1 Oh, and I am about to get on a plane, so ya'll behave while I'm in the air. I'm not buying any of that fancy-shmancy in-flight wi-fi.

2

 This is what the French call: le bullshit.

Hence, the argument sucks donkey balls.

Gabe, it is amazing how you are able to so completely sum up Jerry Brown's "legal" arguments so succinctly.

For what it's worth, you're my favorite gay legal eagle.

 

3 California requires a 2/3 vote to raise taxes, but taking away someone's civil rights only needs a bare majority?

4 California requires a 2/3 vote to raise taxes, but taking away someone's civil rights only needs a bare majority?

Presumably, if that ever happens, we'll find out. Until then, you cannot have a constitutional amendment that is unconstitutional. That is, by definition, impossible.

5 California requires a 2/3 vote to raise taxes, but taking away someone's civil rights only needs a bare majority?
Posted by: myiq2xu

Take away?

What right?

In most States a man can't marry a man and a woman can't marry a woman, no matter what their sexual orientation or anything else.

Allowing gay marriage creates a new right; not allowing it does not take away anything.

6 I live in California.  This has happened before, when the voters passed a bill limiting state funds for ilegal immigrants.  This is very sad beginning of the end of democracy in this state, and in the U.S.  Judges and politicians are overturning the will of the people, and not a friggin peep from anyone.  Media is happy, because they are part of the process of destroying our democracy.  They won't wake up until some politician orders them to stop writing negative stories about the government.   It won't be long folks, get used to not having a say in our government.  U.S. was a great country, it now has one foot in the grave, and one on a banana peel.

7 What do you mean "Dean Starr"?  Do you mean Ken Starr?  Or is he a dean somewhere? Thanks.

8 The whole rationale behind the anti-Prop 8 mob was summed up yesterday on Hugh Hewitt's show by Chapman Law Professor Katherin Darmer ... she was asked point blank if any one could, in good faith, support defining marriage as one man/one woman and NOT be a "homophobe". She answered, "No."

There you have it ... the anti-Prop 8 mob doesn't have to take any rational, logical argument for retaining historical marriage because those making such arguments are just a bunch of haters and bigots. No tactic - intimidation, violence, extortion - is out of bounds when dealing with teh haters!

Unreal.

9 That does it. I demand marriage rights for pedophiles and the abolishment of the age of consent.

If love knows no gender, it certainly knows no season.

Besides, it gets the little brats into a stable relationship...

10 I know the Dead Kennedys wrote a pretty good punk song about Moonbeam Brown:

http://tinyurl.com/6vaxls

11 Hey Troll, No "rights" were taken away. In California same sex domestic couples have every right that married couples have (and hetero domestic couples do not). Or have you not seen California State Tax Return forms? California Health Insurance options? I could keep typing, but my fingers are freezing from all of this global warming...

12 Even under the broadest understanding of the animus test, Prop 8 is not explicable only as animus directed against gays (although the Prop 8 campaign's shady commercials about gays seeking to indoctrinate your children belie this argument). Prop 8 is explained as promoting heterosexual families, a "public good." Under the test it does not matter why a legislature (or, in this case, voters) chose to pass a law, so long as some "hypothetically rational" excuse exists for it.

Say what? I'm reading the Romer animus test, and it says:

Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.

The full text of Prop. 8 is:

Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

How does that have any rational relationship to legitimate state interests? Heterosexual marriages are not affected in the least by this amendment. It changes nothing, except to prevent gays from marrying. Does "hypothetically rational" mean we have to accept any reason given in favor of an amendment?

13 What is the appropriate Latin expression for "sucks donkey balls?"  I am quite sure that one must exist, even if it has not yet been formally added to our law school curricula.

14

The California SC said gays and lesbians had an equal right to get married like straight people.

Prop H8 took that right away.

15

Lessons from the UAW:

 

“People think it’s easy,” said Sam Rockbottom of Local 817: “The secret of the game of chicken is that in order to get the other side to flinch, they have to believe you are willing to drive the car over the cliff, and we are.”

 

“We have tough negotiators with years of experience blowing people off”, said a member of the UAW who wished to remain anonymous: “Some of them can swear in seven languages.  These marathon negotiating sessions can last forever and you have to have a large repertoire:  ‘Get bent’, ‘Buzz off’ and ‘Bite me’ are just a few of the many tools we have at our disposal.”

