SUCK IT, FUNDIES!!! Prop 8 overturned!!!

[backscatter712]

Kool-Aid drinkers lose, civil rights win!!!

:hippie: :party: :toast: :bounce: :beer: :grouphug: :fistbump: :headbang: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause: :patriot:

OOH!, Free Republic's already going apeshit! :rofl:

(ACHTUNG: Vile Freeper bigotry, and humorously unhinged wigging-out...)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2564664/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2564660/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2564659/posts

[closeupready]

1. Hear, hear!

:woohoo:

[RKP5637]

2. Great News !!! n/t

[hobbit709]

3. Those popping noises you hear are fundies heads exploding.

[JuniperLea]

8. And my champagne!

[lunatica]

15. Sounds like popcorn!!!!!

Poppety-pop-pop-pop!

[libnnc]

4. SUCK IT HATERS!!!

TIME TO TIP IT GAYS!!! :beer:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[snake in the grass]

74. The Theocrats are wondering what that taste is...

...in their mouths.

It's called defeat and I hope they suck on it until they literally drop dead.

[gratuitous]

5. A sad day

When the rights of citizens can be subjected to a popular vote.

But a happy day when the system corrects itself, even though the injustice shouldn't have happened in the first place.

[EFerrari]

10. I *still* don't trust the vote totals in Los Angeles County. nt

[Warpy]

6. They're probably going to scream to the Roberts court

and there's no telling how those crazies on the bench will vote.

But for now, it's worth celebrating.

[EFerrari]

14. Waiting to hear if the judge enjoined Prop8.

That would mean, if I'm hearing this right, that people could marry right away.

[zipplewrath]

16. Yeah, I don't hold out much hope

Celebrate today, because Roberts will probably screw this all up. "Gonna have a party... All night long".

Every once and a while people do the right thing.

[Hosnon]

I actually think the odds are in our favor when it gets to the Supreme Court.

Marriage has loooong been recognized as a fundamental right. And claiming that homosexuals are seeking a new right (i.e., the right to marry members of the same sex) is as unpersuasive as the argument that the plaintiffs in Loving were seeking a new right (i.e., the right to marry members not of the same race).

There isn't any case law (to my knowledge) that supports the splitting up of the right to marry in that kind of way. The right is simply the right to marry. Period.

[Dappleganger]

35. Reasonable people like us see it that way.

But the current court we have is far from reasonable.

[lib_wit_it]

94. As I understand it, that didn't stop them virtually invalidating the votes of individuals with their

Citizens United decision. Despite precedent, the SCOTUS ruled in favor of corporations deciding our election,s and will soon rule that they may do so secretly, you know, because of a "person's" right to privacy.

Well, that's my cynicism showing. However, my husband and I did whoop it up upon hearing of Prop 8's stomping today. Here's hoping it *is* a sign of good things to come.
:toast:
:fistbump:
:patriot:

[Chan790]

122. My money is on 6-to-3 upholding this ruling.

The only ones that are safe-bets to rule to overturn this ruling and restore Prop-8 are Alito and Scalia, Thomas will probably join them if he forgets his Libertarian spine that day.

Kennedy has shown a predeliction for a strong-test on material harm where the rights of individuals are concerned...the onus would lie on the pro-Prop8ers to show that upholding this ruling harms the rights of Californians and (less-so, but still validly) overturning Walker's ruling doesn't harm the rights of (gay) Californians. Roberts is a straight-out defender of the supremacy of the federal courts and wouldn't overturn this if it meant weakening the power of the judiciary. I'm guessing on them defecting. The fact that the case was argued by Ted Olson cannot be overlooked, their respective legal viewpoints both more-closely mirror that of the former solicitor-general than that of the conservative-wing of the court.

Sotomayor's an unapologetic advocate of judicial activism. Ginsburg's a former ACLU lawyer and a civil-libertarian...if this case was taking place 20 years ago, she'd be arguing it. Kagan (if she's confirmed, which seems likely) is only a wild-card in so far as she's never been a judge...she's pretty-clearly a moderate-Democratic partisan though. Breyer is the only one traditionally in the liberal block who concerns me at all as he's a vocal advocate of the role of the people in law, least likely justice to rule to overturn Congress and a stated reticence to overturn referrenda without a compelling legal basis...still he seems safe on this question.

