Zeta-Flux Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Quick correction. The pdf doesn't say the motion to vacate was denied - that was already done in Ware's ruling. Rather, they will address Ware's ruling, and probably uphold it, although they clearly found fault with Walker's behavior in their previous ruling.
frankenstein Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 This is my perdiction, if the 9th upholds walker Scotia will hear the case if 9th overturns walker Scotia will not hear the case.
Daniel2 Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court has declared California's voter-approved Proposition 8 unconstitutional, NBC News is reporting.A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 Tuesday that a lower court judge interpreted the U.S. Constitution correctly in 2010 when he declared the ban, known as Proposition 8, to be a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.The ban passed with 52 percent of the vote in 2008 and outlawed same-sex unions just five months after they became legal in the state.Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors and for two couples who sued to overturn the ban have said they would appeal to the Supreme Court if they did not receive a favorable ruling.Check back for more details on this breaking news story.
Jeff K. Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Nothing unusual there, most overturned court in the country will have an opportunity to live up to its reputation.
Daniel2 Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 A bit more from the Associated Press:SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court on Tuesday declared California's same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track for likely consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.It was unclear when gay marriages might resume in California. Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors and for the two couples who successfully sued to overturn the ban have repeatedly said they would consider appealing to a larger panel of the court and then the U.S. Supreme Court if they did not receive a favorable ruling from the 9th Circuit."Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted," the ruling states.The panel also said there was no evidence that former Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker was biased and should have disclosed before he issued his decision that he was gay and in a long-term relationship with another man.The ruling came more than a year after the appeals court heard arguments in the case.
Daniel2 Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Nothing unusual there, most overturned court in the country will have an opportunity to live up to its reputation.I suppose it's not surprising that we disagree that there's "nothing unusual here." I find it quite extradordinary (and exciting!) that precident is gaining for marriage equality to finally on it's way to be federally mandated and recognized by the SCOTUS.Prop 8, though hard for many of us to experience and endure, may prove to be the catalyst for that joyful day to occur. On March 25, 1965, having completed the third march to Montgomery, the city that gave birth to the civil rights movement, :"I know you are asking today, "How long will it take?".... "I come to say to you this afternoon, however difficult the moment, however frustrating the hour, it will not be long, because truth crushed to earth will rise again."How long? Not long, because no lie can live forever. "How long? Not long, because you shall reap what you sow.... "How long? Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."Dr. King's words echothose of the 19th-century Unitarian minister Theodore Parker. In his 1853 sermon on "Justice and the Conscience," Parker declared:"I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways; I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice."Daniel2
Jeff K. Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 I suppose it's not surprising that we disagree that there's "nothing unusual here." I find it quite extradordinary (and exciting!) that precident is gaining for marriage equality to finally on it's way to be federally mandated and recognized by the SCOTUS.Prop 8, though hard for many of us to experience and endure, may prove to be the catalyst for that joyful day to occur. Daniel2Fake marriage is fake marriage. It is not unusual for people to want what they simply cannot have. So all the better to steal the meaning. Prop 8 may indeed be the catalyst in which the US Supreme Court refutes the idea that the will of a culture has a right to deny polygamy, pederasts, and gay couplings the idea that they can call any act marriage. I realize the gay community wants to redraw the map, and they will use intimidation where the law fails them, But they have no right to it, never did, no matter how much they threaten or intimidate or attack.Again, nothing unusual, a liberal court, overturned more times than any other has once again failed to adhere to the US Constitution. We can only hope the Supreme Court understands that better than the 9th which is itself problematic based on their record.To equate the struggle of Dr. Martin Luther King with the excesses of the gay community denigrates the struggle of Dr. King. Most African American pastors will tell you that. The gay community not only attempts to steal the definition of marriage, but also the definition of civil rights and the legacy of great men. More is the pity that the spoilt children of a decadent life style seek undermine society simply becasue they want what they cannot have.
