Proposition 8 challenged in federal court

Sacramento Bee ^ | 5/27/9 | Steve Wiegand

[ScottinVA]

“If they let queers marry they open the door to anything and everything.”

I believe the pedophiles, who for the first time in history, have hate-crime protection, will be next to demand “rights,” followed by the bestials.

Sad commentary on society.

[Beagle8U]

Once they get queer marriage....

Father/son ? Mother/daughter? Why not, it isn't like they could produce children?

A joint marriage for a whole town? Sure, how could you deny a huge family of their rights to whatever bizarre orgy they want to dream up?...

[Carry_Okie]

The Defense of Marriage Act would have been challenged and gone to the Supremes if it was any way unConstitutional. DOMA is essentially the Federal version of Prop 8.

Uh, no. DOMA is essentially the Federal version of California Proposition 22, which passed by over 60% and prohibited gay marriage by statute. The California supremes threw it out. Then we barely passed Proposition 8, which was a Constitutional amendment and the California supremes were forced to respect it. DOMA hardly carries the force of a Constitutional amendment.

[saganite]

All that is on the agenda. Patience. We’ll be hearing about it soon.

[Deo volente]

Ted Olson jumps the shark.

[Landru]

"The case 'is not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican,' said Olson. 'This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution.'"

Oh?

Nothing whatsoever to do with the possibility of snagging a nice, fat juicy paycheck.
~eh Ted...errrrr, Counselor?

[longtermmemmory]

the test for a temp. injunction is “a high probablity of success on the merits”

IF the court rejects the temp injunction it means this is not a certainty.

[calcowgirl]

I actually think they are going to win and that it was all planned out.

• 1st step was to give all the rights of marriage to homosexuals under the “domestic partnership” legislation. (Thanks Arnold. /s)

• 2nd step was to get some people ‘officially married”, no matter what it took, and argue that it would be discriminatory to not allow it, since they are already allowed to enter into domestic partnerships. This set up the basis for the first Supreme Court case. (Enter Newsom)

• 3rd step was to get the Supreme Court to acknowledge same-sex marriage as legitimate, which they did in May 2008 and allowed more people to marry from June 2008 until November 2008 when the constitution was amended to define marriage. 18,000 ‘marriages’ took place.

• 4th step was to get the Supreme Court, at a minimum, to allow the 18,000 marriages to be recognized, despite the Prop 8 definition of marriage.

So now, what you have can be argued as a “separate but equal” issue under the 14th amendment. It really sucks.

[w1andsodidwe]

Pretty funny. Everyone has equal rights. Gays can marry just like the rest of us. And like the rest of us, it cannot be a member of the same sex, a sibling, etc.

I love my cat, shouldn't I be allowed to marry him? How about the neighbors three year old child that I adore?

Just some examples of what this can lead to. I remember Brad Pitt saying that he and Angelina won't get married until everyone that wants to can. At that time I shouted at the TV screen "EVEN PEDOPHILES".

They always start with an argument that sounds plausible, but upon examination it can't stand.

I saw the news media this week with their panties in a wad because Mary Kay Letourneau and her husband (who was 12 when they began their relationship) attended a hot teacher event. Won't her behavior eventually be sustained as her right under equal protection?

[CharlesWayneCT]

By this logic, I should be able to walk into the women’s locker room anytime I want. It’s a public place, and apparently it’s against the constitution to restrict it to women only, even if there is a men’s room next door.

More seriously, if this were the case you’d pretty much have to get rid of anything that gave discounts to retired people, since obviously that violates equal protection clauses as much as this does. Why should old people get a discount that a young person can’t get?

[FreepShop1]

I think I have read perhaps 500 posts over the years on this forum to the effect of "Bush should nominate Ted Olsen to the SCOTUS".

Let's just say I'm glad he didn't.

(I also think Barbara would not be proud of his actions)

[Deb]

Uh, really? Get off it. You know what I meant. If DOMA had Constitutional problems it would have been challenged. And, yes, I know what “we” did.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Why even have states? Everything right down to routine traffic stops should be run by the feds.

[Armedanddangerous]

I think his wife Barbara would have slapped the crap outta ghim

[DLfromthedesert]

I wonder if he and Bob Barr are now a couple, since Barr is now against DOMA after he was for it.

[SunkenCiv]

...attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies said they had filed a suit in federal court on behalf of two gay California couples, and would seek an injunction to stay the law while arguing it is a violation of the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Olson, a former U.S. solicitor general, represented former President George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, which decided the 2000 presidential election. Boies represented Bush's Democratic challenger, Al Gore.

Shakespeare was right. :')

[Gay State Conservative]

Didn't know Ted Olson was a scumsucker---until now.

He's a lawyer.Look up "lawyer" in your thesaurus and you'll understand.

[JSDude1]

What gives the Feds the power to OVERTURN a State Constitutional Amendment; this is tyranny (and Olson should know better).

[donna]

Why oh why were we ever such suckers?

[kaehurowing]

Justice Scalia predicted we would be on the slippery slope to approving every sort of perversion once the Supreme Court struck down Texas’ sodomy law.