[Chan790]

123. My point on Breyer being that he's pretty staunch on the validity of the will of the people...

whether he agrees with them or not.

[Warpy]

124. Since the ruling left them with only religion as a rationale

versus setting a precedent that anyone's civil rights can be removed by majority vote, I think you're probably right about how the court will vote.

Scalia and Alito will always vote their religion over the constitution and Thomas will usually tag along behind them.

[totodeinhere]

132. Not necessarily. If the gang of five for whatever reason wanted to overturn the ruling they

could try to come up with some technicality without ruling on the merits of the case itself. After Bush v Gore in 2000, I have come to think that anything is possible with this court.

And remember that the equal protection clause can be a two way street. By some twisted logical, they used that same equal protection clause to decide Bush v Gore.

[Jamastiene]

7. w00t!

:woohoo:

[swimboy]

101. Cheers!

:grouphug:

[Jamastiene]

145. swimboy!!!!

:hug: :loveya: :pals:

[Cetacea]

9. Great news for a change.

:toast:

[lunatica]

11. I just received the email from The Courage Campaign

I'm absolutely delighted about this news! Now that's the California I know and love!

[hedgehog]

12. +1

:party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :beer: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :grouphug: :fistbump: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :patriot:

[petronius]

13. That is really great news! My state got something right for once (even if it took

a GHW Bush appointed federal judge to do it).

I don't see anything about a stay in the LA Times article, which I thought the pro-h8 people were going to ask for while they appealed - does this mean it's completely out, and marriages could recommence immediately?

[asdjrocky]

17. LOL!

Rec for TRUE LOVE!

[Arkana]

18. Hell YES!

Freepers must be crying in their Pabst Blue Ribbon--and I love it. Fuck those assholes who think civil rights should be put up for a vote--AFTER THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN GRANTED.

[Patchuli]

86. Hey! Don't disparage PBR!

It's affordable!

[Arkana]

128. Sorry, sorry...I'll be sure to say "Keystone Light" in the future.

[Ohio Metal]

105. My dog is named Pabst Blue Ribbon

Don't rag on the cheap beer. Not all of us can afford Newcastle.

[Arkana]

129. I'm not ragging on it--I like cheap beer.

I drink Miller and Bud Lite too. I was just trying to think of a typical Southern good ol' boy beer. Perhaps I should have picked Keystone Light or Natty Ice.

[Canuckistanian]

19. GREAT news

A blow to irrational haters who try to use law to take rights away from GLBT people.

[Gold Metal Flake]

20. I prefer to celebrate here in the rude thread.

Fuck you you fucking fundie fucks.

[earth mom]

49. Couldn't have said it better myself!

:toast:

[Dawson Leery]

21. Go back to your tents, tounge speaking freaks!

:party: :bounce: :yourock: :applause: :party: :bounce: :yourock: :applause: :party: :bounce: :yourock: :applause:
:party: :bounce: :yourock: :applause: :party: :bounce: :yourock: :applause: :party: :bounce: :yourock: :applause:
:party: :bounce: :yourock: :applause: :party: :bounce: :yourock: :applause: :party: :bounce: :yourock: :applause:
:party: :bounce: :yourock: :applause: :party: :bounce: :yourock: :applause: :party: :bounce: :yourock: :applause:
:party: :bounce: :yourock: :applause: :party: :bounce: :yourock: :applause: :party: :bounce: :yourock: :applause:

[frazzled]

22. I am overjoyed!

It's a great precedent. It never should have been passed in the first place. In fact, I'm opposed to the whole idea of ballot initiatives. Sorry, but we have a representational form of government for a reason.


:pals:

[KamaAina]

142. The irony is, the initiative was put in place to *protect* our rights

back in the days before mass media when it was easier and cheaper to buy off a few dozen legislators than to bamboozle millions of ignorant voters with a slick TV ad campaign.

