This is disgraceful

[Denny Crane]

As a new citizen of the state of California, I'm blown away by how the state goes 80%-20% (ok, embellishing this only a little) for Obama, yet votes 52%-48% to amend its constitution to ban gay marriage.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/p...sults,0,1293859.htmlstory?view=8&tab=0&fnum=0

So what does the red star and bear on the flag stand for? Seems like the old USSR to me. Peoples' Republic of California and all that...

 

[Dumpy]

in florida the proposed amendment needed 60% . . . and it passed.

 

[Denny Crane]

in florida the proposed amendment needed 60% . . . and it passed.

Went for Obama, too.

So much for lefties being "tolerant."

 

[DynastYWarrioR6]

That kind of hypocrisy is always here in Cali, you just gotta get used to it. It sucks, I know.

 

[The Sebastian Express]

Humorous (and by humorous I mean disheartening yet perhaps expected) the exit polls show 60-80% yes for proposition 8 from blacks and Hispanics.

Gay rights (not only in California but in a majority of blue states and even some red) will start to get voted in in 4-12 years. Look at the exit polls of young voters. It is in the 65%, and the 30ers are around 50/50. When the even younger kids from generation Y are eligible to vote and the older people who grew up with their prejudices start to pass I think we'll see the voting difference start to switch in favor of gay rights. The majority of the end of generation X and the majority of generation Y do not want to be remembered in the same light as their grand parents and great grand parents.

 

[mook]

Went for Obama, too.

So much for lefties being "tolerant."

Obviously, it wasn't the lefties in Frisco who voted for this utterly shameful measure. If it were up to them it never would have been on the ballot.

That such nonsense is being voted for in this age goes to show that older, moderate voters still think that gay people somehow threaten their marriages. Baffles me, but there it is.

The comforting thing to me is that time is on our side. People 35 and younger see through this lunacy, and it will eventually be overturned as this group ages.

The truly disgraceful measure that I learned about last night was that Arkansans decided that unmarried people were unfit to adopt or serve as foster parents.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j92e9g5RVPEgCyREmVOEb37CC7LAD948ISVO2

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Arkansas voters have approved a measure banning unmarried couples who are living together being adoptive or foster parents. The vote imposes a ban that the Legislature balked at authorizing.
More than 56 percent of voters supported the ban, said by its proponents to be aimed primarily at keeping gays from becoming foster or adoptive parents. The measure's sponsor, the Arkansas Family Council, tried to paint its as a battle against a "gay agenda."
Opponents argued it would make it harder for the state to find the foster parents it needs to take care of children.
The measure grew out of a 2006 Arkansas Supreme Court decision that struck down a state policy banning gay foster parents. A push to enact a ban similar to the ballot measure during the last legislative session failed.

Jesus. How retarded is that?

 

[Denny Crane]

Obviously, it wasn't the lefties in Frisco who voted for this utterly shameful measure. If it were up to them it never would have been on the ballot.

That such nonsense is being voted for in this age goes to show that older, moderate voters still think that gay people somehow threaten their marriages. Baffles me, but there it is.

The comforting thing to me is that time is on our side. People 35 and younger see through this lunacy, and it will eventually be overturned as this group ages.

The truly disgraceful measure that I learned about last night was that Arkansans decided that unmarried people were unfit to adopt or serve as foster parents.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j92e9g5RVPEgCyREmVOEb37CC7LAD948ISVO2


Jesus. How retarded is that?

In my life experience, I've found that people are just people and pretty cool people at that - regardless of them being gay or black or hispanic or whatever. I'm one of those over 35 people, FWIW.

It's funny that when we talk about social issues, we agree on these things

 

[Dumpy]

In my life experience, I've found that people are just people and pretty cool people at that - regardless of them being gay or black or hispanic or whatever. I'm one of those over 35 people, FWIW.

It's funny that when we talk about social issues, we agree on these things

More to the point (OK, it is a different point), why do we use the phrase "activist judges" as a code phrase for judges that want to extend rights to gays and are pro-choice? And maybe, to a certain extent, the right to place religious symbols on government-owned property. That's all we're talking about here.

Let's call a spade a spade. We're talking about gay rights and abortion rights, and that's it. Let's leave the abortion (and religion) topic for another decade.