 

Even the most inexperienced reporters noticed that the UAW skill set involves variations on a single theme. “Go piss up a rope” is one of the most powerful, if the least artful.  “We have to study that in committee” is more common.

 

“There is a protocol involved of course,” the man went on to say: “you don’t use a low-level thug to blow off the President.  For that you need a high-level thug.”

 

“They don’t call him Ron ‘Middlefinger’ for nothing.”

 

These lessons cannot fail to be appreciated by the forces that battle valiantly against the will of the people in the Prop 8 case.  “Riots and destruction of churches are only the beginning,” said one activist: “We’re going to bring this State to ashes if we don’t get our way.”

 

“But first we’re going to Court.  The paranoid schizophrenics on the California Court are worried enough already.  We probably won’t even have to threaten their family.”

16 myiq2xu

what civil "right" is that? Marriage is an institution that social policy defines. You have as much civil right to marriage as you have to join the military -- as long as you meet the criteria.

You believe the sex requirement (one of each) of marriage statutes is irrelevant? Ok. Then why is is number of participants MORE relevant?

Indeed, why should the law decide to have any restriction on marriage when it concerns consenting adults? Number, sex or familial relationship ... your argument that restrictions on SameSex Marriage interferes with "love" goes for group marriage or brother/sister marriage, too.

17 This is among many reasons why I'll never reclaim my Californian residency.  The libtards can have it.  Now I'll just work on Florida for now.

18

He currently serves as dean of Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California.

Which is where my best friend got his law degree.

19 A couple months ago this would not have been a big deal to me.  But the response to the election results has been to drive the gay "activists" into such offensive and outrageous action that it has become imperative to stop their lawlessness and disrespect.  I'm hardly surprised that Governor Moonbeam is blowing with the wind as Attorney General, but if the will of the people is again overturned by legalistic trickery it strikes at the heart of the social contract.  Amending the Constitution is the ultimate safety valve to modify an injustice perpetrated on the system itself.  If that is taken away, what remains but rebellion?

Gays have attacked our churches, our places of worship, and Christians speaking and peaceably assembling on the sidewalks of San Francisco.  The outrage over this breech of fundamental rights is building.  What about the rights of people of faith to vote their conscience and speak their mind?  Are we all now second class citizens that we cannot even amend the constitution?  Must we all bow at the altar of the gay agenda? 

20 Thanks, AndrewsDad.

21 And there's the problem. In your world you want 8 ignorant monkeys deciding what "rights" are to be defended.

22

"The California SC said gays and lesbians had an equal right to get married like straight people.

Prop H8 took that right away."

Oh lord, are you a troll autobot with index card arguments? The CA Supreme Court stepped in an area that was not their province.

This is similar to when the Rose Bird court declared the death penalty "unconstitutional" and people came back and amended the constitution by majority vote to reinstate the death penalty.

23 "It changes nothing, except to prevent gays from marrying."

dorkafork

It also "prevents" groups of people from marrying. It also prevents brother/sister or cousins marrying.

Do you think polygamists "legally married" in another jurisdiction should be allowed to be recognized in CA?

24 Flip flop flip flop flip flop....

Intially, he hinted he would oppose it. I don't remember him saying he would defend it. He is paid to do his job which is to defend the proposition. There is no case with similar facts and a decision stating this is a revision. Therefore, he is under the obligation to defend. Better for the AG office to defend and allow amicus briefs.

He and his office should lose funds for not performing their jobs.

25 It also "prevents" groups of people from marrying. It also prevents brother/sister or cousins marrying.

No, it doesn't. You can read the text, Prop. 8 says nothing about brother/sisters marrying.

And what do polygamists have to do with this? I'm asking Gabe why the animus test argument sucks donkey balls.

26 although the Prop 8 campaign's shady commercials about gays seeking to indoctrinate your children belie this argument)

The only shady behavior, if not down right creepy, was teachers yanking kids out of school to go to gay weddings, making them sign LBGT pledges in crayon, and the teachers union lying about the requirement to teach about marriage, i.e., gay marriage in the Education Code.

