It's good news?

Good news would have been an expedited appeal while they let millions of Californians get married and enter into binding contracts across America.

But, hey, call it good news - provided you're already married.
Motherfuckers! Just who is presumed to have standing to appeal, since Brown and Schwarzenegger won't?
No matter how bad Vaughn wanted chaos, it won't be happening on Wednesday. Once The 9th has actually exercise some normal reasoning, for the time being. This wont be resolved till it goes before the Supremes.

1 biased judge imposing his ideology on 7 million voters, not in this nation, not if we are to be a Democratic Republic.
What bullshit!

I'm going to vent my anger by phone banking for Stan Rumbaugh for Supreme Court tonight. 5:30 - 8:30

Oh and I voted for Rumbaugh today. Ballots are due tomorrow. Send your ballot in today and phone bank for Rumbaugh tonight.

Equal Rights Washington

1402 3rd Avenue
Suite 201
Seatle, WA 98101…
That is very nice, Loveschild. That is very, very nice.
Have fun jus! I phonebanked last week for ERW and have to remember to drop my own dang ballot in the mail tomorrow morning (oops).
Yes it is kim, for those of us who actually respect the voting process and Democracy, it is.
Bullshit, LC-bot. From the mighty Walker wrapup:
Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.
@3 Loveschild, I have a feeling if it goes before the Supremes, they'll definitely be in favour of same-sex marriage, I mean, Diana Ross would never let the gays down.
Fuck this noise.
That is nice, Loveschild @7. That is very, very nice dear.
You may view it as unfortunate, LC, but in the United States you can't vote to take away a right granted by the Constitution. That's just the way the law works.

Here's an exercise for you: If California voters passed a referendum saying that no more mosques can be built in CA, do you think the voter's choice should stand? Or do you think the freedom of religion granted by the Constitution should prevail, and the votes be nullified?

I know this comment won't make you happy, but I was just imagining how great it would be for dudes if they also banned straight marriage.

Imagine if a guy could get all he wanted and not have to "put a ring on it" after the required trial period was over.

Ok, I said it, now I'll shut up.
@12 There is no Constitutional right for gay 'marriage', there is however something called the First Amendment.

Have a great night.
@14, We live in a representative democracy, and you may have First Amendment freedom of speech but that doesn't mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater, as the saying goes. Freedom's are limited in so far as to protect the rights of the minority. You really should read the Federalist Papers sometime.

Oh don't mind Loveschild. She refuses to get her syphilis treated, and it's starting to effect her mind. Between that and the booze, she's pretty far off the charts.

To inject a little "happy" into the bottom-dwelling murkage that is Loveschild's brain, there is a story on CNN announcing Neil Patrick Harris and his boyfriend's impending arrival of twins via surrogate, and the following from the "comment" section:

"I fully support two loving people choosing to have children. Our world would be a much better place if children were limited to loving parents who both wanted them and could provide for their needs. Having a child for selfish reasons such as carrying on a family line or wanting the unconditional love of someone puts an undue pressure for a child to provide for the parent's needs instead of the other way round. I have seen too many unwanted, uncared for, abused, and abandoned children to be anything less than estatic about these two wanted children! Congratulations, Neil and David."
@ Cato,

Reading comprehension is a required skill.
Although it sucks balls that California gays can't tie the knot right away - this is probably for the best in the long term. The big scary gay marriage question needs to be answered on a federal level.
(Canuck, not to be too specific with LC watching, but...did you see MIchael K's take on the expression David wore in the photo of him and NPH that illustrated his story on it? I thought that was EXACTLY what his smile looked like! And NPH's expression is like, "mmm-hmm." Or is it just me?)
@14 - there's also the 14th amendment, which says no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. If gay couples can't marry, they are not getting the equal protection that marriage provides. Seems pretty simple. LC, you should have been praying for no appeal.

Now I hope for a defamation of character suit against the Protect Marriage folks, since their literature portrayed gay men and lesbians as a danger to children, despite all evidence to the contrary.
First of all, the H8ters have no case and no standing to appeal, and their lawyer's performance at the trial was a career-ending, humiliating embarrassment, especially the part where he told Judge Walker that he didn't have any evidence and didn't need to produce any. Totally beyond pathetic.