It is fucking disgusting how gays are treated in this country and it makes me want to vomit. Why do people feel threatened by what others do? They're fucking threatened by the thought of gay sex. Oh, horrors! It's isn't about sex, it is about THE RIGHT TO MARRY WHO YOU WANT. At its core, how is it any different from prohibiting interracial marriage? The only thing that matters is a person's ethics, standards of behavior, intelligence, compassion, and willpower. Everything else is just window-dressing. I'll end this post here, because I am getting so angry thinking about it that it is at risk of becoming so long that no one will read it.

 

[Denny Crane]

More to the point (OK, it is a different point), why do we use the phrase "activist judges" as a code phrase for judges that want to extend rights to gays and are pro-choice? And maybe, to a certain extent, the right to place religious symbols on government-owned property. That's all we're talking about here.

Let's call a spade a spade. We're talking about gay rights and abortion rights, and that's it. Let's leave the abortion (and religion) topic for another decade.

It is fucking disgusting how gays are treated in this country and it makes me want to vomit. Why do people feel threatened by what others do? They're fucking threatened by the thought of gay sex. Oh, horrors! It's isn't about sex, it is about THE RIGHT TO MARRY WHO YOU WANT. At its core, how is it any different from prohibiting interracial marriage? The only thing that matters is a person's ethics, standards of behavior, intelligence, compassion, and willpower. Everything else is just window-dressing. I'll end this post here, because I am getting so angry thinking about it that it is at risk of becoming so long that no one will read it.

I admit I'm disgusted by the thought of gay sex, but I don't partake and I frankly don't care if someone else does it. I've been around plenty of gay people and none have tried to lay a hand on me - they're not rapists for goodness sake. I'm perfectly comfortable in my own skin, so I simply don't give a rat's ass about it.

You are minimizing the nature of activist judges. It is not the court's role to legislate from the bench. We have actual legislatures and ballot initiatives to form legislation properly.

That said, it's not activist to rule ON the constitutionality of legislation. States have to abide by the 14th, as in Michigan's universities SCOTUS case.

The people of California can amend their constitution through ballot initiatives like this, but the US constitution and laws still trump state laws and constitutions (see Bush v. Gore).

 

[Dumpy]

You are minimizing the nature of activist judges. It is not the court's role to legislate from the bench. We have actual legislatures and ballot initiatives to form legislation properly.

My point is just that these are the only issues at play by these so-called "activist" judges, and we should admit it. Regardless, it often comes down to constitutional interpretation, and possibly overbroad readings of precedent, not just pulling some new legal principle from their asses. That what the appellate courts are for, anyway.

 

[Denny Crane]

My point is just that these are the only issues at play by these so-called "activist" judges, and we should admit it. Regardless, it often comes down to constitutional interpretation, and possibly overbroad readings of precedent, not just pulling some new legal principle from their asses. That what the appellate courts are for, anyway.

You are minimizing the role activist judges play. It's not about just a few things as you claim. I pointed out in my post TWO additional cases that are beyond the scope of what you claim their activism is limited to. I can point out MANY more as well. Such as the right of states (like California) to confiscate property without paying for it (junker laws), the right of the EPA to confiscate property as wetlands (and other habitats) without paying fair market value, the right of the govt. to spy on terrorists, the way trials of enemy combatants are to be held, etc.

 

[Dumpy]

You are minimizing the role activist judges play. It's not about just a few things as you claim. I pointed out in my post TWO additional cases that are beyond the scope of what you claim their activism is limited to. I can point out MANY more as well. Such as the right of states (like California) to confiscate property without paying for it (junker laws), the right of the EPA to confiscate property as wetlands (and other habitats) without paying fair market value, the right of the govt. to spy on terrorists, the way trials of enemy combatants are to be held, etc.

To be honest, I'd have to study the judicial opinions to be able to comment on the basis for the decision.

 

[mook]

IIt's funny that when we talk about social issues, we agree on these things

I don't find it surprising at all. You seem to have a pretty libertarian bent. I have a liberal bent. We naturally both think the government has little if any business in legislating how consenting adults behave in the bedroom.

The difference is that I think government should issue subsidies for the coke I like to inhale off the bare breasts of the three whores I hire, and that of those three, the black whore should always get the choice street corner to make up for centuries of oppression.

One day I shall convince you....

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't find it surprising at all. You seem to have a pretty libertarian bent. I have a liberal bent. We naturally both think the government has little if any business in legislating how consenting adults behave in the bedroom.

The difference is that I think government should issue subsidies for the coke I like to inhale off the bare breasts of the three whores I hire, and that of those three, the black whore should always get the choice street corner to make up for centuries of oppression.

One day I shall convince you....

And I think you should earn your own $45 to pay for the three whores and whatever else you need to pay for the coke (which should be legal, IMO).

