The 9th will rubber-stamp it – after all, this judge is considered to be conservative by California standards – and we can predict how 8 of the justices will vote.

that this judge is actually gay? I heard it mentioned yesterday on the radio. Wouldn’t that automatically recuse her from judgement on bias?

Fla Mom! The Constitution Made Easy is a book my granddaughter and I read together. I have a purse size Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to carry with me. I know I am not alone in this reeducation endeavor. We the People are waking up, and our Constitution has been silently waiting for us to sit down for coffee talk, or a cup of tea if you prefer…after all, we have choices in this country, and elections. There are days when I, too, get discouraged, but more days that I am excited for this awakening.

“…enumerates ‘rights’ and equality.”? I see you haven’t read the Constitution.

.

Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to get married or the federal government has to recognize your marriage. The same with the Constitutions of all 50 states.

If I were a Muslim or a Mormon right now I would file suit claiming discrimination based on religion.

If you look at the twitter feed on the profile…, now pick up the poop you left on the carpet. I can see some anime on your post in 3, 2, 1…

Hope you’re prepared for a very different world here at RedState. Here, you have to know what you’re talking about.

Do you have your Kos/Twitter “how I got banned from RedState” post drafted?

Its amazing how political speech is regulated despited the clear wording of the First Amendment, gun control laws are enacted despite the clear wording of the Second Amendment, and while the words and synonyms for sexual orientation or abortion are totally absent from the Constitution, those rights are somehow “clear”.

I for one doubt that you have bothered to reach the Constitution in several years, if ever

Its amazing how political speech is regulated despited the clear wording of the First Amendment, gun control laws are enacted despite the clear wording of the Second Amendment, and while the words and synonyms for sexual orientation or abortion are totally absent from the Constitution, those rights are somehow “clear”.

I for one doubt that you have bothered to reach the Constitution in several years, if ever

…they’re whiners. And they want the big tax deduction that comes from filing jointly, if they file at all. “It’s all about love!” No, it’s not. Get real. They all want something for nothing, but they have no right to redefine the very foundation of society.

Is this what the Roman Empire looked like right before it crumbled?

11 months and 9 months, but not a day more.

It was the Democrats who opposed the 14th and 19th amendments.

The 14th was a direct result of the Union victory over the south and was pushed through when Republicans still had control of the country.

The 19th was the result of decades of women’s suffrage activism by Republican women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton. You really should learn a little history before you start believing the progressive non-sense that you’re been fed.

I’d bet he is one of the Pigford claimants, who have done nothing more in their lives than keep their hands out.

There is no such thing as equality. To make one equal requires making someone else unequal, and obviously you are fine with that, as long as you get your due.

you CANNOT come and tell LIES! the Democrats did NOT want slaves to be FREE and they fought it right up until the Civil Rights Act just ask Senator Byrd….oh yeah that cracker is dead!

I’ll just turn off your ID right now and put a stop to your rants so you don’t hurt yourself any more.

Let’s make a deal:

You show me where you’ve expended an equal amount of energy decrying this story, and I’ll consider taking you seriously.

(Oh, but you’ve been banned already. Such a shame, really.)

Evangelion? Great fight scenes, always go with the subtitled.

When have conservatives been against equal rights.
Wasn’t it Republicans who were for the civil rights bill, while Democrats tried to kill it.
Wern’t southern Democrats the ones who made up the clan.
When have conservatives been against a womans right to vote.
And you give conservatives an anti rights label because we want marriage to remain the same as it has been for thousands of years.
Your going have to do better than that.

And please use reply to this.
So easy a cave man can do it.
I can.

n/t

David Barton has some videos documenting the FACT that it was the Democrats (or do you prefer Liberals) who organized the KKK. The KKK was the terrorist arm of the Democrat party, and its main purpose was to kill Republicans — both black and white — because they were Republicans. After the Civil War, the majority of blacks voted Republican. After the KKK did its job, that voting pattern changed. Can you guess why?

You need to study a little history before you speak on historical matters.

The scope of the ignorance in your comment should be humiliating. Gay couples are no more or less prone to get divorced than straight couples.

Secondly, just because 80% of Mississippians in the 1950′s supported Jim Crow and segregation, does that mean it should have been left in place although it clearly violated the 14th amendment? That’s in part why the Constitution is SO fantastic because it ensures the rights of the people, of ALL Americans, regardless of the ignorance and backwardness of some.

history like CA and MA break up at twice the rate of hetero marriages.

One might guess because extremes in relationships tend not to hold.

