An Irish woman with big brass ones calls out Obama

[jonriv]

The scary thing about the Prop 8 ruling is the possible ramifications on initiatives in general. If the government chooses to not defend an initiative, like CA did with Prop 8, it seems the opponents just need any court to overturn it and there's nothing anyone else can do about it. The government should defend anything that is passed. If they don't like the initiative, they should pass legislation to undo it.

The problem here was the people that brought the case to SCOTUS were not "harmed" by the lower courts decision. What the Supreme Court is saying is that you need to have a "case", not just dislike or disagree with the decision.

I come down this way on the whole gay marriage thing- I used to be in the civil union-benefits side of things but leave out marriage. I have changed to let there be marriage(in the legal sense), but leave religious marriages to whatever rules those particular religions have. I do not feel threatened by 4% of the poulation and the same-sex couples with kids have done a good job.

Here's my proposition- Congress passes a law to OK all smae-sex marriages, but only if they agree to stop kissing on TV!

[Pale Rider]

Personally, what someone wishes to do with their genitalia is their own choice
I'll keep my opinions pertaining to Military to myself...

Using the term Marriage, in a religious text, is like saying my DD is having a Bar mitzvah...its just not happening.
Legal unions sure, the 4% can enjoy divorce lawyers just like the rest of us (Ive been married 30 yrs but I know PLENTY who've been thru it)

But, I dont feel the need to celebrate that lifestyle, nor does it get any special 'attention'...
Anymore than I would expect anyone to attend a Heterosexual Appreciation Day....
Although I am a male, I am of the lesbian persuaion myself...I want NOTHING to do with a man ...

If I had just enlisted I'd be getting a tattoo...someplace that says EXIT ONLY

[Dugout Dad]

The scary thing about the Prop 8 ruling is the possible ramifications on initiatives in general. If the government chooses to not defend an initiative, like CA did with Prop 8, it seems the opponents just need any court to overturn it and there's nothing anyone else can do about it. The government should defend anything that is passed. If they don't like the initiative, they should pass legislation to undo it.

Governor Brown and Attorney General Harris did not do their job in upholding the law and will of the people because they personally did not like proposition 8. The judge that blocked prop 8 is gay... So 3 people, the gov, the AG, and the gay judge overruled the law of the land and the SCOTUS said to the CA voters we can do nothing about it......welcome to the Banana Republic of California

[as the world turns]

What is next....you can bet on it.

http://alltherightsnark.org/dianny-rants-finally-scotus-gives-the-left-a-group-they-can-h8/

Here is snip of the article:
As Ben Shapiro wrote today at Breitbart, this ruling by the Supreme Court has opened the door to the IRS revoking tax-exempt status to any church that would refuse to permit two homosexuals to hold their “wedding” within its walls.
Don’t think that will happen?
Think again.
As it is, homosexual couples are suing bakeries, florists and other businesses for refusing to provide them with the trappings of their upcoming nuptials.
You don’t think homosexual couples won’t pursue lawsuits against churches for refusing to “marry” them? Really?
Come on.
We’re living in Obama’s America — where in the name of “fairness” it’s open season on anyone you don’t like.
And if you think that the “Take that bitches” crowd will be respectful of those who disagree on religious grounds with homosexuals “marrying,” then, think again.
The United States Supreme Court didn’t nullify an unconstitutional law yesterday. They nullified the will of the people. The nullified the Separation of Powers. They nullified the religious freedom in this country.
Five unelected individuals in a nation of over three hundred million just paved the way for state-approved HATRED against anyone who recognizes marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Five unelected individuals believe that opposition to homosexual “marriage” is motivated by frothing-at-the-mouth hatred. Therefore, supporters of homosexual “marriage” can go to town!!
Take that bitches!!
This is Obama’s America.

[PDad]

The scary thing about the Prop 8 ruling is the possible ramifications on initiatives in general. If the government chooses to not defend an initiative, like CA did with Prop 8, it seems the opponents just need any court to overturn it and there's nothing anyone else can do about it. The government should defend anything that is passed. If they don't like the initiative, they should pass legislation to undo it.

SCOTUS on Prop 8 was a non-ruling. They basically said the appeal was done by the wrong people. In other words, the Conservatives screwed up. But the bigger issue with Prop 8 and the Perry trial was the incompetence of the counsel defending Prop 8.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/updated-so-what-was-judge-vaughn-walkers-trial-like-anyway/240395/

I realize SCOTUS didn't render a decision on the case itself - they dismissed it based on a legal ruling. That ruling endangers any initiative that the state government does not wish to defend.

[ontheblack]

The scary thing about the Prop 8 ruling is the possible ramifications on initiatives in general. If the government chooses to not defend an initiative, like CA did with Prop 8, it seems the opponents just need any court to overturn it and there's nothing anyone else can do about it. The government should defend anything that is passed. If they don't like the initiative, they should pass legislation to undo it.

Governor Brown and Attorney General Harris did not do their job in upholding the law and will of the people because they personally did not like proposition 8. The judge that blocked prop 8 is gay... So 3 people, the gov, the AG, and the gay judge overruled the law of the land and the SCOTUS said to the CA voters we can do nothing about it......welcome to the Banana Republic of California

While the State didnt follow through on this, even Conservative legal experts said that the team defending prop 8 was ill-prepared and got routed by Boies, et al.