[rocktivity]

23. You, too, Carrie Prejean

and your second-string-quarterback-on-a-terrible-football-team new husband!

:headbang:
rocktivity

[frebrd]

24. Yesss......

The mormons are shittin' their britches!

:bounce:

[Ignis]

25. Hell yes!

:woohoo:

[Spheric]

26. May justice continue to prevail. /nt

[SusanaMontana41]

89. Equal protection under the law. What a concept ...

Fight oppression wherever it exists. Snuff it out, and everyone wins.

[Xicano]

27. One of the feeps posted this

The judge’s invalidation of the votes of over seven million Californians runs contrary to legal precedent and the notion of states' rights.

@this freeper. So if we have a vote in California or in any other state to disallow all right-wingers from voting and it passed. Then you are agreeing that all right-wingers in that state have no other choice but to honor that and not be allowed to vote?

Gawd!! These folks are ignorant to say the least.

[ParkieDem]

28. Flame away.

This is bad news.

Not because it strikes a blow for gay couples -- this is good. But the backlash could be worse, and actually set GLBT progress back several years.

Read what Jonathan Rauch -- a gay man who has married his partner in DC -- has to say about the court's intervention before a decision was made:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/opinion/03rauch.html

He says that, essentially, it is better to let the issue run its course rather than have a court issue such a sweeping proclamation, either in favor of or against gay marriage.

Looking at the facts, the vote on Prop 8 in California was close. Other states have actually passed referenda supporting gay marriage.

Now that the court has decided the issue, we can expect a backlash as the issue was taken away from the voters. The same thing happened on the abortion debate. Had Roe v. Wade not been decided, abortion would probably be legal -- by legislative, not judicial action -- in most of the country. There may have been certain restrictions, but the issue would not be the political firestorm it is today.

The same thing may hold true for gay marriage, I'm afraid. In the short term, we can expect additional backlash against Democrats in the November elections. In the long term, there may be even more backlash against gays.

[WillyT]

29. Your Concern Is Noted...

:shrug:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

30. You wish.

[Xicano]

32. So what you are saying is:

People should just stay oppressed because if they fight their oppressor the oppressor might get upset? --and-- People should just suffer injustice and be treated as second class citizens because you fear it might effect the outcome of an election?

Wow!!

[BootinUp]

34. Water under the bridge

Not sure what the point is of raining on todays decision with this. Its done. It was decided by a judge based on constitutional grounds.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. 2/10

[Dappleganger]

37. Federally-granted constitutional rights should not be subjected to the popular vote by

a backwards populace, no matter if they are in the majority.

The court case is heading in the right direction, and this must be settled by SCOTUS as nothing more than discrimination against gays from pursuing "life, liberty and happiness."

[Arkana]

38. The issue should never, EVER have been left up to voters to begin with

so your whole premise is invalid.

[Patchuli]

87. Exactly! Just as abortion

should never have been politicized. It and marriage are private matters and no one else's business!

[LAGC]

41. It was a Republican judge who declared it unconstitutional!

If anything, it should make the conservatives think twice about voting for their own kind.

We're already seeing the sentiment "Our vote doesn't matter."

Good. Let them stay home on Election Day and see what the results are.

[Arkana]

43. Wait...Walker was a Republican appointment? By WHO?

Not Dubya.

[Spazito]

44. Nominated by Bush Sr....

how delicious is that!

[Arkana]

45. Wonder if the old man knows.

[mikeytherat]

127. Actually, he was first nominated by Ronald Reagan.

Yes. That Ronald Reagan - St. Ronnie.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-05/judge-vaughn-walker-prop-8-judge-target-for-gay-marriage-foes/

In fact, Judge Vaughn Walker is a Republican who was first nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan. The unexpected ironies do not stop there. His nomination was stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee over accusations that Walker was too conservative.

Among his opponents were Nancy Pelosi (who described him as “insensitive” to gays and the poor), Ted Kennedy and leading gay activist groups at the time. In particular, they took issue with Walker’s legal representation of the National Rifle Association, chemical companies, and the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that blocked the use of the term “Gay Olympics.” A San Francisco lawyer named Mary Dunlap, who faced off against Mr. Walker in the “Gay Olympics” case, was quoted in The New York Times in 1988 saying, “I think his lack of compassion and inhumanity and coerciveness certainly disqualify him from consideration for the federal judiciary.”