27 Dean Starr is one of the most impressive advocates I've ever had the chance to watch in action.

Sure, if you ignore the fact that he submitted perjured affadavits in a death penalty case. Yes, his investigator did it, but he was under the duty to supervise her work. Plus, the fact that the affidavits were incredible required him to double check them. He should have been censured by the state bar but not a peep from those whores.

28 Typical fucking response by a Donk, especially "Moonbeam" - fuck what the majority of the people want, we'll do it so we don't offend this "special group"... any everyone wonders why California is all fucked up, just look at him when he was the governor there...

29

I find the French term Le Bullshit appearing in this article

deeply offensive. The French term Le Poop would have

been more genteel

30 Legalized gay marriage will deny the rights of other people to be married in a place & manner sanctioned by their particular religion.  If gay marriage is made the law of the land, which is what this is all about, religions will be required to perform gay marriages or be shut down; or they will just stop performing marriages altogether.  Hence members of particular religions will lose a key part of life.  This is about religious freedom.  And don't try to tell me gay activists don't know this and plan to run with same if Moonbeam et al roll over.

31 "No, it doesn't. You can read the text, Prop. 8 says nothing about brother/sisters marrying."

Please take a position and stick to it. You just said that the text prevents gays from marrying ... just as it prevents polys and familials! It is a social policy to restrict marriage to one man/one woman. No marriage statute demands that you declare your sexual orientation when you get a license or declare you even love the person.

Thus the argument of Katherine Darmer that if one is for one man/one woman marriage one is automatically "homophobe" is the animus argument -- illogical, insulting and bigotted.

32 Please take a position and stick to it. You just said that the text prevents gays from marrying ... just as it prevents polys and familials!

Apparently I have to paste the text again: "Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The text of Prop. 8 does not prevent brothers and sisters from getting married.

33 Hence, the argument sucks donkey balls.

Stop it, argument. You're making me soooo jealous.

34

28-

Not just Governor, but later on (98-06) as mayor of Oakland. A veritable Mad Hatter's tea party that was. He left a mess on may fronts. The man will morph into whatever he needs to be to land at his next desired destination. Without hesitation.

And while still searching for a positive lagacy after all these years, JB will become even more reckless and impulsive.

35

taking away someone's civil rights only needs a bare majority?

 

A lot less than that. Taking away peoples civil right to enact laws is being done by a small handful of judges.

Oh, that's not the civil rights you left-wing fascists care about?

 

36 The California SC said gays and lesbians had an equal right to get married like straight people.

They still do. Just to people of the opposite gender, just like everyone else.

The Prop 8 Amendment doesn't say anything about the sexual orientation or orifice preference of the partners in a marriage, just that it consist of one man and one woman.

Period.

(BTW, since when are lesbians not considered "gay"? If gay=homosexual, wtf?)

37

I'm reading the Romer animus test

Fuck the Romer animus test. It has zero basis in the Constitution or statute law. Stop licking the judges balls for five seconds and try to remember that you are (supposedly) a free citizen in a constitutional republic.

 

38 And while still searching for a positive lagacy after all these years, JB will become even more reckless and impulsive.

He should've stopped with Linda Ronstadt.

39 A question to gay-marriage advocates: where does your movement stand on the list of legal restrictions related to marriage; the number of people involved in a marriage, age of consent, etc,?

Also, if you get the rights you say you want, will you fight to maintain the other restrictions? If so, what argument will you use?

40

The California SC said gays and lesbians had an equal right to get married like straight people.

The California SC has as much authority to say such a thing as you do. None.

 

41 Good ol' Gov Moonbeam.  The man who invited Black Panthers to parties at the governor's mansion.  The man who wants to be governor again.  Wonder if he realizes that he just pissed on 52% of the people he'll be asking to vote for him.

JERRY, ONCE WAS ENOUGH!!

42

 Does "hypothetically rational" mean we have to accept any reason given in favor of an amendment?

 

You have to accept any reason, or no reason at all. There is no constitutional provision allowing judges to strike down amendments if they don't like the reasoning behind them. The ONLY requirements for an amendment are those provided for in the Federal or state constitutions. Our judicial masters have no legal authority to make up new "tests" and judge amendments against them.

 

 

 

43

When Jerry B. was governor, his nickname was "governor moodbeam".  He could have been also cited as "mister flipflop.  Many of us who worked in the Gov labeled him, "if its brown, flush it down".  Oh I almost forgot, Gray Davis was his Chief of Staff if memory serves well, and he got recalled and kicked out as Gov and that was when Arnold was elected.