Daniel2 Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 To equate the struggle of Dr. Martin Luther King with the excesses of the gay community denigrates the struggle of Dr. King. Most African American pastors will tell you that. The gay community not only attempts to steal the definition of marriage, but also the definition of civil rights and the legacy of great men. More is the pity that the spoilt children of a decadent life style seek undermine society simply becasue they want what they cannot have.Mrs. Coretta Scott King, wife and widow of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., disagrees with your objection to the similarities and comparrisson of her husband's struggle with equality for LGBT citizens, BC. I agree with her--and here are her own words on the matter:"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' ... I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."1"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."2"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny... I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting from her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy."3"Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida, and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions."4"We have a lot of work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say 'common struggle,' because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry & discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."5"We have to launch a campaign against homophobia in the black community."6"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group."7Coretta Scott King was the wife of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and a leader in the civil rights movement.http://www.soulforce.org/article/766Daniel2
Jeff K. Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 She may, she has her political reasons but we know the African American community does not appreciate the parody the gay community is making of its struggles. They were one of the strongest groups coming out in favor of Proposition 8, though the gay community chose to ignore them (nothing new there) in their attack upon the LDS church and its people.
Daniel2 Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 She may, she has her political reasons but we know the African American community does not appreciate the parody the gay community is making of its struggles. They were one of the strongest groups coming out in favor of Proposition 8, though the gay community chose to ignore them (nothing new there) in their attack upon the LDS church and its people.The "African American community" does not share a single political or religious belief system, and I find it telling that you would attempt to paint them all with the same viewpoint.It's certainly true that, in addition to many Latter-day Saints, many African Americans (especially those identifying themselves as religiously conservative) also attacked the civil marriage right of gay and lesbian Americans. The only group who's civil rights are being attacked are gays and lesbians. Though no one should put up with violence or threats, the vast majority of Latter-day Saints aren't facing such, but are merely facing opposition of their attack on LGBT civil rights. They are not the victims, here, Jeff.Daniel2
frankenstein Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Fake marriage is fake marriage. It is not unusual for people to want what they simply cannot have. So all the better to steal the meaning. Prop 8 may indeed be the catalyst in which the US Supreme Court refutes the idea that the will of a culture has a right to deny polygamy, pederasts, and gay couplings the idea that they can call any act marriage. I realize the gay community wants to redraw the map, and they will use intimidation where the law fails them, But they have no right to it, never did, no matter how much they threaten or intimidate or attack.And real marriage is only non-polygamist opposite gender marriage non-mixed race, as this is the history of traditional marriage in the United States.You know for a fact that same sex marriage was legal in Ca.You also know that there are current legally married ss couples who were legally married in Ca. And now you denying what you know. How does your standard for honesty comport with denying of things you know to be true?To equate the struggle of Dr. Martin Luther King with the excesses of the gay community denigrates the struggle of Dr. King. Most African American pastors will tell you that. The gay community not only attempts to steal the definition of marriage, but also the definition of civil rights and the legacy of great men. More is the pity that the spoilt children of a decadent life style seek undermine society simply becasue they want what they cannot have.But your struggle against ssm is just like the struggle of blacks and the civil rights movement.
Jeff K. Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Frankenstein:And real marriage is only non-polygamist opposite gender marriage non-mixed race, as this is the history of traditional marriage in the United States.You can infer racism if you wish, like Godwins it reflects a lack of argument and denigrates the African American struggle. Which is ironic given you use a tool which in effect undermines another groups efforts at racial equality. Which begs the question of how one could infer racism while using a racist position?
Jeff K. Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Jeff K., on 07 February 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:She may, she has her political reasons but we know the African American community does not appreciate the parody the gay community is making of its struggles. They were one of the strongest groups coming out in favor of Proposition 8, though the gay community chose to ignore them (nothing new there) in their attack upon the LDS church and its people.The "African American community" does not share a single political or religious belief system, and I find it telling that you would attempt to paint them all with the same viewpoint.It's certainly true that, in addition to many Latter-day Saints, many African Americans (especially those identifying themselves as religiously conservative) also attacked the civil marriage right of gay and lesbian Americans. The only group who's civil rights are being attacked are gays and lesbians. Though no one should put up with violence or threats, the vast majority of Latter-day Saints aren't facing such, but are merely facing opposition of their attack on LGBT civil rights. They are not the victims, here, Jeff.Daniel2Less than honest or accurate. The term you should use Daniel is "MOST" African Americans, not merely many. Another attempt to minimize the African American community and its disagreement with your groups attempt to undermine their struggles? You cannot attack what does not exist, unions were accepted in the state of CA, unfortunately, that is not enough, they want to undermine the term marriage to mean the somewhat questionable coupling of groups that have yet to prove they believe in marriage or its sanctity (the gay community does not believe in the sanctity of marriage in any sense of the word, we all know how they take "breaks" from their marriage on special nights, it is common knowledge in those areas with a large gay and lesbian population). It is something that you and your community are at pains to avoid discussing because it will reflect just how far the group is from the norm of seeking a permanent relationship.It is really simply a jealousy of a small group using African American sacrifices in order to cover their own lack of morality. The victims are society and marriage, not some spoiled gay and lesbians who want what is not theirs.
