BREAKING: PROP 8 overturned

[blueballs]

Kleany is such an enigma...... he's gotta have some White in him!

Too much Jerry Springer will do that to a man...

[JayJ79]

There was an article in the local paper today about how one of the former gubernatorial candidates (who was considering an independant campaign after losing the Conk primary) was dropping out of the governors race and will now concentrate on a crusade against the state judges who approved gay marriage in Iowa.

In the article were some quotes from people who claimed that allowing gay marriage "takes away their freedom" or something along those lines. I really don't follow that logic. How does someone ELSE getting married take away any of YOUR freedom?

[mrklean]

My Grand mothers father was a Pale Face......................lol

While you may find that funny, that is a racists comment. You would be pissed off, calling anyone a racists if they called a black person a "porch monkey" or "blue gums" or "spook", etc...

What in the Hell is a Blue Gum??? Did he just make this crap Up???

[JayJ79]

what if the black person in question works for the CIA? Is it derogatory to call them a spook?

[mrklean]

what if the black person in question works for the CIA? Is it derogatory to call them a spook?

[citdog]

While you may find that funny, that is a racists comment. You would be pissed off, calling anyone a racists if they called a black person a "porch monkey" or "blue gums" or "spook", etc...

What in the Hell is a Blue Gum??? Did he just make this crap Up???

i've heard "Blue Gum" used all my life......must be a Lowcountry epithet.

[Skjellyfetti]

i've heard "Blue Gum" used all my life...... I was raised in the traditional white trash manner

fyp

[Ibanez]

While you may find that funny, that is a racists comment. You would be pissed off, calling anyone a racists if they called a black person a "porch monkey" or "blue gums" or "spook", etc...

What in the Hell is a Blue Gum??? Did he just make this crap Up???

For your awareness, blacks are called "blue gums" if they are purely black. That's the legend. Regardless, you may think its funny to call white people "cracker" (even though blacks were crackin the whip moreso than whites), "honkey" "pale face", "vanilla face" but you wouldn't be laughing if I were to call you a "nigger", "colored", "boy", etc..

[Ibanez]

While you may find that funny, that is a racists comment. You would be pissed off, calling anyone a racists if they called a black person a "porch monkey" or "blue gums" or "spook", etc...

Oh please.

What? You don't find it hypocritical that white people are immune from racism? Get over yourself. The point of eliminating the use of terms like "cracker" and "coon" and "beaner",etc.... is so that you don't have your children growing up ignorant and hateful.

[mrklean]

What in the Hell is a Blue Gum??? Did he just make this crap Up???

For your awareness, blacks are called "blue gums" if they are purely black. That's the legend. Regardless, you may think its funny to call white people "cracker" (even though blacks were crackin the whip moreso than whites), "honkey" "pale face", "vanilla face" but you wouldn't be laughing if I were to call you a "nigger", "colored", "boy", etc..

Now I know why he said this. Gets em every time..................................lol

[citdog]

For your awareness, blacks are called "blue gums" if they are purely black. That's the legend. Regardless, you may think its funny to call white people "cracker" (even though blacks were crackin the whip moreso than whites), "honkey" "pale face", "vanilla face" but you wouldn't be laughing if I were to call you a "nigger", "colored", "boy", etc..

Now I know why he said this. Gets em every time..................................lol

i am proud of my heritage. We owned a few hundred and treated them well. the driver did all the "crackin".

[kalm]

Now I know why he said this. Gets em every time..................................lol

i am proud of my heritage. We owned a few hundred and treated them well. the driver did all the "crackin".

Thus affirming the stereotype of ignorant southern "gentleman".

[wkuhillhound]

One question, maybe one of you know how to answer this.

Do common law spouses get benefits?

Married couples get shared benefits, and of course single people can't share their benefits with girlfriends and boyfriends or fiancees etc, but some states recognize couples who live together for a period of time as common law couples. Or do they still do that? Just wondering.