On the flipside, Walker’s defenders included Ed Meese and Strom Thurmond. The outcry at the time was so considerable that it fell to Reagan’s successor, George H. W. Bush, to re-nominate Walker to the federal bench. At the time, Mr. Walker summed up his beliefs by saying, “Lawyers acting in a professional way must divorce himself from personal views.”

mikey_the_rat

[dogday]

42. Constitution guarantees the rights of the minority shall not be

over-ridden by the majority. This would be a good instance in which it would apply. To keep the bigoted puritans from telling everyone else what rights they are entitled to.

Human rights for all.. Not rocket science..

[NMMNG]

46. Since when are civil rights something to be decided by voters?

Did the voters get to decide if women and black people should be allowed to vote?
Did the voters get to decide if black people should have civil rights?
Did the voters get to decide on the Americans with Disabilities act?
Did the voters get to decide if sodomy should no longer be a criminal act?
Etc, etc, etc.


If we left everything to "the voters" black people would likely have no civil rights and might still be slaves. Women probably would not have the vote, people with disabilities probably would still be in institutions, and we would never have advanced as far as we have (though we could be farther along than we are to be sure).

Civil rights should never be subjected to the whims of "the people". If you disagree then by all means, put your rights to a popular vote.

[swimboy]

100. 100% in agreement

Props and cheers

:hi: :toast:

[marions ghost]

113. You have to factor in corruption

in the voting process before drawing those conclusions. And the fact that so many Americans don't vote.

[alp227]

140. Psst...lemme invoke "Robert Bork's America"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvFLXFCJvJA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNaasFvvFlE

[EstimatedProphet]

48. Really? You believe this?

He says that, essentially, it is better to let the issue run its course rather than have a court issue such a sweeping proclamation, either in favor of or against gay marriage.

So you think it's better to "let the issue run its course" than decide that certain groups of people can't be denied their rights by public vote?

Any idea why it's wrong? Maybe this will help:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

How about this?

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

In the framework I just provided, how does repealing Proposition 8 fit in with this?

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

I'll give you a hint - it's not covered under letting the issue run its course.

[HEyHEY]

107. I believe it, but I say "Fuck them anyway"

Bigots will always be out there and will never sway, so why should we taylor things to them in fears of upsetting them? That's just what they want.

[EstimatedProphet]

117. Yeah, but you don't believe it

I know you. You don't believe that it's better for people to simply put up with being second-class citizens rather than try to seek justice.

[HEyHEY]

146. Oh shit no, I totally agree with you there

They should never stop fighting, that's my point. Totally agree with you here.

[RagAss]

52. Some issues need to be taken away from voters.

[totodeinhere]

130. I will probably get flamed for this too. But just how far are you wiling to go in taking some issues

away from the voters? I understand your reasoning, but isn't this a slippery slope? By your logic, why have elections at all? Why not just let a learned and enlightened small group of people decide everything?

Ultimately, even under the system that we have now the ultimate responsibility lies with the voters. If there is enough anger over this decision, a presidential candidate could run for office next time who will promise to appoint judges who will overturn gay marriage. And at the same time senatorial candidates could run promising to confirm those nominees. And if they are elected by the people then we will have to face the consequences. Or the people could elect representatives who will pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage once and for all. (I don't think it will happen. I am just throwing out a hypothetical.)

After all, the constitution was written in the name of the American people. Like it or not, ultimate responsibility must lie with the people. You can say that human rights should not be put up to a vote, but in that case, who is it who is going to decide what is a human right and what is not? If the courts decide this, again, judges are politically appointed and therefore are at least indirectly accountable to the voters.

IMO, the best way to settle the gay marriage debate once and for all is to do the opposite of what I discussed above, and pass a constitutional amendment on the federal level to legalize gay marriage nationwide, which I would support. That would settle things once and for all unless of course the amendment was later repealed.

