Hopefully it doesn't help them in this state. California is doomed without an influx of strong, fiscally conservative blood in Sacramento. If only we could have done better than Whitman, but nobody wants to run here.
Oh Knights of Neocon, we are but simple travelers who seek the enchanter who lives beyond these woods. Next thing we'll hear more about - and, as much as I've read about this case, I didn't know this until today: Judge Walker is gay. That adds GREAT intrigue to this. Heh. Rove, you magnificent bastard!
And the NEXT bit of intrigue. . . I mean, after all that stuff up there ^. . . is how Barack responds. This is the guy who said he was opposed to gay marriage. He wasn't even ambiguous about it. Brace for the hand wringing.
I'm curious, what federal constitutional rights do gays and lesbians have to marry when sexual orientation isn't a federally protected class? or did I miss something and it was passed federally?
Good question. The judge said he wasn't creating a new class, and then did just that. Tough to follow, because he avoids saying what people like you expect him to say knowing the decision he reaches.
Dude is ordering a pizza, turning on latenight Skinemax, and cranking it like only a commander-in-chief can crank it.
I don't understand how a court has the right to overturn an overwhelming majority referendum. I know we're a federal republic and not a democracy and all that bullshit, but somewhere you have to draw the line. It's just like the MO Prop C overturning Obamacare in Missouri. It'll be nullified, but it shouldn't.
It's amazing the fact that Walker's gay wasn't plastered all over the news while this trial was going on. I'm stunned, and more stunned I didn't know this until you wrote that. Why is the decision bad for the Democrats in November I see why it puts Obama in a tough spot, but don't see how it hurts Democrats in congressional races. Or did I just answer my own question?
Gives social conservatives one more reason to go to the polls, and doesn't motivate the other side one way or the other. So, this, along with the Arizona immigration case, is the sort of thing that surrogates for Rossi, Fiorina, Buck, Huffman, and even Sharron Angle - all those western state Republican candidates except McCain - will hammer away at. Without much, if any, negative from it.
I have not read the whole opinion, but what i have read suggests he used the lower threshold equal protection analysis, which in turn required him to conclude that there is no rational basis for distinguishing between heterosexual and homosexual couples. I find that laughable, since only heterosexual couples can procreate, and society imo has, always has had, an interest in creating a social construct within which children can be born into and raised. That is not a rational basis? Of course it is. At least it is more plausible legal reasoning (even if woeful) than that ridiculous states rights argument used in the Massachusetts case a few weeks ago.
He used BOTH equal protection and due process, and analyzed it under BOTH rational basis and strict scrutiny. Dude was trying to cover all bases, it seems.
What I find most satisfying is that he is a conservative judge with ties to Regan and Bush. He is also gay. So the reaction from the hateful religious nuts will be to first claim he is a socialist liberal activist judge. Never mind the facts.
What better way to ram it through the CoA and straight into the Supreme Court? Get your popcorn ready. Either way, I'm glad the people of California weren't allowed to define a civil right, or the lack thereof.
All that was required was a simple majority, and that's all they got. 52/47. And even that has been contested, depending who you source, it was 50/49 or 51/49. And honestly, what does it matter that a couple gays get married? It dosen't make your marriage any less valid.
Indeed. Especially with the tens of millions of dollars being spent on both ends, the vote was bound to be rediculous. For something like this, civil rights and what have you, you need an even playing field.
I do have to admit, however, that I found it hilarious that Gavin Newsom prompted people to vote. That Mormon ad "whetha ya like it or not!" led more than a few people I know to cast ballots in the name of gay takeover. I'm not a fan of his. At all.
Newsom has been great for SF, but he's an idiot. He opens his mouth too much. But again, he's really done alot of great things for SF. Even tho I voted for Matt Gonzalez -_-
It's dissapointing that the judge made this decision. I just hope the SC corrects this biased judges error!