Common law marriages are recongized as legal marriages for Federal benefits, including tax benefits, but only those common law marriages between a man and a woman.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p17.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (page 24)

Unfortunately, Kentucky doesn't recognize common law marriages. Many people are screwed either way. The only reason why I know this is because I work for H&R Block.

[danefan]

Joe - do you get the impression from the decision that the State of California's attorney's really screwed themselves on this one?

And how, proceduraly, does this effect them moving forward? They're going to be bound by the evidence they presented in the district court as to the application of and historical perspective, but from a practical standpoint, do you think Kennedy will even care?

We know that Kennedy doesn't even think he's bound by US law alone, so I wonder what his take on this will be.

I haven't read the whole decision, just excerpts (it's over 130 pages), but the state itself didn't defend Prop 8. Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a non-contesting answer in which he took the position that the law was not constitutional; and Governor Schwarzenegger filed a non-contesting answer in which he indicated he had no interest in the outcome of the case.

Thus, the defendants in the case were intervenors-individuals who essentially volunteered to defend the law. I don't think that the state's positions and concessions will have any impact in appellate proceedings.

I was wondering how the State of CA's ambivalence to this case would come back to effect this case.....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100813/D9HIHL680.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Thursday rejected a request to delay his decision striking down Proposition 8 from taking effect until high courts can take up an appeal lodged by its supporters. One of the reasons, the judge said, is he's not sure the proponents have the authority to appeal since they would not be affected by or responsible for implementing his ruling.

The State could undoubetdly appeal the ruling, but since they filed a non-contesting order, the ones who want to appeal may have no legal standing to do so.

Interesting procedural issue.

[JoltinJoe]

I haven't read the whole decision, just excerpts (it's over 130 pages), but the state itself didn't defend Prop 8. Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a non-contesting answer in which he took the position that the law was not constitutional; and Governor Schwarzenegger filed a non-contesting answer in which he indicated he had no interest in the outcome of the case.

Thus, the defendants in the case were intervenors-individuals who essentially volunteered to defend the law. I don't think that the state's positions and concessions will have any impact in appellate proceedings.

I was wondering how the State of CA's ambivalence to this case would come back to effect this case.....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100813/D9HIHL680.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Thursday rejected a request to delay his decision striking down Proposition 8 from taking effect until high courts can take up an appeal lodged by its supporters. One of the reasons, the judge said, is he's not sure the proponents have the authority to appeal since they would not be affected by or responsible for implementing his ruling.

The State could undoubetdly appeal the ruling, but since they filed a non-contesting order, the ones who want to appeal may have no legal standing to do so.

Interesting procedural issue.

That makes little sense. If they had standing to defend the law, they have standing to appeal. This judge is being disingenuous.

[dbackjon]

I was wondering how the State of CA's ambivalence to this case would come back to effect this case.....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100813/D9HIHL680.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



The State could undoubetdly appeal the ruling, but since they filed a non-contesting order, the ones who want to appeal may have no legal standing to do so.

Interesting procedural issue.

That makes little sense. If they had standing to defend the law, they have standing to appeal.

The state did not defend the law. Others did. They are the ones that may not have standing to appeal. The State clearly would, but will not appeal

[JoltinJoe]

That makes little sense. If they had standing to defend the law, they have standing to appeal.

The state did not defend the law. Others did. They are the ones that may not have standing to appeal. The State clearly would, but will not appeal

But if those others had standing to defend the law, they have standing to appeal. Period. Otherwise, this judge conducted a trial defended by persons who were not "affected by or responsible for implementing his ruling." Why? Simply to build a record on which he could rule? And then assert his ruling was non-appealable? That's a pretty scary thought, and suggests he knew what he wanted to do before he started this case.

His suggestion that his ruling is not appealable is patent bullshit (although the Ninth Circuit might buy it, the Supreme Court won't).

If the parties who defended did not have standing to do so, then the ruling isn't valid anyway and the matter has to be re-tried with counsel appointed to defend the state.

Frankly, Jerry Brown's non-defense of this case was also BS. As Attorney General, he either must defend a law or move the court to appoint counsel to represent the state, because he will not do so.