Secondly, I've yet to read any of the H8-crazed morans actually address the legal issues in the case or the judge's ruling. Again, truly pathetic.

Lastly, despite all that, I expect they could hand in their kids' kindergarten crayola scribblings and win big in the appeals court and the Supreme Court. Our legal "system" is a total sham that produces unreliable, unjust and unpredictable results with alarming regularity, and our nation's hypocritcally stated "values" are all a pack of lies. Fuck them all.
Oh yeah...very apt description, Gus! And NPH, for sure, is just confirming, "yeah, that's right, he really IS that cute...everywhere" Although, maybe it would be a good thing to introduce LC to these educational sites, she might just blow a gasket that much sooner...."caption of the day" contest, perhaps??
Good luck, Canuck. But, someone so horrified by the proclivities of gays wouldn't hang around here drinking the sweet, often caustic candy that is Slog if it was not meeting a need for them. Just sayin'.
You can't stop it, you can only slow it down. Marriage equality for gays and lesbians will be a reality. It is only a matter of time.

Resistance is futile.

(but in this case, that's a good thing)
Kim's right I'm sure, Canuck. Plus it's always fun to toss in celebrity news (especially on this, Madonna's 52nd birthday).

Neil Patrick Harris and his partner David Burtka found out their surrogate will be bearing them twins, a boy and a girl, due in the fall. May they be free to marry before the kids are potty trained.
@ 18 - Damn, Kim! I don't think I've seen a zinger like that from you before. Well done.
@24 That's true, Kim. As much as I know I should, just to know the full extent of "the crazy," I can't make myself watch Fox News, for instance. The fact that she's right there with the comments as soon as any LGBT issue pops up means she's reading everything, and unless she's a masochist, she's enjoying it on some level...(Loveschild, you naughty, naughty girl!)
Aw, Gus, cute picture!
@7 - Will you be just as happy when we vote on your rights?
@21 has it... this is NOT about gay marriage - it is about and should be about the "egual protection of the law." Marriage is something granted by law, by statute, and if the law grants it to some people... well... unless there's a compelling state interest in not granting the legal privilege to everyone, then everyone it is. Though part of the argument is that the Supreme Court long ago decided there was a "right to marriage" in the Constitution that really is tangential (If I were arguing the matter) to the simple and pure argument that it fails totally and completely on equal protection grounds. Period. If you look at Kennedy's opinions in Romer v. Colorado as well as Lawrence v. Texas, Kennedy essentially went straight past everything else to the 14th. That is where "victory," as well as justice lies.
the default should be that the marriages can go forth right now, not this wait and see posture that has been proven detrimental to civil rights & has kept so many from real equality.
I wonder how the right-of-center "liberals" and the extreme-far-right "conservatives" will vote when this comes before the activist US Supreme Court?

Guess it depends on what the Pope says, since most of them are Catholic. Unlike the rest of America.
@31 That's true, just as Obama reminded people that the mosque in NYC should be built because everyone is guaranteed religious freedom, denying any person the right to marry should fall under the heading of human rights for all citizens. Or, as our Prime Minister said in 2005:
"I rise in support of a Canada in which liberties are safeguarded, rights are protected and the people of this land are treated as equals under the law.
The second argument ventured by opponents of the bill (the same-sex marriage bill) is that government ought to hold a national referendum on this issue. I reject this - not out of a disregard for the view of the people, but because it offends the very purpose of the Charter. The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority."

C'mon, US, nut up and do it.
everybody has a right to get married. gays are being denied the freedom to exercise their right to be married based on the gender of the person they intend to marry. that's the real issue. it's not about giving gays a right they don't currently have, but they think they have a right to take an existing right away from others. they're wrong.

they have not been able to provide any concrete evidence of harm, which was the basis for their whole argument.

it will not stand before the supreme court. it simply can't be denied that it is unconstitutional on these grounds.
@35 - you write "it's not about giving gays a right they don't currently have, but they think they have a right to take an existing right away from others."