Btw, the judge was a Bush appointee.

[PDad]

The scary thing about the Prop 8 ruling is the possible ramifications on initiatives in general. If the government chooses to not defend an initiative, like CA did with Prop 8, it seems the opponents just need any court to overturn it and there's nothing anyone else can do about it. The government should defend anything that is passed. If they don't like the initiative, they should pass legislation to undo it.

The problem here was the people that brought the case to SCOTUS were not "harmed" by the lower courts decision. What the Supreme Court is saying is that you need to have a "case", not just dislike or disagree with the decision.

Where did you get that? Quotes from the ruling and the dissent are very clear - Key quotes from the Supreme Court ruling on state same sex-marriage law

- "We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here."

- "Standing in federal court is a question of federal law, not state law. And no matter its reasons, the fact that a State thinks a private party should have standing to seek relief for a generalized grievance cannot override our settled law to the contrary."

I guess it's possible a private party could get standing in an especially egregious case, but it will be extremely difficult to get SCOTUS to break precedence.

My post wasn't about this specific case - it is about initiatives in general. I'm more concerned about the government being able to twart the will of the people by sitting on their hands when a legal challenge is made, especially once it goes to federal court after the state Supreme Court has upheld it. They should at the very least do whatever is necessary so the proponents can proceed with legal standing.

[Dugout Dad]

The scary thing about the Prop 8 ruling is the possible ramifications on initiatives in general. If the government chooses to not defend an initiative, like CA did with Prop 8, it seems the opponents just need any court to overturn it and there's nothing anyone else can do about it. The government should defend anything that is passed. If they don't like the initiative, they should pass legislation to undo it.

Governor Brown and Attorney General Harris did not do their job in upholding the law and will of the people because they personally did not like proposition 8. The judge that blocked prop 8 is gay... So 3 people, the gov, the AG, and the gay judge overruled the law of the land and the SCOTUS said to the CA voters we can do nothing about it......welcome to the Banana Republic of California

While the State didnt follow through on this, even Conservative legal experts said that the team defending prop 8 was ill-prepared and got routed by Boies, et al.

Btw, the judge was a Bush appointee.

It was not the place of the team defending prop 8 to argue this case, it should have been the state government of CA standing in front of SCOTUS representing the state.

[jonriv]

What is next....you can bet on it.

http://alltherightsnark.org/dianny-rants-finally-scotus-gives-the-left-a-group-they-can-h8/

Here is snip of the article:
As Ben Shapiro wrote today at Breitbart, this ruling by the Supreme Court has opened the door to the IRS revoking tax-exempt status to any church that would refuse to permit two homosexuals to hold their “wedding” within its walls.
Don’t think that will happen?
Think again.
As it is, homosexual couples are suing bakeries, florists and other businesses for refusing to provide them with the trappings of their upcoming nuptials.
You don’t think homosexual couples won’t pursue lawsuits against churches for refusing to “marry” them? Really?
Come on.
We’re living in Obama’s America — where in the name of “fairness” it’s open season on anyone you don’t like.
And if you think that the “Take that bitches” crowd will be respectful of those who disagree on religious grounds with homosexuals “marrying,” then, think again.
The United States Supreme Court didn’t nullify an unconstitutional law yesterday. They nullified the will of the people. The nullified the Separation of Powers. They nullified the religious freedom in this country.
Five unelected individuals in a nation of over three hundred million just paved the way for state-approved HATRED against anyone who recognizes marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Five unelected individuals believe that opposition to homosexual “marriage” is motivated by frothing-at-the-mouth hatred. Therefore, supporters of homosexual “marriage” can go to town!!
Take that bitches!!
This is Obama’s America.

Churches are protected by the establishment clause- governemnt can recognize any marriage they want- religious organization does not and cannot be forced to perform a wedding outside its doctrine.

ie: Try getting married in a Catholic church if one of the couple is a divorced(no unullment) catholic

[PDad]

The scary thing about the Prop 8 ruling is the possible ramifications on initiatives in general. If the government chooses to not defend an initiative, like CA did with Prop 8, it seems the opponents just need any court to overturn it and there's nothing anyone else can do about it. The government should defend anything that is passed. If they don't like the initiative, they should pass legislation to undo it.

Governor Brown and Attorney General Harris did not do their job in upholding the law and will of the people because they personally did not like proposition 8. The judge that blocked prop 8 is gay... So 3 people, the gov, the AG, and the gay judge overruled the law of the land and the SCOTUS said to the CA voters we can do nothing about it......welcome to the Banana Republic of California

Actually, it goes back to Gov. Schwarzenegger and AG Jerry Brown...

Backers of Proposition 8 -- ProtectMarriage.com -- appealed to the 9th Circuit, because then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown declined to do so. The appellate court heard arguments in 2011 but put a decision on hold while it awaited a state Supreme Court ruling on the ability of Prop. 8 backers to press the case forward despite the state's refusal to appeal.

Once the state Supreme Court decided that Prop. 8 supporters had legal standing, the 9th Circuit moved ahead with its consideration of the case, hearing more arguments on a motion by Prop. 8 backers asking that Walker's ruling be thrown out because the judge was in a long-term same-sex relationship that he had not disclosed.