Appeals court rules Prop 8 unconstitutional, case now likely to go to SCOTUS.

[The Field Marshal]

Is that code or something?

It probably is to you who sees it as somehow "normal' for one man to insert his penis into another mans rectum.

[Hooch]

Santorum and Romney have naturally slammed the ruling. I await the hilarious hypocrisy of Gingrich defending the sanctity of marriage.

[Chrisco]

It probably is to you who sees it as somehow "normal' for one man to insert his penis into another mans rectum.

What's your stance on blowjobs?

If the gays just give each other head, is that ok?

[TropicalCandy]

Nothing is being "crushed" or .. "rammed down citizens throats" - an unfortunatate turn of phrase. They wanted to clarify that marriage is between a man and a woman is all. The individuals rights to do as he pleases is limited by what the society decide is permissable.

Thats not the way a constitutional republic is supposed to work, at all.
Generally, if ones actions are not causing harm or disrupting the corrisponding rights of another, then the state does not ban it, or people don't like that it does.

Their right to freely associate with whom they want and in the manner they see fit is being crushed, because a dominant group of people want to ram their religion down the throats of their fellow citizens by using the power of the state to invade their personal lives.

I often wonder how these people think history will see them, do they think history will remember someone who crusaded against personal feedom and civil rights fondly? Do they not worry they'll end up going down with jim Crow?

[Roll_On]

It probably is to you who sees it as somehow "normal' for one man to insert his penis into another mans rectum.

It's quite a common male-male sexual act these days. I am aware you used the word "normal" rather than "common". Whether or not anal sex is "normal"...... well that's just a silly question isn't it. Dividing sexual activities into categories of "normal" and "abnormal" would be an excessively subjective exorcise with no end goal.

Also, I notice that while most posters would refer to such acts as "anal sex" you have described it in far more mouth watering detail:
"one man to insert his penis into another mans rectum" is this to insight some sort of imagery? Do you believe that this insights disgust, hatred, arousal, any other emotion?

I await your reply.

[Hooch]

SCOTUS might not hear the case according to one legal eagle.

Ninth Circuit Decision Keeps the Focus on California « NCLR Blog: Out for Justice

Given the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit’s decision and its focus on the specific circumstances that led to the enactment of Prop 8 in California, it may be a tall order for the supporters of Prop 8 to persuade the Supreme Court to take the case. The Supreme Court normally only accepts cases when different federal appellate courts have reached opposite conclusions on the same legal issues, or where a decision has broad national implications. The Ninth Circuit’s California-focused decision presents neither of those circumstances. Unless the Supreme Court breaks with its own tradition and intervenes in the case, it’s possible that wedding bells will be ringing in California again before the end of the year.

[NYCKY]

Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that banned new same-sex marriages in California from 2008 onwards, was ruled unconstitutional by a district court in August 2010 by Judge Vaughn Walker.

Today his decision was upheld by a federal appeals court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us...s.html?_r=1&hp



The full ruling is on Scribd, Ninth Circuit Prop. 8 decision.

The court also rejected an attempt to have Walker's ruling struck down on the grounds that he himself is gay.

A stay has been put in place that means that marriages won't resume until the case is ruled on by the Supreme Court where it is now sure to proceed.

If I am not mistaken I understand that this district of the federal appeals court is the most reversed of all the federal appeals court by the US Supreme court. It's definitely one of the California courts that is the most reversed ( I am not 100% certain that it is this one).

That said, in this case I hope the Supreme Court do not reverse this decision.


As another poster pointed out, Kagan was put on the bench as it was felt that she had the intellectual gravitas to sway the swing voter Kennedy to more liberal decisions. Sotomayer never had the gravitas for this, she was put there as only the third female but the first Latino and her elevation added greatly to the diversity of the Supreme Court.

I am no fan of Kagan but in this case I hope she can persuade Kennedy not to overturn the verdict of the lower court. Gay marriage is a civil right and in surprising twist California would be following NY on this rather than leading.

[NYCKY]

It probably is to you who sees it as somehow "normal' for one man to insert his penis into another mans rectum.

It is also more common than you realize for men to insert their penis into a womens rectum! Sorry if I am the one that is breaking that news to you.

[NYCKY]

As an aside, there is a 78 year old, two 75 year olds and a 73 year old on SCOTUS. The next President could have a couple of picks and they could be very influential, given Roberts, Alito, Soto and Kagen will be around for a long time.

These is always speculation on the age of the Justices on the Supreme Court and this won't change with a new President or a new Obama term.

Bush Jr and Clinton both got two nominees on the court over their respective 8 years but Reagan got four nominees on over his 8 years. Nixon got four nominees in his 6 years and even Ford got one nominee on in his two plus years as President. Bush Snr got two nominees on his one term. Most Presidents get 1 or 2 on the Supreme Court regardless of their tenure and Obama already has two nominees on in three years.

Carter, perhaps the unluckiest of all, got no vacancy in one full term which I believe is the only time that ever happened.