Proposition 8, California’s rejection of same-sex marriage, ruled unconstitutional by a vote of 2-to-1. Based on nothing in the Constitution. By two would-be philosopher kings who have presumed to ignore the Constitutional right of people of a sovereign state to determine the laws, duly passed, of their state, provided those laws don’t run afoul of constitutional protections. Of which the “Right to Marry Whomever You Wish (provided it’s only one person, and provided it is in fact a person, one who is not a relative, beyond a certain degree of separation, and meets a particular age requirement, to be determined by the states — though the states can’t determine the sex, because any kind of coherent determination of which conditions are allowed and which are not would weaken the role of judges to make social policy on a whim) Clause” is not one. Because it doesn’t exist in fact — though it appears now it will exist in practice, regardless.
Onward to the Supreme Court.
Consanguines, Bestialists, Polygamists and Pederasts everywhere rejoice
So, does it take two to tango or not?
I’m sure there’s an equal protection violation in their somewhere charles.
orgy-porgy is destined to be the law of the land.
Egality demands nothing less.
I’m sure there’s an equal protection violation in their somewhere charles.
That’s the argument they chose. Remember though – this is the 9th Circus.
Of course they did. Because egality means pretending what we all know to be true isn’t.
Wasn’t Prop 8 supposed to amend the CA constitution? If so, how can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional?
The 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition, wasn’t unconstitutional, despite its express contradiction of the 18th.
Oh wait. It’s supposed to violate the U.S. Constitution.
*sigh*
It would be a violation of equal protection ONLY if the law forbade homosexuals from entering into marriage at all. And yet, there are millions of gays who are married to members of the opposite sex. They’re miserable or resigned, but since there’s no sexual orientation text for marriage, there’s no discrimination happening. A gay man and a lesbian can show up for a marriage license, both in drag, both with rainbow flags tattooed on their foreheads, both screaming “we’re gay, we’re gay, we’re gay!” and they can still get married.
So equal protection CANNOT be a legitimate argument for striking down Prop 8.
And yet.
The “class of people” is not being treated differently, as explained above. The law is not being applied unevenly to individuals based on arbitrary characteristics or traits.
EMPHASIS: The question at hand is the definition of marriage, not sexual orientation. Were marriage to be redefined to exclude one sex, two hetero women or two hetero men would be able to be married.
Again, the law is not being applied differently to gays.
Related, via Insty: Scandi, lesbian married couples have a considerably higher divorce rate than male couples or hetero couples. As Insty observes, women file for divorce twice as often as men.
Of course, it might just be that they’re dirty Scandis…
Is anyone surprised at this?
Is anyone surprised at this?
At this? Not in the least.
But yesterday, when I pried open my box to add more memory, I was flabbergasted to see that there were no more memory slots on the motherboard. There are weld spots showing where the slots would go, but no actual slots. I’m supposed to live with 3GB on my dual-core?
Good thing I didn’t break open the package.
Ok, can I put a 2GB memory stick in the same slot where a 1GB stick was?
Probably. Though it’s probably easier for you to have Congress or the Supreme Court decree that 1GB will henceforth be 2GB.
Congress and SC, nothing. We all know that it’s the Fed that’s contributing to RAM inflation.
dicentra, the likely answer is No, but you may be lucky. The most likely problem you’ll have is the most systems assume all memory sticks are the same size as the first one, and if they differ, bad things happen. You could be lucky – your system may support mixed memory sizes, and not be particular about the order (big to little or little to big). Try it – if the system beeps at you two or three times after you power it on, and then sits there, the answer is no.
Well, I’ve got 3GB memory and the second stick is 2GB, so I’m assuming the other one is 1GB.
Why I can’t upgrade the memory is a mystery to me.
Wait, no it’s not…
Ok, can I put a 2GB memory stick in the same slot where a 1GB stick was?
In California? Sure!
Howza bout we redefine “voting against someone” as hitting them in the face with a sack full of nickels.
How dare any one deny me my right to vote.
I have a 2 gig and a 1 gig in my laptop, upgraded from 2 512’s. May work fine.
If not, sue. There’s no reason we all can’t get along. By force if necessary.
Can we leave the velocity of the nickels undefined?
Wasn’t Prop 8 supposed to amend the CA constitution? If so, how can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional?
Ed Whelan is reporting that, in part, that’s exactly what the 9th circus determined. That is to say, because gay marriage was already protected by the CA Constitution (Never mind the fact that the CA state SC “discovered” the right), it was unconstitutional to amend the Constitution to remove a right found in that Constitution.
Resistance if Futile
So the 9th just declared the 13th, 15th, 22nd, and other Amendments Un-Constitutional?
So if we were to pass a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit abortion, it would be unconstitutional.
BECAUSE OF THE PENUMBRAS!
CA state constitution, not U.S. Constitution.
En banc is more likely.
Just applying their “reasoning” to the feds.
I wondered why the water suddenly felt warm for a second there — the 9th Circus just emanated into the penumbra!
Crawford, per #20, that is my reading of what was said. I am not a lawyer however.