What right are gays wanting to take away from others?
@36 - no no no not the gays!! sorry if i wasn't clear. i'm totally on the pro-gay side of the argument, 100%.

too many fucking pronouns. i apologize, most sincerely.
@37 I thought what you said was clear enough. "They" in your comment was the anti-gay-marriage crew, throughout.
Thanks @35/37 -- it didn't seem to make sense as it stood, but we've seen how making sense is not a requirement for some posters...
i would hate to be misunderstood on this issue - glad we got it cleared up :-)
@3: There's a reason we have judges, and that reason is not to give the citizenry a gaggle of sycophantic yes-men.
And reasoning like yours is what people used to justify anti-miscegenation laws; people voted them in, judges struck them down. Just keep whistling Dixie, Loveschild.
Just read an article on, how some Evangelicals are hoping this doesn't get appealed all the way to the SCOTUS, because if it does, it could very well invalidate all the other states that have amendments against same-sex marriage.

Basically, they're willing to sacrifice California to keep this out of the SCOTUS and possibly making same-sex marriage legal, nationwide.

Here's the link to their story:…
Sorry - @42 should be, not .com.
I partially agree with @22 in the point made about the lawyers that were supposedly defending the voters of California. That their performance was poorly executed is an understatement. We might as well have hired Lambda or Nambla lawyers to get equally screwed. Here's to hoping that whatever moles are sabotaging our defense and misusing our donations are promptly identified and removed.

@28 Far from masochism, more to do with vigilance. For too long those of us who respect family structure and traditions have ceded made up rights to those who want to infringe on ours.

It happen in DC, in MA, CT all by way of activism, always by denying the people the right to vote, just like it has been done in the past. That will no longer be the case, we wont let those who want to do away with basic human institutions that have been present on all societies thru millennia just do away with them and redefine them.

As it stands, homosexuals are granted ALL THE BENEFITS AFFORDED TO MARRIED PERSONS IN CALIFORNIA, but that's not what self identified homosexuals want. No, what they really seek is for societal approval of their 'unions', and for others (who do not want to do so) to see them as marriage. Problem is the people of California made it very clear thru the democratic process that they do not want that.
Loveschild - you do realise that brown v board was very very unpopular with the people. It used the exact same reasoning - the 14th amendment. And the pro segregation side acted just like the anti gay crowd is now. They screamed and cried. Larry Byrd straight up shut down schools because he didn't want desegregated schools.

Next example that supports this - Loving V Virginia allowed mixed race couples. The anti marriage groups pulled the same bullshit. Here is a quote from one of the anti marriage folks - "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." Sounds like the same bullshit "Gays are unnatural! They can't be allowed to marry!"

The reason we have the sort of political system we have is to protect the minority from the majority while still having a democracy. The majority can not vote away the rights of the minority.

Again - The courts exist to protect the minority from the majority.

I'm not sure why I even try, I doubt you will read or understand any of this because you fail to understand basic concepts.
Oh that's nice. That's very, very nice, Loveschild @ 44. The poor, poor persecuted majority can't have laws tailored to their personal wants. Equality will win in the end, the journey maybe long, but your efforts are wasted ones. To quote an attorney friend of mine.

"...on the one hand, there's not only no right to gay marriage in the constitution, there's no right to marriage at all.

On the other hand, marriage has become so inextricably entwined in every aspect of our government that it absolutely creates a "wrong" to deny it to someone.

But there's no undoing what's already been done, and the only thing that makes any sense at all at this point is to make it available to everyone."

@45 tigntink, ethnicity and skin color is not something you do, it's not a behavior is not a 'relationship'. Polygamy, homosexuality, incest and so on are because they're something that a human being chooses to act upon or not. gay 'marriage' therefor as something you do and not something you are cannot be realistically equated to race and no serious unbiased judge (unlike Vaughn) can make a reasonable argument that such could fall under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because if they do then they must also make way for all the other aforementioned behaviors and the true intention of the Fourteenth Amendment (go read it ) would be lost.
Dearest Loveschild @47,

When you find the courage to come in person to Slog Happy and allow your testimony to be filmed; sharing with us all your long struggle with overcoming your "homosexual behaviors" and how you once and for all chose to be heterosexual, then, and only then, may you spout your "facts" that being "homosexual" is a choice. Until, you find such courage you are only a bigot with an opinion that the rest of can pity.