[RagAss]

138. The anonymity of the voting booth can be a very dangerous place.

[Touchdown]

56. Do you always take a big dump in the middle of the living room?

Can you wait a day?

[msanthrope]

59. Your Concern is noted. WELCOME TO DU!!!!

And I get what you are saying....

But have you ever considered that judicial action--action by one of the three branches of government, after all--is letting the 'issue run its course?'

Why is the judiciary a less legitimate branch of government than the legislative? That runs quite contrary to the original intent of the founders.

[Raksha]

92. The issue was "taken away from the voters"???

The ENTIRE point of all the equal protection arguments, including the one used by the judge in the case, is that the issue never "belonged" to the voters in the first place!!! That's what equal protection is all about, and why Prop 8 is unconstitutional. The majority cannot vote to restrict the rights of a minority.

[totodeinhere]

131. In an extreme case, the people could elect representatives who would amend the constitution and

repeal the equal protection clause. It's probably one in a million that it will ever happen, but it is theoretically possible. At least indirectly, the ultimate responsibility for our entire system of government lies with the people.

[mdmc]

99. None of that concerns me

[Iggo]

103. Yes, the issue was taken away from the voters.

That was the whole fucking point!

The majority can't and shouldn't be allowed to vote on the civil rights of the minority.

Get it?

Fuck the backlash. Stand up and fight. This is America, goddammit.

(EDIT: I should have read a little further. I see I'm not the first person to take issue with that post...lol.)

[uncommon]

106. Bullshit - this is in no way a bad thing.

[terrya]

121. I strongly suggest you read this article.

John Nichols is spot-on with his analysis.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/153893/same-sex-marriage-now-2010-issue

[RainDog]

31. this is a victory over religious tyranny n/t

[BootinUp]

33. This country is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions, lol.

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!


Congratulations to the gay community, this looks like a very important decision.

[Arkana]

40. From what I've been reading about Judge Walker

he didn't just rule, he fucking signed, sealed, and delivered this thing, then took a dump on the Prop 8 supporters' lawn. He was VERY thorough in his ruling and why the Prop 8 zombies had absolutely no rational basis to deny gays the right to marry. In fact, I keep hearing that the extra work he did may be one of the major reasons the case does not get upended when the bigots file their appeal.

[msanthrope]

65. Well, your legal terminology aside (wink, wink) you are correct.

I read it.

Jesus. This decision will be taught in law schools.

As a lawyer, I say this:

He wrote a motherfucker for the ages. He wrote a bulletproof judicial fucking smackdown of religious hysteria and tyranny.

Any conservative that heretofore attempts to overturn this ruling will have to contort themselves logically so badly that they will HAVE to have a surgical removal of their cranium from their rectum.....

And he did it calmly, rationally, and using conservative language. He's a Bush appointee.

[CLANG]

71. And when the freepers also find out he is openly gay - KABOOM!!

[Arkana]

133. Oh, they have, and their oracles have already given them the necessary programming

10 "He's a LIBERAL GAY DEMOCRAT LIBERAL"
20 "ACTIVIST JUDGES R LEGISLATIN FORM THE BENCH AGIN"
30 "HE SHOULDA RECUSED HISSELF CAUSE HE'S A HOMOSEXTER"
40 GOTO 10

[CLANG]

144. LOL! BASIC common sense!

[LibertyLover]

120. I read a review of the decision as well as Judge Walker's

handling of the legal team who were trying to uphold Prop. 8 in the courtroom. It was absolutely amazing. I agree that his decision is a well-written, well crafted piece of work. Apparently during the trial the lawyers for Prop. 8 were so bad that he would get upset and actually scold them for their shoddy work and poorly reasoned arguments. At one point one of the lawyers apparently said that the reasoning against gay marriage was so clear and plain that it did not need to be articulated. That set Judge Walker off. This opinion, much like the opinion in the Intelligent Design case a few years ago in Dover, Pennsylvania, is as much a reaction against the stupidity on display in his court as it is about the law. Well done Judge Walker.

[alcibiades_mystery]

126. It's very much like the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision

Also by a Republican appointed judge, btw...