I have met (very) liberal lawyers who view the 9th Circuit as legally embarrassing, though they agree with 90% of the rulings made. As one noted, “You are supposed to think about the issue and weigh evidence, not just make up non-argued fact-sets that will be overturned within months.”
For real.
That, and the Drudge linked, “The Consitution is archaic because it doesn’t enumerate many rights….” from the NYT’s Adam Liptak was a brimful of depressing.
If you’re trying to say that the U.S. Constitution now consists of the 14th Amendment, Marbury, and 14th amendment juris prudence, I’d go along with that.
“The Consitution is archaic because it doesn’t enumerate many rights….”
What’s even more depressing is the number of people who don’t realize that that was by design. Especially the ones in the legal community.
Many of the guys who were involved with the Constitution were concerned that adding the bill of rights would result in people thinking those were the only rights protected, rather than the bill of rights being examples of rights that are protected. As it turned out, their concerns were well-founded.
So, this will get kicked up to the Supremes, so they can look at not just California, but also the other 29 states that voted on a constitutional definition of marriage .
There’s talk too of whether the judges should have recused themselves(the first ruling was by a guy living with his gay lover, and one of the two in the majority opinion in the second ruling has a wife heavily involved in pro-SSM doings, I forget just now exactly what she was doing). There’s a chance the Supremes might kick it back down for that to be resolved before they will consider the case(so I hear).
I hope not, and I hope those making those objections aren’t on the republican side. That is, I don’t think they should have recused themselves(no more than Justice Thomas should have to because of his wife’s activities), and I hope the pro-prop. 8 side won’t make a stink about it.
I don’t want my rights enumerated. I want the frickin’ government’s rights enumerated. Does that make me a bad person or just a domestic terrorist suspect?
Enumerating government’s rights: 0
Enumerating government’s powers: many and manifold. (Here’s where we want the spelling out.)
geez, I was listening to Dennis Prager at work when this latest 9th Circus POS was issued
he pointed out that the opinion stated something along the line that Prop 8 robbed gays and lesbians of their “dignity”
Government is not in the ‘dignity’ business
I guess since I’m past the age of joining the military (let alone the wrong sex to be in combat units) I should feel that my dignity is wounded because I don’t have the basic qualifications to get in!
Get me a lawsuit!!
Prager has a few issues of his own regarding marriage. I’d take him with a grain of salt.
Thanks, sdferr. I am guilty of not using critical terms of art properly. So, it looks as if these are the fedgov’s original 18 enumerated powers:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Can you find national health care, gay marriage, social security, etc. somewhere in there? How about growing a little wheat on my property for my own personal use being regulated by the “Commerce [] among the several States” clause?
Molon frickin’ Labe.
How is he wrong on this, Leigh?
leigh
what issues? Because he has been divorced twice? He’s upfront about it. And there’s nothing in Judaism against it.
What has his divorce got to do with same-sex “marriage”?
leigh
There’s a lot of flawed people out there … but if you want to attack them for their flaws rather then what they are saying, it really doesn’t make your argument better.
Oh, he’s right on this one, JD. (Stupid multi-tasking, I wasn’t ready to post yet.) Stopped clocks and all that.
No, no Darleen. I don’t care if he’s divorced, so am I. I meant his views on marriage in particular to one’s sexual relationship with one’s spouse. He’s like Dr. Laura on that one. Basically, it doesn’t matter if you feel like it, you should put out.
It’s stupid and degrading.
leigh
Did you listen to that show or are you channeling someone’s review? That is NOT what he said.
I know what he said was taken out of context by Vagina Warriors (female supremacists).
It was during his male/female hour and I know exactly what he was talking about and he was/is entirely correct.
No, I don’t listen to him. I read a transcript of that show, though that was a while back.
I have heard Dr. Laura (who I stopped listening to years ago) say that. Perhaps I am conflating them.
“I’m a pretty good dog, but if you don’t pet me once in a while, you’re going to have a hard time keeping me under the porch!” – Ron White
We’re kind of the same way, Pablo.
“it doesn’t matter if you feel like it, you should put out”
stay single buy a vibrator and a baster
“it doesn’t matter if you feel like it, you should put out”
being not married sounds really selfish. what’s the point of getting married again?
leigh
sex is different for men and women. We are not fungible. So understanding each other’s sexual needs without judging them from our own POV is vital.
Don’t start with me, nr.
I know that, Darleen. It doesn’t mean that we have to do all of the understanding and they can just go for a ride whenever.
leigh
Since Prager didn’t say that, why would you post that?
I told you I read it in a transcript. That may not have been what he meant, but it read that way. Have you ever read any of Sarah Palin’s transcripts? She’s understandable when you are hearing it; reading her is like reading word salad. (Work salad is a term for the disjointed speech of patients with neurological disorders.)
Oh good allah
leigh
what would you think of man who spent a good deal of the time waking up in the morning and saying “I’m not going to work cause I’m not in the mood.”?
Get away from the “sex” stuff (and the idea that women get 100% “control” of sex) and understand that we cannot CANNOT be ruled by our moods.
What is it that we treat our friends and co-workers better than our own spouse?