That’s the best argument I’ve heard in two days. Short, sweet, and to the point.

I’d absolutely love to see a man try to give birth. The lack of a birth canal would make it interesting.

If marriage were purely based on the ability to reproduce, then would it be acceptable to deny marriage licenses to couples with a wife who is unable to conceive? Or with a husband who is impotent? And what about elderly couples? Can they not marry because they can’t reproduce? What if the couple can reproduce when they get married, but something happens to take away that ability – should their marriage become invalid?

I don’t believe the reproduction aspect is enough to argue the case. Remember, only through an argument without easily identifiable exceptions will stump a liberal – they usually argue exceptions, after all.

Of course November is extremely important, but when it comes to judicial appointments, if we want to get our Country back from these far-leftists on the bench right now, we need a President who will appoint judges who actually support the Constitution. So lets get as many Senators as we can this year and then get a President who will appoint judges who believe in following the Constitution. That’s what we need to do to take our Country back from the judicial tyranny of the far left. Also, if we could impeach that judge who made the ruling, that would be pretty sweet . I don’t know if they have something like that in CA or not, but dare to dream .

What is frustrating is that a strong minority of the GOP and a good chunk of voters just don’t see the importance of judges.

I can guarantee Kagan will uphold both this ruling as well as the ruling striking down the AZ law. Yet she will still receive votes from some in the GOP as well as some of the so-called conservative Democrat Senators.

Even with these votes, people like Boxer in CA will be re-elected. Where are the voters in FL, OH, or PA who strongly support traditional marriage and the AZ immigration law? Why are the Democrats (and scum sucking independents like Crist) even close in those states?

When will we wake up to this judicial thuggery?

I am all for States defining their own language for marriage. It should be up to the several states. It is totally a State issue, as best as I can see it.

How the feds, either courts or legislators, get to stick their nose into the equation is rather sad if not tragic.

Further I think a Constitutional Amendment would be equally disturbing – however if the courts can change the definition of words on a whim and deny any right of the populace to govern themselves – I guess it is the tool that must be used. All other options of Government appear to be warped beyond recognition.

I am all for States defining their own language for marriage. It should be up to the several states. It is totally a State issue, as best as I can see it.

How the feds, either courts or legislators, get to stick their nose into the equation is rather sad if not tragic.

Further I think a Constitutional Amendment would be equally disturbing – however if the courts can change the definition of words on a whim and deny any right of the populace to govern themselves – I guess it is the tool that must be used. All other options of Government appear to be warped beyond recognition.

So the opponents went to federal court to argue it violates federal law.

And disband the legislative branches of government.

exploiting the customary rules of appellate review, wherein “credibility of evidence presented at trial” and “findings of fact” as determined by the original case are usually accepted as given.

So, this judge moved everything that ought to have been in the findings of law, and put it in the findings of fact section. Then, the final decision as written was basically: because it is true that gay marriage is a universal right, and because it is true that the constitution protects gay marriage as a universal right, I find that this amendment violates the constitution.

E.g. he deliberately structured his opinion to become THE classic example of “begging the question” — assuming your conclusion is true, and using that assumption as “proof” of your argument.

I think that will backfire on him, because the “customary rules of appellate review” are just that: customary. They aren’t binding. And when a rational appellate court (e.g. not the Ninth) takes a hard look at this judge’s sophistry, they are going to see right through his slight of hand — and suspend those “customary rules”. At that point, Katie bar the door; the justices will look at EVERYTHING in the trial record, plus all the various appellate briefs.

And Kennedy has already expressed reservation about his earlier logic being used in some case about gay marriage; I think he is uncomfortable as a legal matter extending the logic of some of the decisions he has written, to stretch that far. Unlike this judge. So it looks like a 5-4 against the judge, once it gets to SCOTUS.

One of the Volokh guys said that the judge’s opinion included and independently relies on EVERY one of the justifications put forward by the plantiffs. Some think that this means the opinion is stronger; I think it makes the opinion weaker — because if any justice objects to any one of those rationales, then the opinion is void, because the judge structured his decision as all-or-nothing. Either he is upheld and all of the rationales are also held to be black letter law, OR a single one of the rationales is upended, and so is the decision.

mohammad – another great liar of his time

The decision is clearly related to an interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, which does not explicitly define any rights. It is up to the courts to define what are “the privileges or immunities of citizens” that the states have no power to limit. For example, integrated education is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but segregated schools are clearly in violation regardless.

I agree. I think this is going to become a less and less pressing issue for most Americans, which I have trouble understanding. Are we the only ones who hate gay people?!