By the way, I'll come and hold your hand while you give your testimony. But, we both know that is not going to happen, because you don't know why your heterosexual, you only know that you want to greedly keep the law unequal so that it benefits your inflated opinion of yourself. And, we all know what they say about opinions, don't we.
Does anyone else notice that Loveschild's "voice" changes quite a bit from comment to comment? Sometimes she sounds like a spelling and grammar challenged 5 year old, other times, like today, her sentence structure doesn't suck (although the content does.) Perhaps Loveschild is actually a bible group of some sort, each taking the helm from time to time?
Why do I bother. You completely missed the point. The tyranny of the majority concept went right over your head.

Hold on, . By your logic, religion is a choice, so we should be able to keep people who follow a specific religion from having a basic civil right (which marriage is according to loving v virginia) just because of their religion. This is by your logic. Following a specific religion is a behavior. A person chooses to follow a religion.

Oh and here is a part of what the 14th amendment says - because you apparently haven't read it. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law"

Canuck, the best thinking on that topic is that LC consists of a group of wicked grad students doing a study of the effects of concern trolling sockpuppetry on human-rights threads.

@50 The First Amendment covers religion. Concerning the Fourteenth, which was created to protect the rights of the then newly freed slaves ( nothing to do with behavior and gay 'marriage'), where are self-identified homosexuals being deprived of life, liberty ( to do as they wish and engage in the behavior that they want to), and property in California ? In fact, and it bears repeating it, SAME SEX PAIRINGS RECEIVE ALL THE BENEFITS AFFORDED TO MARRIED PERSONS IN CALIFORNIA.

What's at question is whether self-identified gays should be exempt from following the rules that the rest of us in American society have to follow when it comes to time honored instituions followed by all races and demographics throughout our nation.
@ Loveschild

Answer me this - If a person's choice of religion is protected then why shouldn't a person's choice of sexual orientation be protected?

If you are going to call sexual orientation a choice it is only fair to directly compare it to something else that is a choice.

I personally don't care whether it is biological or a choice because any adult should be able to marry any consenting adult.

Also the benefits aren't exactly the same. It wouldn't even be fair to call it separate but equal because they aren't even equal.
@52: Under the law, they receive the same benefits, eh?
Okay, let's go back to "separate-but-equal" then, since that worked so nicely.
Remember, you idiot: everyone's guaranteed "the EQUAL protection of the law", not "the EQUIVALENT protection of the law". (Caps mine.)
Bitch, please.
Kim @48,

That is one of the greatest comments I've ever read on slog! Thank you!
Gaaa, Gus, she is making my brain hurt! You may be right, as I doubt a troll with a room-temperature IQ could so effectively turn arguments around, ignore facts, and say things that make me want to bang my head against the wall. Farking grad students, leave us out of your research paper!

And what does she even mean by gays not following the "rules" that "the rest of Americans" follow? How does anyone know what another person's wedding vows were?
........make it stooooooop!!!!
@53 Even tho there are no absolutes, even when it comes to religion, for example, if some satanic worshipers want to claim that theirs is a 'religion' and that they need to perform human sacrifice, that would not be protected under the 1st. Our nation was founded in part by a group of people either fleeing from or familiar with what the governmental sanctioned religion in European monarchies meant. As such they did not want to see one sole branch of Christianity as the official religion here but that all where freely practiced without the fear of persecution that was prevalent in europe. That has nothing to do with behavioral practices that have not and are not observed collectively by our society and which as I previously mentioned if one where to be regulated then others have would also be. Because if there's is to be a 'right' for gay 'marriage' then there is no basis to deny incestuous marriage or polygamy between adults.