[dogday]

39. Now this is a day to celebrate.

:party: :toast: :bounce: :dunce: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :grouphug: :fistbump: :yourock:

[BootinUp]

47. b..b..but what are we going to tell the children?!

:sarcasm:

[Touchdown]

58. Tell them to just toss the flowers, not throw handfuls of them.

... And smile for the Photographer!

[BootinUp]

61. good answer! nt

[glitch]

50. K & R your thread title :) nt

[Bluenorthwest]

51. All that Mormon Money flushed.

Today I am proud of my home state of California!

[LawnKorn]

53. K&R

[rbrnmw]

54. look at this post /pure insanity

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2564664/posts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: RobRoy; Da Coyote
"Of course, the war that will bring closure could
be very, very bad.
There was a discussion thread here recently where
many held that most of our Army's soldiers would
follow orders to fire on the citizenry.

That is a very disturbing thought

[MedicalAdmin]

67. Is it just me or does anyone else think about this after reading that shite.

<>

<>

<>






As a comment, what is a truly disturbing thought is that it wouldn't take no army guys to take care of Jed and his little band of idiots.

[BootinUp]

80. note:

this movie had nothing to do with a civil war, it was about invasion by the Ruskies. Ok, continue.

[Touchdown]

55. Alright!

:grouphug:

[political_Dem]

57. I am very happy that this happened.

Like I've said before, the dominoes are falling. And I am thrilled that marriage will be a right for everyone.

I've read the ugliness on Free Republic. But even their howls of despair will not disturb me today. Today is a wonderful day in the name of civil rights.

I just hope that people from all walks of life, regardless of skin color, sexual orientation and gender will be further on the path towards respecting one another.

[a la izquierda]

60. Jumping up and down and freaking the fuck out in OK!

I am so excited for people like my mom, and my uncle, who can marry their long-time partners if they so choose.
YEEEEAAHHHHH!!!
Happy Day!

[DesertFlower]

62. well said. nt

[DirkGently]

63. Amen.

[Critters2]

64. I love the part about the judge recusing himself if he's gay.

Shouldn't a straight judge do the same?

[MedicalAdmin]

66. I've never visited the FR before.

It's really quit vile, isn't it?

I feel like I've walked into my back yard to do a little work in my garden and found a burning cross.

[AlbertCat]

79. It's really quit vile, isn't it?

And totally pitiful! They all think everyone should think like they do. They know it all. And they also think they are a majority. (If everyone eligible to vote had voted, Prop 8 probably would have lost. Most people younger than 45 simply don't care if someone is gay or not.) They are clueless, small minded, angry dicks.

[lillypaddle]

95. Yep, they are some

mean, sick mofos over there, and they love jeebus a lot. Oh, and the flag.

[CLANG]

68. Suck on this!

[valerief]

69. Jesus must have willed it.

:rofl:

[Fearless]

70. A few favorites...

"America is ruined... depravity in every corner... what will the gays do when Sharia Law rules the land, off with their headzzz."

"The civil war cometh."


"The civil war cometh

Yes it does. And when it gets here, the swamp WILL be drained. "

"What an idiot. That's transparently false. It singles out no one. "Gays" can get married in California. They simply must marry someone of the opposite sex, like everyone does."

"It probably guarantees a Republican sweep in the Fall election, and quite possibly even the weakening of the Democrat lock on California's Hispanics."

[Shining Jack]

72. And because of this men will have sex with animals !1!!!

An idiot posted this elsewhere:

"I would be safe in saying that you then would support beastiality" (I kept the original spelling)

Then that link was posted to give more "credibility" to this affirmation:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Man-marries-dog/Article1-257344.aspx

:rofl:

[Fearless]

83. +1

[cheneyschernobyl]

73. Here's some interesting posts/whining from FR:

"Good now when can I marry my Poodle, she is one hot bish"

"The ruling will surely be overturned. An open and proud Judge should never have been given the case. It was unfair bias from the start."
-- I removed the slur against gay people

"You must have missed Marbury v Madison... about 1803"

" What an idiot. That's transparently false. It singles out no one. "Gays" can get married in California. They simply must marry someone of the opposite sex, like everyone does.
That they don't wish to do so is not a legal issue."