 

[Dumpy]

You are minimizing the role activist judges play. It's not about just a few things as you claim. I pointed out in my post TWO additional cases that are beyond the scope of what you claim their activism is limited to. I can point out MANY more as well. Such as the right of states (like California) to confiscate property without paying for it (junker laws), the right of the EPA to confiscate property as wetlands (and other habitats) without paying fair market value, the right of the govt. to spy on terrorists, the way trials of enemy combatants are to be held, etc.

This is getting off-point and this thread isn't the place for it. This thread is about the pathetic, divisive attempts by the populace to demonize gays. These people are still stuck in the mindset of: Let's put them all on an island somewhere, and when they all die out, there won't be any more gays!

I am even more disgusted by this state than I was last week, as if that was possible. I can't wait to move out of the southeast.

 

[Denny Crane]

When I left Vegas, we had a going away dinner. Two who attended were a gay couple who've been "married" for years. They're both awesome people. It's terrifying to think of the two in a situation where one is sick in the hospital and the other has no rights to visit or deal with medical care for the other, or if the worst happened, deal with a funeral and probate and those sort of things.

Good god, this shit makes no sense.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

I voted Yes on 8.

Primarily:

1. For me its semantics, I just believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. I am fine for civil unions with the duplicative rights for gays. I just have always held personally that "marriage" refers to a bond between a man and a woman. If it has to be administered through the church, so be it, while everyone has civil unions.

2. California passed a similar measure in 2000. However, the supreme court of california narrowly voided the wishes of the voters (4-3). This is the voters standing up for what they believed in and what they voted for, despite the wishes of 4 judges to invalidate their wishes.

 

[Dumpy]

I voted Yes on 8.

Primarily:

1. For me its semantics, I just believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. I am fine for civil unions with the duplicative rights for gays. I just have always held personally that "marriage" refers to a bond between a man and a woman. If it has to be administered through the church, so be it, while everyone has civil unions.

2. California passed a similar measure in 2000. However, the supreme court of california narrowly voided the wishes of the voters (4-3). This is the voters standing up for what they believed in and what they voted for, despite the wishes of 4 judges to invalidate their wishes.

So, implicitly, you probably believe that the purpose of marriage is to have children.

I personally think it is unfair that gay couples are being denied the right to adopt (such as in Arkansas as provided by Mook). Gay couples should have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us! It is unfair that they both cannot conceive AND can't adopt. I am in favor of REQUIRING gay couples to adopt children. That's the only way to get them to stop trying to marry each other!

Take that! stupid chidless happy gay couples. You like going out to your bohemian parties at night? Eating at upscale restaurants with French names, and that serve deserts shaped like watercraft? A couple of fucking children will cure you of that.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

When I left Vegas, we had a going away dinner. Two who attended were a gay couple who've been "married" for years. They're both awesome people. It's terrifying to think of the two in a situation where one is sick in the hospital and the other has no rights to visit or deal with medical care for the other, or if the worst happened, deal with a funeral and probate and those sort of things.

Good god, this shit makes no sense.

Yeah, civil unions have the same rights as married couples. they are not recognized as being "married", which is more symbolic than anything.

 

[maxiep]

This is getting off-point and this thread isn't the place for it. This thread is about the pathetic, divisive attempts by the populace to demonize gays. These people are still stuck in the mindset of: Let's put them all on an island somewhere, and when they all die out, there won't be any more gays!

I am even more disgusted by this state than I was last week, as if that was possible. I can't wait to move out of the southeast.

Actually the point of the thread to me seemed to be the ridiculous disconnect between taking great pride in moving a black person from the back of the bus to driving the bus while putting gay people where the black people used to sit.

Men have sex with men. When they fuck they get shit dick. Women have sex with one another. Many look like Rosie O'Donnell and the Indigo Girls. It may not be something people wish to visualize, but it's time we got over it. By oppressing them we diminish ourselves.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

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

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

More to the point (OK, it is a different point), why do we use the phrase "activist judges" as a code phrase for judges that want to extend rights to gays and are pro-choice? And maybe, to a certain extent, the right to place religious symbols on government-owned property. That's all we're talking about here.

Because they are activist judges. The people voted, passed a law in 2000. The judges decided that the people don't know what they're talking about so they took it upon themselves, "whether we like it or not".

 

[maxiep]

Because they are activist judges. The people voted, passed a law in 2000. The judges decided that the people don't know what they're talking about so they took it upon themselves, "whether we like it or not".