Concerning the benefits afforded to same sex pairings in California, they're exactly the same, but for the title of marriage, they're basically the same. Which makes it perfectly clear that these are not people lacking anything, in fact many even without all the benefits currently afforded to them can get by thru life more easily than married couples in California due to their affluence. So what they're really going after is the name and the societal connotations that such entail, even when the people of California, many of whom are less financially well-off than they're, have peacefully told them resoundingly and repeatedly, no.

@57 Ah, Loveschild, nice try. Trying to "dumb down" your comment with "where" instead of "were," and "they're" instead of "they". Whoever is writing for Loveschild this week, uh, FAIL. Go back and check the earlier postings, you're doing it wrong. Loveschild doesn't know that many big words.
correction @57 ~ "That has nothing to do with behavioral practices that have not and are not observed collectively by our society and which as I previously mentioned if one where to be regulated then others would also have to be."

P.S. The difference in affluence and economical discrepancies also brings into light one more difference between those who want to equate the demands of gay 'marriage' with racial equality.
Well then let's vote to bring back slavery! Reverse the 14th Amendment because god SANCTIONS slavery- even promotes it and gives us detailed laws and instructions on how to acquire, keep and pass slaves (and their children) to your decedents!

Once we have brought back Biblically sanctioned slavery into the US- I vote we put Loves- er I mean Hates child on the slave block first...

Bible sanctioned oppression is fun!
Forgot to mention that clearly slavery is a traditional value- and a traditional "family" value if your passing your slaves on to your children and other family members in your will.

P.S. Take note! God hates Lobster, cotton and wool blended fabrics and cheesburgers...

Why resort to the childish tactic of comparing being gay to being a satanist who performs human sacrifice? My comparison was very even and legitimate.

@62 I wasn't comparing homosexuality with being a satanist. I brought up the subject of satan worshipers who wrongly believe that theirs is a religion to make the point that even the 1st Amendment is not an absolute, certainly not when it comes to some practices like human sacrifice.
Dearest Loveschild @ 57,

There is no "right" for anyone, and that includes you dear. You, dear Loveschild, have no "right" for marriage. That little, yet inescapably important, fact seems to allude your comprehension. 'Marriage' has been and will continue to be a changing state, you have no definition to stand on and no ancient, eons old, history to defend your opinion with. Every comment is based in your emotional fear and "icky" feelings. That is why we pity you, at least I pity you.
@64 My comment is based on the 7 million voters of California who upheld marriage, history, reality. Yours on the other hand is based on your own little fringe worldview, on your wish of imposing your ideology at any even against the will of the American people. That's the difference.
Can you grasp it, Loveschild, no-one had the right to marry. Not even you are given a right to marriage in the constitution. Yet, marriage has been allowed to become entertwined with the government and that is why it creates a "wrong" to deny it to some. Your logic will only continue to trip on this fact. Someday, all that tripping will cause it to shatter and you'll become even further exposed as the pathetic, fearful creature you are.

You missed the point completely - It doesn't matter what 7 million voters think. What matters is what the constitution and our founding fathers said. They built the constitution with judicial review so the majority could not limit the rights of the minority. I hate that I apparently have to quantify that to you. There is no reason to limit what gays are allowed to do because they aren't hurting anyone, unlike a satanist making human sacrifices. In fact gay couples can be seen as a good thing if you look at kinship theory and what is called the gay uncle theory. Allowing them the same marriage that I am allowed wouldn't be giving them any extra rights it would just give them equal rights.
No dear, Loveschild @ 65. The constitution doesn't give you the right to marriage. Your millennial, or it has been that way here, point fails as well. Your straw man had burned, dear.