"Hope someone’s keeping the “official list”...It took decades to hunt down some of the Nazis after WWII."

"A gay man is free to marry a woman, just like a straight man. I don’t see the discrimination."

"It was reported on the radio this morning that the judge is a homosexual."

"What’s the difference between a California judge and a septic tank? The tank can be cleaned."

"Well dang! I can marry my horse now! Or my pig. The sky’s the limit!"

"So polygamy is a go as well? Why not a Man and 6 year old while we are at it!?"


Am I the only one who finds their dismay amusing?

:party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party:

:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

:fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

:yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock:

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Shining Jack]

75. "Am I the only one who finds their dismay amusing?"

Nope ! And it's interesting to note that some of them had sex with animals out of wedlock. :rofl:

"Well dang!I can marry my horse now! Or my pig.The sky’s the limit!" -Cletus

[jesus_of_suburbia]

77. I love that we both said "Nope" at the same time!

(well actually you were before me, but the celebration came within seconds)


:toast:




I'm just thrilled with this victory... I'm sure my father is mad as hell (and that always makes me happy).

[Shining Jack]

81. Cool !

:toast:

[Sparkly]

84. Yes, they jump instantly to bestiality and pedophilia.

The term "consenting adults" must be new to them. :shrug:

[HillbillyBob]

135. Nope, somewhere between schadenfreude and giggles here

nt

[jesus_of_suburbia]

76. "Am I the only one who finds their dismay amusing?"

(as someone whose family is full of Freeper types)

Nope!



And I love your celebration smilies!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

78. They obviously don't understand Marbury v. Madison.

That's been the law since 1803.

Case law can strike down statute law. Very simple.

When they like it, it's great. When they don't like it, it's back to spewing about "strict constructionists", "Original Intent of the Founders" and "activist judges".

[Chan790]

125. Actually, that one was in response to another Freep...

saying that courts will now have the power to overturn the will of the people.

I'm not going back to get the exact quote.

When I saw the M vs. M, 1803 response, I thought That's got to be a fellow DU infiltrator, no Freep is that insightful or well-learned in Const. Law.

[TheKentuckian]

82. Poor miserable fuckers. I've needed a dose of freeper tears

[backscatter712]

85. Mmmmm, sweet tears of unfathomable sadness!!!

[mzmolly]

88. :D

:toast:

[AsahinaKimi]

90. reading those freeper comments made

my teeth hurt. I now have a headache. But I am glad of the outcome of the ruling.

[uncommon]

112. Yeah, I read them too. It's really sad to know that we share the world with people so filled with

hatred.

[Vickers]

91. Thread Title of the Year!!!

:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:

[pinboy3niner]

93. +100

I want to see more thread titles like this!

:toast: :party: :toast: :woohoo:

[XanaDUer]

96. At the first link

one of the protect-marriagers over there put up a pic of a busty young woman,and they are making sexist remarks about her being a "toy"

Christ those people are psychotic.

[mikeytherat]

98. I think "psychotic" indicates at least a modicum of grey matter inside the skull.

Those folks are brain-stem only.

And they really should fall to their knees and thank Their Chosen God for autonomic reflexes - without them, I am certain they'd forget to breathe.

mikey_the_rat

[XanaDUer]

137. True that.

nt.

[uncommon]

116. Yeah that was awful - as if the hatred of gays weren't enough.

They have to hate on women too, just so no one gets left out.

[mikeytherat]

97. I suspect this morning's Fox News will be dour and sour. Heh, heh, heh.

Hey, Foxies - that taste in your mouth? Bitter defeat. Enjoy it.

Love conquers all - congrats to all my friends!

mikey_the_rat

[swimboy]

102. Heheheh!

Congratulations all round!

:cheers:

[mikeytherat]

109. Fox News has a sad.

And I have a happy!

Best back at ya, swimmy.

mikey_the_rat

[Xenotime]

104. More progressive forms of marriage need to be pursued now.

[elocs]

108. Before too much celebrating and "in your face" goes on, this is far from over.

A battle was won and not the war. As Yogi said, "It ain't over until its' over". I'd rather have the last laugh than the first.

