9th Circuit Court of Appeals Successfully Petitioned to Re-hear Prop. 8 Ruling

Yet you are responding

 

I looked for the OP article by googling and it was difficult to find. By happy coincidence I stumbled upon a newspaper clipping in some packing material of a parcel I'd just received and found the article printed on it, then googled that specific newspaper and found it. Even still the article was on the backside of an inner leaf of that newspaper.

I wonder why this isn't making the MSM cover pages? It sure did when it was a "win" [they thought] for gay-advocates when the tiny 9th circuit group upheld a minority's ability to usurp millions of CA voters previously. Prop 8 still stands firm. That's big news! But not a word you hear about it? Odd...seems to me like gay-advocates should be boiling mad and harping all over it. But instead you hear a calculated silence. It's as if their strategy is to just not talk about their real and stinging defeats...in case they might catch on and become a trend nationwide. "Fake it till you make it". I've heard that strategy before and it often works. But not this time...

 

It's just standard appeals procedure. There's no need to go all "daytime soap opera" about it.

The 9th may not even agree to hear it "en banc" if they look at the case and consider the merits as discussed to date. In fact the dissenting opinion was so weak that I think they will have a tough time deciding if there's enough substance in there to warrant a re-hearing if that's all they have to hang on to. That's an awful lot of resources to waste if the outcome's more than reasonably predictable.

 

A non-gay man ALSO cannot marry another man; an non-gay woman cannot marry another woman.

A dog lover cannot marry his/her collie, regardless of gender.

Same rules for everyone.

You lose again...per usual. There is no Constitutional right to be gay, or married.

 

For the same reason insane asylums have those tiny windows on the doors. You peek in every now and then just to see what the inmates are up to. Then you're reminded why they are there.

 

Sadly for you and Silhouette, who constantly repeat this quote, it DOES NOT SAY what you SAY it says! But there is nothing new about the misuse of credible sources for homophobia bigoted propaganda goals.

Its DESCRIBING particular pedophiles who abuse same sex children, it is in NO WAY saying there is MORE of them!



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIP6EwqMEoE"]This does not mean what you think it means![/ame]

 

It sayas EXACTLY THAT, and your attempts to pretend it doesn't to convince those, who like yourself, HAVE NOT EVEN READ IT, are typical LEftninny Bullcrap, which is the culture of the factually ignorant.

It means EXACTLY what it says:

http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf


Learn to comprehend what you read...

 

40 years ago, who knows what those patients were doing?

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj3VphK9AMk"]Not that there's anything wrong with that - YouTube[/ame]

 

What it says is THIS:

It doesn't say there are MORE of them, it doesn't say anyone is more likely TO ABUSE...

It doesn't say ANYTHING the two of you have claimed it said.

No matter HOW BIG you make the words!

 

The sick cruelty of the Right Wing view of how the punished ALWAYS DESERVED to be punished!

ANYONE who was locked up in the old style insane asylums BECAME crazy, regardless of their state when they were committed.

Between the rape, abuse, cruelty, isolation, the other inmates and decades of isolation, NOBODY who went in stayed sane.

But plenty of people like Texmaster constantly peered in the little windows to gloat and pat themselves on the back for their fine "discernment" of catching anyone who was "different" and thus a "danger" to "decent society".

 

Yea! Young girls who got pregnant out of wedlock were often interned for such "mental illness" back in the era of "moral" medicine.

 

You blatant omission of the ENTIRE QUOTE doesn't change what it says:

It most certainly DOES state who is MORE LIKELY TO ABUSE.

 

marriage was delcared a basic civil right in loving v virginia. So yea, it's a right.

 

Not in the context of gay marriage (which was never considered in Loving v Virginia). Let's be honest.

 

No, I'm pretty sure it's HUGE news. Gays claimed the 9th decision as an important victory. It was everywhere in the news. I could barely find a hit on this. It's being buried on purpose.

And it ain't that nobody cares about it. It's one of the most talked-about social issues of our day. Especially now that the Harvey Milk thing is out of the bag. One thing I remember living near DC, people always talked about Calfornia like it was some sort of sideshow at the circus a person would go to see out of morbid curiosity. It's something you marvel at but would never copy, not if you're sane. It really is like a fascist state. The Dead Kennedys did a song about it:

It's kinda funny how Jerry Brown is governor again and this song's sci-fi "absurd" predictions are a little too close for comfort. Just insert "your kids will worship Harvey Milk in school" where "your kids will meditate in school" is.

 

LOL Exactly what does that have to do with what I said?

The voice of experience.

Not to gloat, just to laugh at people so stupid they take an analogy and pretend its something that the person would actually do in real life.

 

irrelevant. rights can't be denied based on race, religion or GENDER. the gender part is where the violation occurs.

 

On what planet did you link my analogy to a real life belief? Try actually reading next time.

 

Nope. Because gender is a noun that describes the reproductive organs a person was born with. You're confusing that with the VERB of sexual behavior. The Constitution protects a person's actual gender, ie the organs they were born with, not what they do with them.. Note the difference.

Rest assured the difference will be pointed out at the case marches up to the Supreme Court..

 

wrong again. Both genders can marry.

This is sexual preference. Nice try.

 

There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage...As long as the devotes of the idea use the courts and not the legislature to force these schemes on the public, any success will be as popular as Roe proved to be.

The argument also fails on the "1400 'rights'". As the court noted, those 'rights' were already provided under California law. All that was not was the use of the word 'married' and that is not something the Feds can pretend to have the power to apply. Marriage is Marriage...it is like 'fair'..what it means is in the eyes of the beholder and no amount of government redefining of the term changes what it means to the individual.

 

You do realize the number...'1400' is simply made up. I suspect the actual number is a few score legal differences that matter...and that also exist in most of the gay laws already on the books.

 

Nope! The only two avenues for further appeal were this or direct to the USSC. As the ruling was so narrowly tailored to CA the defendants probably didn't want to risk that the USSC would decline to hear the case. This would bring an end to their litigation sooner rather than later and we all know how much lawyers enjoy being paid as much and for as long as possible.

There's every chance the 9th will decline to hear "en banc" in which case it's USSC or give up.

 

you're under the mistaken impression that homosexuality or heterosexuality is a behavior.

 

nope. marriage is restricted based on the gender of the couple. just like marriage used to be restricted based on the race of the couple.