Poor persecuted member of the majority we feel bad for you, but you will be shown to be on the wrong side of history before long. People like you will be a source of shame in future history text books and lectures. Oppressors eventually fall, the oppressed will be the victors in the end.
@65 What if 7 million voters in the south voted to bring back segregation? Should the majority vote be honoured in that case? You'll say that's a human rights issue, and you'd be correct, just as denying people the right to marry is a human rights violation. Not all marriages are religious, Loveschild. Some heterosexual people get married on a beach, don't mention God at all during the service, and never plan to have kids. They are just as "married" as you are. Who are you to decide how people define their own marriages?
Loveschild @65,
I'm putting dates on my calendar at present. So, which Slog Happy will you be attending to share your testimony on how you turned away from "homosexual behavior" and chose to be "heterosexual"? I figure with all the time you are spending here arguing that you deserve special rights, then there must be time to pick a date. We'll need to make sure Kelly O can be there to video tape it, or I can just use my iPhone. Chop, chop, let us get the date on the calendar.
Notice how Loveschild continues to use the "California gays have the exact same rights with their domestic partnership benefits as do heterosexual married couples, so there'ss no need to want more" meme bullshit, yet she actively worked to remove those same rights to Washington gays, based on the idea that those "same rights" were too much like those offered to heterosexual marriage couples.

And you wonder why I think she should be ignored. Well. There. You. Have. It. She's a troll and an idiot.
@63: Yes, the right to freedom of religion under the First Amendment does have its limits.
Specifically, freedom of religion does NOT justify any expressive act that negatively and substantially impacts others. Acts like human sacrifice, or, say, persecution of homosexuals, are not protected.
@65: There's a reason we are a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, not a PURE DEMOCRACY. Plebiscite is rarely the best method to use in governing.

@67 Not at the cost of eroding and creating distrust of our voting process.

The judicial review must always be based on what the Constitution says, not on personal biases as Vaughn and probably as the libertine 9th will do in December. American society has a clear understanding of the most basic requirements to take part in the institution of marriage, they have voted in accordingly so in California, Maine and other places, and only when they have been denied that right by the courts has gay 'marriage' been implemented. That's tyranny by a fringe group and by the courts, not equality and that is not sanctioned by our Constitution.

You can imagine that our white slaveholding "founding fathers" would be thrilled with gay 'marriage' all you want, who knows maybe some would, but they made no specific reference of such and in fact many to their credit actually showed some moral scrutiny (unlike with the enslavement of African Americans) like Washington, who hinted to quite the contrary. That's factually accurate.

"@65 What if 7 million voters in the south voted to bring back segregation?"

That's where the 14th kicks in, so far as I know there is no Amendment to make gay 'marriage' a right. None.
"That's where the 14th kicks in, so far as I know there is no Amendment to make gay 'marriage' a right. None."

Give it time, Loveschild. Pity we can't go back and listen to the conversations your ancestors had before the 14th amendment was passed.
That's nice, Loveschild. That's nice very, very nice.

So when are blessing us all at Slog Happy? I want to hear how you chose your heterosexuality.
@59 - My relationship is not a "behavior" any more than yours is.

And my rights are not up for a vote, just as yours shouldn't be.

"That's where the 14th kicks in, so far as I know there is no Amendment to make gay 'marriage' a right. None."

Nor is there an Amendment that makes "straight" marriage a right...
@73: Like You Look Like I Need A Drink! said at #77, there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically makes heterosexual marriage a right.
Heterosexuals are allowed to marry a consenting, (sufficiently) unrelated, adult partner, and in so doing gain the legal benefits associated with marriage. Since there is nothing in the Constitution giving heterosexuals SPECIFICALLY this right, it must therefore be a right common to all humankind. Therefore, under the Equal Protection clause, it is unconstitutional to deny this right to homosexuals, no matter how repellent they may be to your own personal sensibilities. Can you make a coherent counterargument, Loveschild?
(Also, it's funny that you're whining about biased judges ignoring the Constitution, seeing as you are currently putting your own biases before what is laid out in the Constitution.)
I'm on a horse.
@77 & 78 - Hence their reasoning to want to "change" the Constitution (see comments by Maggie Gallagher of NOM). If they change the Constitution, they end this fight. Maggie has stated that if they lose at the SCOTUS level (ie - Prop 8), their next battle will be to have the Constitution changed.

This is why we must do everything we can to never let that happen.
We have a far-right Supreme Court.

Until that changes, expect more logjams.

Use federal treaties to jam it thru.
@80: "Use federal treaties to jam it thru."
1. Try to understand what WiS means by this.
2. Shit brix.
3. ???

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.