[uncommon]

110. If you read the decision, it is quite

well done. If the appeals court wants to overturn it, they are going to have to really out themselves as bigots - on paper, without qualifiers.

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

They will have to prove that the state has a vested interest in discriminating against gay and lesbian couples.

[elocs]

111. I still hold with the game ain't over yet. I would rather wait until it is decisively final

and cannot be appealed.

[uncommon]

114. Of course --

I don't think anyone should let their guard down ever -- but this is still a really good thing.

[Deep13]

115. To summarize the conservative religious response...

We're entitled to get our own way! Waaaaaah!!!!

[Jefferson23]

118. Too funny, and from a Recovering Democrat no less, LOL:

To: cakid1
No one is surprised, right? The votes of the people mean NOTHING to the leftwing judges.

6 posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2010 4:56:58 PM by Recovering_Democrat




* The judge was first nominated by Ronald Reagan, then Bush1, ya gotta love it.

[XanaDUer]

139. The judge is a gay conservative,

Yup.

[Jefferson23]

141. Even sweeter for them now, lol. Thanks! n/t

[Chan790]

119. They seem so certain of SCOTUS "fixing this" for them.

I don't have the heart to tell them what even a GOP Cong. staffer I know acknowledged. This, if SCOTUS takes it, will go 6-3 against upholding Prop-8 most likely.

[Moostache]

134. Won't somebody support the Constitution*

*until I don't like something that the Constitution protects...you know, like that whole minority rights stuff!

I know that the average mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging bigot on the right has a hard time with vocabulary, but someone needs to give them a refresher on the difference between Constitutionally granted "rights" and Unconstitutional laws - that attempt to put to majority opinion the rights of a minority constituency.

The again, when living life in a fact-free bubble, no matter how many rational or sane explanations are provided, it will not reach those who harbor hate and fear as their main motivations in life.

[brewens]

136. Ok, now. Lets be good sports about this and not rub it in....

Oh hell. Make 'em eat shit!

[alp227]

143. typical "voters have more say than judges" BS and empty arguments like that

Look. Not everything can be voted on. Guess what? A majority of people are uninformed dimbulbs too! That's why majority vote can't decide minority civil rights. I've already had some friends on Facebook complain about this case with the same ol' same ol' "voters have more say than a judge" line passively without any compassion or consideration for the rights of gay couples. I mean really? Has Prop 8 really protected marriage? Have the Defense of Marriage Act or any of those anti-equality measures helped preserve the sanctity of good ol' heterosexual marriages? I think not. Look at all the divorces by homosexuals who tried and failed to get into a "traditional marriage". And then you have the usual short-lived celebrity marriages (one California celebrity Heidi Montag filed for divorce; her marriage lasted from Nov. 2008-this summer.) And then the usual cycle of dissatisfied husbands and wives and domestic violence. And homosexuality is seen as a big threat? Yes, of course there exists domestic violence and same relationship issues with gay couples as with straight couples! But doesn't it show that no matter what our sexual orientation we encounter many of the same tribulations and drama in our lives and can be good citizens?

The "what about the children" argument falls apart because of the numerous, NUMEROUS studies showing that gay parents can be just as effective as straight parents as well as the anecdotal tales of abusive hetero parents.

That tired old "polygamy and bestiality and crimes against nature" bollock argument can be easily disproven if you'd take a trip to Canada, France, any of the 5 American states already having SSM, or both Washington the DC and state.

I'll say this once and say it again:

Human rights should never depend on a majority citizen vote.

Have the gay rights groups ever written a proposition that sought to dissolve all straight marriages? NO.

Have the atheist groups ever written a proposition to make worship illegal? NO.

So why the hell do the Religious Right groups have to make coexistence with gays such a big freaking deal?

I can't believe that it's the 21st century and we still have to have a freaking DEBATE over whether gays should be able to get married. Every time I hear a soundbite on the news about "the judge overturned the people's vote" or "gays will harm society" I lose a brain cell.