When he (Jeyy) promised the people of Oakland Ca that he would make it a better city, his accomplishments did not seem to register on the populace.  the reason was there were little and/or no accomplishments.

Now JB wants to be Gov again and is doing the same things he did as Gov before but now in 2008.  Oh well, I try not to say, history repeats itself but it seems to be just that.

I wish everyone a peaceful season and a more hopeful new year.

jensad

44 Liberals can not live in peace with others.

They need their own country.

Then they can tax, regulate, and abort themselves into oblivion.

45 Is the California SC the right place to decide whether or not prop 8 conflicts with the federal constitution?  Presumably SSM proponents will take this to the federal court system should they lose in Sacramento.

God I hate California, and I live here.  If not for my family I'd have been gone long ago.

46 Does California law allow for the AG to be recalled or impeached?

47 So, is Malor a pitcher or a catcher?

48 Does "hypothetically rational" mean we have to accept any reason given in favor of an amendment?

You have to accept any reason, or no reason at all. There is no constitutional provision allowing judges to strike down amendments if they don't like the reasoning behind them. The ONLY requirements for an amendment are those provided for in the Federal or state constitutions. Our judicial masters have no legal authority to make up new "tests" and judge amendments against them.

I, personally, don't have to accept them, but the judicial system would be likely to as a matter of law and precedent. And if the Supreme Court has "no legal authority to make up new "tests" and judge amendments against them", that would through 14th amendment jurisprudence out the window, and in theory states could resegregate schools.

49 Or "throw" them out the window.

50

Hey! -- cut this social conservative crap.

And stop listening to Limbaugh.

This isn't the first time you've been warned.

51 So now it's about segregation?

52 The subject of the proposition is gay marriage. OK. The fact is is an amendment makes it de facto legal no matter what, and that is where the argument is and should stay. The amendment could be about little green men from Mars, it would still have the strength of law - it being THE law.

My argument is not against gay marriage, but against the usurpation of the law for an end - I think gay marriage should be OK as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of churches NOT to hold a gay ceremony. They have the protection of the establishment clause behind them. Yes, "separation of church and state" can cut BOTH ways. Unfortunately, the pro gay-marriage folks who have earned the right in the states they have won seem to always find a situation where they feel compelled to force a church to hold a ceremony they don't want. They point to the law but always forget that their "rights stop where they infringe upon another" (paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson). So I have no sympathy for gay marriage advocates. They always try to push it too far.

53 When Jerry B. was governor, his nickname was "governor moodbeam".

When he ran for president in 1980, he used special effects to make him appear more "futuristic". I recall one speech in which he had one side of his body stretched out and faded into the background. I don't know what the point was other than to make him look more techy and therefore futuristic.

Sadly, my best friend at the time would have voted for him if he were able (we were only 17) just because of the special effects.

54 Why the hell does anyone take Jerry Brown's opinion on anything seriously?

55

I, personally, don't have to accept them, but the judicial system would be likely to as a matter of law and precedent.

 

There is no "law" which the "judical system" would work from in so ruling. And any "precedent" which is not grounded in law is illegal.

And yes, you do have to accept any reason or no reason at all. Your fellow citizens are not required to give what you consider as a good reason to pass an amendment.

in theory states could resegregate schools.

No shit, Sherlock.

if the Supreme Court has "no legal authority to make up new "tests" and judge amendments against them

What do you mean "if"? Either explain where you think the court derives the authority to make up "tests" and strike down constitutional amendments or shut the fuck up.

 

56
So now it's about segregation?

Yes. Teh gheys are continually being ghetto-ized into up scale condos, with wood floors, and flowers in every room. The horror!

57 #54  Why not?

Twat sockpuppetting again.

58 Of course the question remains whether or not the CA Supreme Court will bother with little things like stare decisis or prefer to use its generous ability to implement its own will over the slovenly people.

I'm not terribly optimistic.

59 Or "throw" them out the window.

Or you could, you know, throw them through the window.

60 How nice, now we have two Hogs.  Isn't that just special.  I suspect Twat has oozed back in.

61 I like homos.

Twat, sockpuppetting as another poster doesn't happen again or your IP address will be banned.