This guy hit it right on the head.

Other legal analysts think the appeals court will allow the group that raised $40 million to pass Proposition 8 to formally challenge Walker's ruling.

"What Judge Walker's ruling means is you can sponsor a proposition, direct it, research it, work for it, raise $40 million for it, get it on a ballot, successfully campaign for it and then have no ability to defend it independently in court," said Dale Carpenter, a University of Minnesota constitutional law professor who supports same-sex marriage. "And then a judge maybe let you be the sole defender in a full-blown trial and then says, 'by the way, you never can defend this.' It just seems very unlikely to me the higher courts will buy that."

[dbackjon]

I am not an expert, obviously on these legal matters. I have heard arguments both ways.

Judge Walker, in lifting the stay, didn't say that the parties DIDN'T have standing to appeal, but there was a likely chance in his opinion that they wouldn't. Of course, that is not HIS decision, regardless, but his reasoning for not lifting the stay. Say he hadn't lifted the stay, and the losing party took their time appealing - they could drag this out for years.

Justice delayed is justice denied. There is no compelling governmental or societal reason to ban gay marriage. It prevents me from pursuing my constitutionally protected life, liberty and happiness, and is clearly unconstitutional to do so.

[BDKJMU]

I am not an expert, obviously on these legal matters. I have heard arguments both ways.

Judge Walker, in lifting the stay, didn't say that the parties DIDN'T have standing to appeal, but there was a likely chance in his opinion that they wouldn't. Of course, that is not HIS decision, regardless, but his reasoning for not lifting the stay. Say he hadn't lifted the stay, and the losing party took their time appealing - they could drag this out for years.

Justice delayed is justice denied. There is no compelling governmental or societal reason to ban gay marriage. It prevents me from pursuing my constitutionally protected life, liberty and happiness, and is clearly unconstitutional to do so.

So says one judge. Others have said differently, as likely will the Supreme Ct.

[danefan]

9th Cir. orders a Stay
http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/wp ... rtRoom.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Looks like oral arguments will take place in November at some point.

[dbackjon]

9th Cir. orders a Stay
http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/wp ... rtRoom.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Looks like oral arguments will take place in November at some point.

Which is pretty quick, isn't it?

[danefan]

9th Cir. orders a Stay
http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/wp ... rtRoom.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Looks like oral arguments will take place in November at some point.

Which is pretty quick, isn't it?

I'm not sure about the 9th Cir. It seems reasonable though. The arguments won't be much different (if at all) for the parties and therefore the briefs are more a matter of changing formatting and tense and adding in a discussion of why the lower court erred in its decision.

The only substantive thing they really need to add is answering this question posed by the 9th Circuit:

In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing.

[Ivytalk]

Which is pretty quick, isn't it?

I'm not sure about the 9th Cir. It seems reasonable though. The arguments won't be much different (if at all) for the parties and therefore the briefs are more a matter of changing formatting and tense and adding in a discussion of why the lower court erred in its decision.

The only substantive thing they really need to add is answering this question posed by the 9th Circuit:

In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing.

Heh-heh-heh! He said "oral"!

Seriously, that's not a trivial "substantive thing." If the Ninth Circuit kicks the appeal for standing reasons, that could delay the day of SCOTUS reckoning on gay marriage for quite some time.

[danefan]

I'm not sure about the 9th Cir. It seems reasonable though. The arguments won't be much different (if at all) for the parties and therefore the briefs are more a matter of changing formatting and tense and adding in a discussion of why the lower court erred in its decision.

The only substantive thing they really need to add is answering this question posed by the 9th Circuit:

Heh-heh-heh! He said "oral"!

Seriously, that's not a trivial "substantive thing." If the Ninth Circuit kicks the appeal for standing reasons, that could delay the day of SCOTUS reckoning on gay marriage for quite some time.

I didn't mean to make it sound like it was trivial. Its definitely not, but its also not something that should take more than 1 month to draft a brief on.