Jeff K. Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 QuoteTo equate the struggle of Dr. Martin Luther King with the excesses of the gay community denigrates the struggle of Dr. King. Most African American pastors will tell you that. The gay community not only attempts to steal the definition of marriage, but also the definition of civil rights and the legacy of great men. More is the pity that the spoilt children of a decadent life style seek undermine society simply becasue they want what they cannot have.But your struggle against ssm is just like the struggle of blacks and the civil rights movement.No, you can infer that if you will. I just find it distasteful that people who did sacrifice for a good cause, being racial equality are having their struggle hijacked by people who really have no other object but to take marriage and change its definition to something it isn't. Your claim to victimhood is as false as the position of gay men and women in regards to marriage. You don't have a marriage, it is merely another exercise in sex under a different guise. For those who willingly gave up their families in order to couple with other men, who destroy their marriages in order to claim they want marriage, this in effect makes a mockery of the position you hold.Wouldn't you agree?Simple as that.
frankenstein Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Frankenstein: You can infer racism if you wish, like Godwins it reflects a lack of argument and denigrates the African American struggle. Which is ironic given you use a tool which in effect undermines another groups efforts at racial equality. Which begs the question of how one could infer racism while using a racist position?I was simply setting forth the historical standard for marriage in the united states.My response was to establish was a real marriage is so that it can be distinguished from a fake marriage.If you want evade the issue of whether or not ssm was a legal right for all California citizens, you can continue to evade that prop 8 took away the legal right to ssm; just remember though what your personal conviction is about being evasive.
Jeff K. Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 I was simply setting forth the historical standard for racial history.My resonse was to establish how one can hijack a struggle for their own use.Your atempt to evade the issue and use racial imagery to denigrate a group that disagrees with you is a problem you will have to deal with on your own.
frankenstein Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 I was simply setting forth the historical standard for racial history.My resonse was to establish how one can hijack a struggle for their own use.Your atempt to evade the issue and use racial imagery to denigrate a group that disagrees with you is a problem you will have to deal with on your own.It is good know that according to you, by application of your reasoning, that elder oaks use of racial imagery is godwins law violation. and that it shows a lack of argument on his part.ou are the one you denigrates, you insult, ridicule, falsely accuse almost all those who do not agree with you.Jeffk simply question, it is a yes or no question:At any time in the history of California, was ssm legal?Can you answer that and not be dishonest or in your words be evasive?And as for my position, because I do not trumpet your every post and sometimes hatefilled commentary, you assume my position. I provided my position long ok when usu78 asked, you can go search for it if you like. In discussions involving ssm or homosexuals I have advocated for people to be truthful. For instance, I asked you several times to prove that mormons lost their jobs due to prop 8, all you could show is that two mormons willingly resigned their posts, and that one of those Mormon actually did an about face and donated money unfavorable of ssm. When lds here have made dishonest claims about homosexuals I have repeatedly provided the honest inconvenient facts. And because I do not keep silent when others are by your standard dishonest, you assume to know my position on a given subject.