62 I think gay marriage should be OK as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of churches NOT to hold a gay ceremony. They have the protection of the establishment clause behind them.

But for how long? If we look to Canada or MA, the legal fiction that same-sex marriages are exactly the same as opposite-sex marriages has led to "hate crime" laws being used against clergy who condemn from the pulpit SSM or parents being told they have no right to object to their children being taught that SSM is exactly the same as opposite sex marriage.

SSM advocates have been very clear they are going to harass anyone that opposes SSM by any means necessary, including using lawsuits to strip people of business licenses or tax-exemptions. Mob intimidation forced the 77 year old manager of El Coyote restaurant from her job because, as a private citizen, she donated $100 to the Prop 8 campaign.

The real "H8" is from the SSM fanatics.

63 The way this whole thing is playing out shows an incredible disrespect for the law and the civil compact upon which our country is founded. We have a judge that ignores 150 years of precedent and a citizen's initiative barely months old to declare a newfound right, then sets an effective date for his decision that makes it inevitable that there will be problems. Then, after the citizens amend the document in which this judge found this right, we have people claiming that the problems mean that this "right" is being taken away.

It is far to reminiscent of the definition of chutzpah -- the man who kills his parents but requests clemency from the court because he is an orphan.

64 47 So, is Malor a pitcher or a catcher?

asshole. Bet you hope he's a pitcher. So rude.

65 #47   He's a felcher.

And you're sockpuppetting as another poster. This would be Twat. Twat, I'm late to the party and only a trollbuster, but a repeat of this will get you banned.

66 Darleen_Chick:

Right you are. That's why I have no sympathy for them. They wish to use mere legislation to stop enforcement of a constitutional amendment. They use the useful fiction of  "equality" to force inequality in their favor. Orwellian, to be sure. Will they compromise and/or respect the BOR? Not if they can intimidate their opponents in a non-legal settings, as they are doing now.

67 Hey, twat aka tapperez! Using someone else's nik is one of the few things that will get you banned.

68

California Penal Code sec 285 covers "persons within degrees of consanguinity which make marriages void."

Among them are siblings.

Since Prop 8 defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and was offered in response to, and to counter, gay marriage rulings, it does not nullify sec 285, and brother/sister marriages are not made legal by it. 

Further deponent sayeth not.

69 Like I said yesterday, dealing with twat is like having the world's ugliest puppie trying to hump your leg. 

70 47 So, is Malor a pitcher or a catcher? Posted by: Rusty Diamond

Rusty, if you wish to offer Gabe your services, you need to do it privately.

71 if the Supreme Court has "no legal authority to make up new "tests" and judge amendments against them

What do you mean "if"? Either explain where you think the court derives the authority to make up "tests" and strike down constitutional amendments or shut the fuck up.

The court has the authority from the Equal Protection Clause of 14th amendment to the Constitution. And the tests are an inevitable result of following precedent. Judges trying to follow precedent take the relevent ruling, look at the reasoning behind it, and "test" how the current situation matches up. The rulings themselves may describe them as tests, whether they do or not, they still serve the same purpose.

72 #67   And that is fair,and I admit that stooping to this level is low but it is only in retaliation to the same being done to myself,'what is the penalty for my comments being changed'?.Whoever can not abide with free speech should relocate to Russia.

73 One, this is a private blog and there is no right to free speech here.

Two, only moderators can change comments and they only do it when someone is acting like a total asshole. Were you acting like a total asshole?

74 #73  Subjectively,yes.

75

Hey social conservatives -- go form your own party.

We are more interested in the gay vote.

76 WonderWartHog,You have my apology.

77

The court has the authority from the Equal Protection Clause of 14th amendment to the Constitution.

Where in the 14th Amendment do you see anything about the courts making up "tests"? I'd really like to know. I'd also like to know where the notion came from that the role of the court is to look out for the "rights" of groups of people, where both the rights and the groups are defined by the courts themselves. It's nowhere in the Constitution.

And the tests are an inevitable result of following precedent.

I don't want judges to follow "precedent", where that means that they take their own unlawful rulings as providing them with authority to make further unlawful rulings. I'd prefer them to follow the law instead. You remember the law?

Judges trying to follow precedent take the relevent ruling, look at the reasoning behind

Blah blah blah. You really don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about, do you? I'm still waiting for you to offer some justification for the courts to strike down laws which the people enact. This inane bafflegab don't even pretend to be it.