Yep, that's my beef with activist judges. It oversteps the bounds of their powers and violates checks and balances. Legislating should be done from the legislature, not the judiciary.

 

[Minstrel]

The "disconnect" between California choosing Obama and passing Proposition 8 is entirely described by the intermingling of left-wing influence (minorities) and right-wing influence (Christianity). A very large part of California's population is Hispanic and black, especially in Southern California. Both comunities tend to be quite religious. While both groups tend to be "liberal" on most issues, on religious issues they have the brainwashed need to oppress others that organized religion has had through the ages.

So, Hispanics and blacks went big for Obama and big for the gay marriage ban. No real disconnect...minorities can be religious as easily as whites.

2. California passed a similar measure in 2000. However, the supreme court of california narrowly voided the wishes of the voters (4-3).

Because it was unconstitutional. It wasn't a random decision by judges to invalidate the wishes of voters. Voters aren't allowed to do anything; passing a slavery bill would also be struck down by the California Supreme Court.

 

[Minstrel]

Yep, that's my beef with activist judges. It oversteps the bounds of their powers and violates checks and balances. Legislating should be done from the legislature, not the judiciary.

So you believe ruling laws unconstitutional is "activist?"

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Because it was unconstitutional. It wasn't a random decision by judges to invalidate the wishes of voters. Voters aren't allowed to do anything; passing a slavery bill would also be struck down by the California Supreme Court.

And the invisible hand corrected, once again.

 

[maxiep]

So you believe ruling laws unconstitutional is "activist?"

Not at all. That check on the legislature was how the system was meant to work. What I believe is unconstitutional is legislating from the bench. The only real check on the judiciary is that they don't have the power to make laws, only uphold them or reject them.

 

[Masbee]

More to the point (OK, it is a different point), why do we use the phrase "activist judges" as a code phrase for judges that want to extend rights to gays and are pro-choice? And maybe, to a certain extent, the right to place religious symbols on government-owned property. That's all we're talking about here.

Let's call a spade a spade. We're talking about gay rights and abortion rights, and that's it. Let's leave the abortion (and religion) topic for another decade.

It is fucking disgusting how gays are treated in this country and it makes me want to vomit. Why do people feel threatened by what others do? They're fucking threatened by the thought of gay sex. Oh, horrors! It's isn't about sex, it is about THE RIGHT TO MARRY WHO YOU WANT. At its core, how is it any different from prohibiting interracial marriage? The only thing that matters is a person's ethics, standards of behavior, intelligence, compassion, and willpower. Everything else is just window-dressing. I'll end this post here, because I am getting so angry thinking about it that it is at risk of becoming so long that no one will read it.

Dude, an "activist" judge is supposed to mean a judge that will ignore laws passed by Legislatures and ignore lawful contracts in order to dispense their personal opinion of "justice".

 

[Minstrel]

Not at all. That check on the legislature was how the system was meant to work.

I agree. So the California Supreme Court ruling that Xericx was condemning isn't judicial activism. It was properly executing their duty by striking down an unconstitutional law.

That gay marriage opponents found enough bigots to subsquently change the constitution is a shame. Fortunately, this is a losing battle for the gay marriage opponents in the long run. In two years, it will be back on the ballot to change the constitution back to its original, neutral wording (which would re-enable gay marriage). Both sides believe that once gay marriage has had a chance to happen for a couple of years, support will swing permanently in favour of gay marriage rights.

 

[Dumpy]

Dude, an "activist" judge is supposed to mean a judge that will ignore laws passed by Legislatures and ignore lawful contracts in order to dispense their personal opinion of "justice".

yes, and I'm saying that the phrase "activist judge" is, for the most part, used for a judge that is extending abortion rights and rights for gays (with a smattering of striking down religious displays). In other words, the issues at play are relatively narrow. Instead of calling them "activist judges," we should be honest about it and call them "judges that are intent on extending rights to gays, and making abortion easier."

Denny believes that there are other legal issues that these judges have been "activist" on, but I can't comment until I've studied any judicial opinions to see what criteria and precedent their decisions were based on. Decisions that are based primarily on "principles of international law," for example, would undoubtedly qualify. Decisions that may be based on a reading of the constitution or supreme court precedent that may be broader than some would prefer might not.

Departing from the federal sentencing guidelines probably don't qualify, in my view, since the guidelines specifically allow for deviation under certain circumstances. Some judges are branded "activist" because they give someone a lighter sentence than the guidelines suggest, but that's why we have judges--to determine whether a particular sentence is appropriate.