california boy Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 It is good know that according to you, by application of your reasoning, that elder oaks use of racial imagery is godwins law violation. and that it shows a lack of argument on his part. ou are the one you denigrates, you insult, ridicule, falsely accuse almost all those who do not agree with you. Jeffk simply question, it is a yes or no question: At any time in the history of California, was ssm legal? Can you answer that and not be dishonest or in your words be evasive?Jeff is not very good at backing up what he says with actual facts. He likes making statements that are false and when asked for CFR he ignores them to the point a moderator tells him to answer the CFR. Then he says he was telling the truth but doesn't want to be bothered to support his claims. It is now day 10. Still waiting for Jeff's CFR. We have heard a lot of excuses, but still not a single post that I have EVER done what you claim was common. You may think it is not important, but when anyone makes slanderous statements about me, then it is important to me. I will continue to post what you need to respond to until I get a complete apology from you admitting your erronous statement you made about me.This is your statement you made about me.Quotewe also know you disdain and hate the church for its existence, you have often issued diatribes calling the church, its doctrines, and its prophets evil, terrible people.And this was my call for a CFRQuoteI have NEVER felt that way about the church. In fact I have often stated on this very form that I have no problem with the church. I encourage those that find faith and strength in the church to stay active and involved. And If you are directing that comment to me I CERTAINLY WANT A CFR ON THAT POINT. If not, you are BOUND by the rules of this board to issue an apology. I have posted 1,129 times. So you got a lot of posts you can use. So start digging or APOLOGIZE.You have been provided a link on how to search my posts. You have still yet to provide ANY evidence that I have ever made such comments about the Mormon church or it's leaders. Jeff, I am not going to let this go. In fact, I am going to post statements I HAVE made about the Mormon church and it's leaders using the same search function that was provided to you. This is from a post I made on December 15, 2011QuoteDespite how others try to paint me as, I respect the Mormon church. I encourage my children to remain active in the church. And you will not be able to find any post I have ever written to discourage anyone from being a Mormon. Of course you will find many posts by me where I disagree with the actions of the church. I don't think the church leaders KNOW the will of God. I think they decide most things by committee. And I have to say, I seem to be more disappointed when I feel the church is being deceptive then I did when I was more active in the church.Now does that sound like someone who has "often issued diatribes calling the church, its doctrines, and its prophets evil, terrible people" Jeff, I am not going to let this CFR go like so many I have asked from you. I am going to post a demand for a CFR from you each day on this thread until you APOLOGIZE and acknowledge that you falsely characterized me, my beliefs, and my behavior. This is day two. The longer you do not respond the more it tarnishes your own integrity and truthfulness. It reflects an attitude you have towards me and other posters that you have made similar smear statements against. Step up to the plate Jeff. We are all waiting.Another post for you to read I found from the search engine you were provided to locate my posts. I actually started this thread. I posted this comment on December 22QuoteAmerican Idol runner-up David Archuleta broke down in tears as he revealed his plans to take a break from his singing career to serve a two-year proselytizing mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[/Here is the linkhttp://www.dailymail...o=feeds-newsxmlI congratulate him for making this courageous decision. It must be tough to risk loosing his budding musical career. But his conviction and faith in the church compels him to do what other famous entertainers and sports figures have chosen not to do. So two big thumbs up to him.Now does that post sound like it is coming from someone"we also know you disdain and hate the church for its existence, you have often issued diatribes calling the church, its doctrines, and its prophets evil, terrible people"OK Jeff. we are still waiting. You are on.
Jeff K. Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 Sigh, you mean the woman who had to leave the restaurant in Palm Desert because of the protests against her? She lost her job, and she was a member. Spin the way you want, we understand that is what you will do.You called it "willingly resigning their posts". That alone speaks to your level of honest context. Enough said there.
Jeff K. Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 I stand by my position regarding what I have said and I cannot change the perception I have regarding anti Mormons, even the ones that claim they support the church while denigrating it. The two of you have made the thread about me, I didn't realize I had that much power over your lives.
Jeff K. Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 The Church's Stance on the ruling:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued the following statement today regarding the decision on Proposition 8 by a federal appeals court in California:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regrets today’s decision. California voters have twice determined in a general election that marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a woman. We have always had that view. Courts should not alter that definition, especially when the people of California have spoken so clearly on the subject.Millions of voters in California sent a message that traditional marriage is crucial to society. They expressed their desire, through the democratic process, to keep traditional marriage as the bedrock of society, as it has been for generations.We recognize that this decision represents a continuation of what has been a vigorous public debate over the rights of the people to define and protect the fundamental institution of marriage. There is no doubt that today’s ruling will intensify the debate in this country. We urge people on all sides of this issue to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different opinion.http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-issues-statement-appeals-court-prop-8-ruling
frankenstein Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 So are you now admitting that those two lds people resigned, a phrase you were unwilling to use previously?And Jeff did you read the last sentence of the church press release?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.