This country was founded on the revolutionary concept of "majority rules". If we're going to junk that concept then it's time to junk the country as well.

 

78 This country was founded on the revolutionary concept of "majority rules". If we're going to junk that concept then it's time to junk the country as well.



Posted by: flense

No it was not. The US is not a democracy.

79

I'm asking Gabe why the animus test argument sucks donkey balls.

Because it has no legal basis. No, the court saying something does not make it legal. Or illegal.

 

 

80

The US is not a democracy.

Yes, you drivelling moron, it is. But that is separate topic. I said that that America was founded on the concept of majority rules. Which even the dimmest moron pissed to the eyeballs on cheap vodka should be able to recognise as a historical fact. It's why we at least pretend to have elections and count the ballots and declare the winner the person with the most votes. Does any of this ring a distant bell?

 

81 Wow, for a site that's supposed to be meatheads there sure is an advanced infestation of pillow-biters here.  And that shit is catching, 'cause they don't breed by normal means.
The test: 
If you were to picture, in your mind's eye, a puppy and you instinctively hear yourself say "Aaaawwwww" you might be close to contagion levels.  Best go butch it up some, son.  If you said it out loud then you need to sew your fucking pink triangle on, it's too late.

82 "Is the California SC the right place to decide whether or not prop 8 conflicts with the federal constitution?  Presumably SSM proponents will take this to the federal court system should they lose in Sacramento."

Both sides for their own tactical reasons have couched their arguments purely in terms of state law up to this point.  That's the reason why it's stayed confined to the state courts.  As to matters of state law, the decisions of the CA Supreme Court are final.  Being both a non-California lawyer and practicing criminal law, my question is: since neither party raised federal questions in the trial court or the intermediate appellate court, haven't they failed to preserve them for appeal? 

If they haven't, the Cali SC should be able to consider them on the merits and then the losing party could petition the SCOTUS for cert.  However, if they HAVE waived all the federal issues in this particular litigation, I imagine the losing party would have to bring a separate suit in federal district court if they want to raise federal questions anew.

83

This isn’t the “Debate over Gay Marriage”

What's unavoidable, and sad, is that this lawyerly battle will get us no closer to a united heterosexual and homosexual nation than Brown v. Board of Education got us closer to a unified black/white society.

Both legal debates are important and necessary, but they don't take the ball across the goal line. They can make us live together in the same country, but they can’t make us countrymen. We have to figure that out ourselves.

Opponents of gay marriage argue the following: Heterosexual marriage benefits society. Homosexual marriage benefits the couple. That’s the gist of the debate.

The debate over gay marriage is not, ultimately, played out in the courtroom. It could end there, but it won’t be settled there.

 

84

Why are you so eager to overturn Prop 8, GM?

I think you are so hungry for acceptance on the right that you're willing to defend Prop 8 personally.

85 "This country was founded on the revolutionary concept of "majority rules"."

No it wasn't.  I've spent much of my life fighting for the political branches against encroaching judicial tyranny, but we live in a republic, not a democracy.

86 The California SC said gays and lesbians had an equal right to get married like straight people.

So in your opinion, the decision of 4 out of 7 robed lawyers trumps the voice of the people in how they wish to order society?

87 Hence, the argument sucks donkey balls.

As does Moonbeam.

88
80

The US is not a democracy.

Yes, you drivelling moron, it is.


It is now, but it was formed as a constitutional republic.  We have evolved into a democracy and that's not a good thing.  You might try doing some rudimentary research...

89

we live in a republic, not a democracy

We live in a democratic republic. Is this really news to you people?

 

We have evolved into a democracy and that's not a good thing. 

We began as a democracy, and that is a good thing. Perhaps you'd be happier living in North Korea. No nasty democracy there.

 

90

The California SC said gays and lesbians had an equal right to get married like straight people.

Prop H8 took that right away.

SCOTUS once said that slave owners could recover their escaped property, irregardless if the slave was recovered in a state that did not recognize the property rights of the slave owner.

The Civil war took that right away.

Hint: they're just people, not demi-gods delivering edicts from Olympus to us mere mortals.

At the rate that things are transpiring, it would be easier and cheaper to write an amendment to repeal Prop 8 and enshrine gay marriage into the California State Constitution, and place that in front of the voters.