Guys do a bit of understanding, too. A sign of this is how our definitions of “whenever” are probably way, way, way different.
I’m guessing that the way Prager was saying it was in the way that most women have been going on about their marital business as a matter of course for millenia without any complaint.
That may not have been what he meant, but it read that way
Have you not paid attention to anything JeffG has said about intentionalism??
I’m not picking on guys. Women are pretty demanding critters which is why I don’t have too many female friends.
I never said that women get 100% “control” over sex or anything else, Darleen.
And? I read it once ages ago and forgot all about it until you brought him up.
bh
Prager has a thing called the male/female hour once a week where he addresses topics about getting men and women understand each other better.
With this show he was really trying to tell women what sex means to a husband and the expression of love it means when his wife engages in it with him.
Prager might well be a hero then, Darleen.
I kid above but it really doesn’t sound any different than Insty’s comments about the cohesive value of sex in a marriage.
Nice working definition.
I’ve never had any problems following along with Sarah Palin’s speechifyings. Of course contemporaneous speaking isn’t ‘perfect’. Maybe you’d prefer your politicians all come with teleprompters ?
I just said I can understand what she is talking about just fine if I’m listening to her. Reading her? It’s a big, what? What the heck is she saying there?
This is the same thing that any good marriage and family counselor will tell you.
Clearly, Prager walks in the front door, pounds his chest, and yells “face down, ass up, bitch”. That is just how he rolls.
Oh, stop it.
Perhaps that’s what Prager was saying then, leigh.
It’s possible that when he states it in the affirmative — like, sometimes the team needs a win even though you have to get dressed and start making sure the kids have their backpacks packed in fifteen minutes — it sounds more off-putting than it really is.
When it’s stated in terms of marital duty or something like that maybe it comes across differently than the situation as we all know it.
Heh, nah, JD shouldn’t stop it.
He’s a funny guy. Read him thusly.
I heart JD. He’s even in my former line of work, sales that is. Kinship!
Like I said, I didn’t hear Prager say anything, bh. I just read it and that was a while back. I know what you are saying or in shrink speak ” I hear what you are saying.”
Sexual capital is like political capital. If you don’t spend it, you lose it.
That has all the makings of a good Parliament-Funkadelic song, Ernst.
Maybe add something about spaceships and smoking herb.
I’ve been noticing lately, after I passed 50, I’m the one that’s gotta put out even when I don’t really feel like it.
Women in their 40’s can be relentless!
Lee
Women in their 40?s can be relentless!
Wait til we hit our 50’s ;-)
pray for me.
I think another caveat about what Prager was saying was that for many things in life, you get “in the mood” so to speak, by first doing the thing. Like how I was never in the mood to roll out of a warm bed and into the sub-zero January air and a freezing car for 5:30 A.M. hockey practice as a kid – until I was on the ice. There are countless things in life like this, and sex is probably one of them for plenty of people, disproportionately women. Some people’s appetites need to be whetted is all. It’s asinine and childish to think that two people will have precisely matching sexual appetites and moods or that you shouldn’t do something unless you feel utterly inspired in that very moment, as if touched by a muse.
Allowing one partner’s caprice and mood to totally dictate when and whether begins a vicious cycle where the man doesn’t initiate for fear of rejection and mutual misunderstandings and resentments build, utterly destroying the relationship. I am of the opinion that witholding sex and physical intimacy as leverage against the other partner in other areas of the relationship is a poison. If you can’t get “in the mood” because your husband left his socks on the floor a week ago and you had to pick them up and he hasn’t noticed or ackowledged that you’ve been upset about this the whole time, don’t be surprised if he goes elsewhere and you die old and lonely.
Alec
You’re right; and Prager has said on many occassions mood FOLLOWS behavior. Act happy and by golly you start feeling happy.
Unfortunately, too many women have been sold a load of goods that giving in to a man unless we are 100% ready and eager amounts to us acting as “property” and no more than the dreaded Stepford wife.
reading her is like reading word salad
ALL verbatim transcripts are like reading word salad. Written and spoken speech are two highly different critters, and judging one in terms of the other is stupid. Good writing often sounds bad spoken, whereas candid speech wanders, repeats, starts sentences one place and ends in another, etc.
Testosterone is what makes people horny, and men have 2-3 times more than women.
Furthermore, male arousal is like a sports car: 0-60 in 10 seconds, and then stop on a dime. Female arousal is like a freight train: takes awhile to get started, but then this thing called momentum kicks in, and woooooooo…
…oooo…
…o
Or so I’ve heard.
“Prager has said on many occassions mood FOLLOWS behavior”
A wise man taught me emotions reflect thought. Is why you can feel scared watching a scary movie. Sitting in a theater, surrounded by yuppie couples with popcorn between your knees, but here comes psycho with that big ass knife, and she’s right behind that shower curtain…AAAGGGHHHH!!
Or, if you’re thinking sad thoughts; I’m lonely, I suck, I can’t handle this, no one cares about me, whoa is me blah, blah, blah…you’re going to be really sad.
Count your blessings, you’ll feel better.
Once you realize you can control your emotions by your attitude, life becomes much easier.