’t bless your incestuous triad marriage.  

 A Ron Paul supporter getting some love on Mediaite.

It must feel good.

Either 100% civil rights is for ALL or for no one.  If you have a problem with gay rights, then you are are prob the sort of a**hole who would have objected to blacks receiving their full rights in the late 60s.

And to you Republican morons, THINK!  If you allow gay marriages, you will need to employ more florists, churches, synagogues, halls, musicians, waiters and waitresses, etc., which means MORE JOBS to put out into the neighborhoods.

Troll harder.

Yes, I’m sure marriage is sacred to you.  And to those who oppose gay marriage, how about a law that only allows you to marry once, if you divorce and sully the sanctity of marriage, you shouldn’t be allowed to marry again.  How about adulterers have to go to jail.  Or lose all their property….can’t run for office…etc, etc, etc.

Don’t laugh, it makes more sense than your slippery slope…to cheese grater marriage.

Yep, the ones who owned slaves while signing a document that read “all men are created equal.”

So yeah, you’re a troll.

 and what exactly is wrong with polygamy? Why does that threaten you? I lived for three years with two women, we all slept in the same big bed, we all had sex together and separately. It was great. I won’t marry, just don’t care for it or need the tax breaks.

Read why same sex marriage is inevitable.
http://tinyurl.com/7k8btr6

Resistance is Futile.

Wrong.

No, you’re the troll.