91 Hence, the argument sucks donkey balls.

I hope Ace of Spades Law School gets accredited soon. This constitutional law course kicks ASS.

92

Hey Troll, No "rights" were taken away.

I have been commenting here almost every day for months, and 90%+ of the time I agree with most everyone else.

As soon as I disagree, I'm a troll.

93 92-

and.....

94 so this is a homo lawyer blog now

95 94-No, it's more of a 'flenser trying to educate homo lawyers' blog.

96 Jerry Brown did such a good job controlling crime as mayor of Oakland, I'm so glad my fellow Californians chose him to be AG.

97

I am late to this discussion. Just for the sake of transparency, I do not live in a state that is currently embroiled in this debate, at least that I am aware of, so I am just going to throw a couple of things out here without currently having a dog in the fight.

An amendment such as the California amendment which defines marriage defends the most basic building block of society. All societies, in the end, are composed of families that reproduce. Those groupings, whatever they are, that do not reproduce children will disappear. It is, therefore, in the interest of society to protect this building block. For the first 200 years, the family was protected by cultural norms. As these norms eroded, by challenges that do not come from the majority, we have seen that the majority has taken steps to protect the family. Homosexuals, obviously, have resented this, but in the end, the constitutional amendment merely states the obvious. The sexual union between homosexuals is not the same as the marriage union between a man and a woman. For one thing, the homosexual union does not bear fruit, that is to say it is a barren union. As such, the state does not have the same interest to protect the homosexual union as it does the marriage bond.

The state does have other interests in protecting the marriage union. One interest is that of stability for the children of the union. A child needs a father and a mother to develop normally. While I am fully aware of the existence of many single parent families, the optimal environment for normal child development is a loving family.

98

As soon as I disagree, I'm a troll.

I could care less that you're a troll. Or a fag. But the fact that you're a totalitarianism lover concerns me. Don't try to strip me and all of us of our fundamental rights and then whine that people are rude to you.

 

 

99 I hope Ace of Spades Law School gets accredited soon. This constitutional law course kicks ASS. Posted by: sulla

Unfortunately, the Ace of Spades School of Law will remain uncredited until Ace agrees to put out for Ginsberg.

100
I believe myiq2xu hangs out here looking for a straight guy to hook up with.

101 flenser,

*sigh*

your heart is in the right place, but your mind is wandering about, dazed and confused.

The United States of America is a constitutional republic. It was not and is not and with any luck will never become a democracy.

Visit a local library and bone up on your elementary topics.

BTW, I am a Moron, but I rarely drivel.

102 - Massive ACORN fraud across the U.S. elects non-vetted POTUS with questionable fundraising and donors

- MN SOS, former member of Communist party, is stealing the Senate election for a blowhard, bigoted, talentless douchebag

- Republican POTUS just bailed out the UAW

- Republican POTUS just nationalized our banks


Can we start our Constitutional Revolution now?

103

we live in a republic, not a democracy

We live in a democratic republic. Is this really news to you people?

I thought this was about whether or the state will sanction gay marriages?

The old 'republic' v 'democracy' squabble will mean nothing in the end.

If you don't come up with a coherent argument against gay marriage, the avenue to get there doesn't matter.

Conservatives are good at winning narrow constitutional arguments and losing the debate that prompted it.

104 Bah i dont accept the premise of anti Prop 8ers adn neither should you: marriage is not a right.
Rights are inherent in a person (and from the ...gasp... Creator) in American legal theory. I posses the right to keep and bear arms. I posses right to be free from unreasobale search and seizure. I posses no blanket right to get married, i mean look at the restritions required.
Otherwise I declare myself married to Nicole Kidman (as is my *right*) and if she wont get over here and fuck my brains out, im divorcing her and taking half her stuff.

105 CONGRATS to Eman, this sadly out if sorts nation is indeed a constitutional republic and NOT a demon-cracy. Never was a demon-cracy, hopefully never will be one.
To Wit;
In your democracy, each citizen, as in legal resident having met the society's rules and standards for holding such title, is allowed and allotted a single vote on all pertinent public issues for which a public voting shall be held.

In you republic, each citizen, as in legal resident having met the society's rules and standards for holding such title, is allowed and allotted one vote for the election of a "representative" who shall cast votes for a larger group of his fellow citizens in all public issues for which a public voting shall be held.

See that crucual difference? A "representative" who shall be allotted one vote...

By the way, SSM seeks special status amongst minority groups in that it wishes to change the nature of the social 'compact' already spoken of, by abrogating the rights of some and converting the 'wishes ' of others  into 'rights' not heretofore recognized as such.

Abortion was once a medical procedure of borderline import. Hand it to a group of like-minded activists and it rises to the level of guaranted consitutional 'right' via the process of judicial activism. More of a mechanism than a pprocess, but you get the point.

You (SSM advocates)  no more have the right to make a society (us) ADOPT the stances of a fractional minority (you) than the greater majority (US) has the right to enfore the adoption of its (Ours) stances upon you.

Now grow up, learn the underpinnings of your society's laws and functions, and oh,yes, go piss up a rope...

As cantankerous as ever,
Sandman...

106 Twat, which part of "private property" do you leftist asshats not understand?

107 I have been commenting here almost every day for months

Late hit comments on posts that rolled off the front page don't count.

As soon as I disagree, I'm a troll.

It is the content of the post, not the person that makes it a troll attempt. However, people use it as a general "you're an idiot" insult more broadly and inaccurately.

108 "marriage is not a right.
Rights are inherent in a person (and from the ...gasp... Creator) in American legal theory."

Fundamental rights, "unalienable" rights come from God.  Most rights are not unalienable, and come from elsewhere.  My right to possess property in general is unalienable: my right to possess Blackacre didn't come from God, but from a contract for its purchase or a will and is very much alienable, or it would be far less valuable.  Rights of a general unalienable nature do not change, but other rights can certainly be created, whether by statute, contract or common law, and if they can be created in such ways their creation presumes they can be modified or destroyed in the same manner.

My right to free speech is unalienable: my right to particular remedies regarding particular memorializations of that speech is both alienable (I can sell my writing) and man-made: Congress adopted the copyright statutes and can change them.

109 And marriage is not a right,  it is not a privilege either. Unless I miss my guess, the nature of marriage in society is like the nature of having children; it is not the business of  the State, being Federal or State, until the State begins to take actions which change the nature of marriage. Then the State has changed the social compact by acting in such a way as to be detrimental to the underpinnings of the society itself.
Marriage, of any sort should be off the table for meddling with. You should be able to live with whomever you want, and that person's status be recognized solely by the authorities, at any level, as the person you choose to live with. You only make changes to that compact when such a private relationship holds the possibility of harm to the greater society, like incest, cults, human-animal relations,et al.

The Courts should refuse to consider this matter as a thing for changing, recognizing that changes to what has been the underpinning of stable society for millenia are probably not in the long term best interest of that society nor those people who form the population of that society.

That's why they're called 'social compacts', and why those societies that go about breaking down the compacts that underpin their own existence soon disappear.
 Look at the Romans for your example here.
There's alot to be said for being aware of entropy and its long term effects on a vulnerable society. And right now, ours is.

Sandman.

110 Or I could just be full of shit. YMMV.
Just saying,
Sandman.

111

I honestly don't understand how someone, with a straight face, can make the argument that an amendment to the constitition  passed through the constitutionally provided legal and political channels is unconstitutional.

It's the ultimate jedi mind trick.   The rational mind boggles...

112 I suspect that the reason for the struggle over the word marriage in California, Vermont, New York etc is not to secure equal rights in those states, since AFAIK all provide civil arrangements equal in the law to marriage. It is to allow the Federal courts to use the contract and equal protection clauses of the US constitution to force recalcitrant states to accept same sex marriages from the more "enlightened" ones, thereby annulling their own laws. 

Its an attack against federalism.

113

You can have a state constitutional amendment that's unconstitutional under the US Constitution (say an amendment calling for poll taxes). I never expected moonbat Jerry Brown (I mean having him as AG would be like having a pro wrestler as a Governor) to support the will of the people, if the will of the people were different from lib dogma which it is for Prop 8.  This is a direct slap in the face by Brown of his duties under law which is to argue aggressively for the constitutionality of every state statute and constitutional provision, no matter how such statutes or constitutional amendments were enacted.

As for 'taking away a constitutional right' please list how gay marriage was ever a fundamental right? It's not, in six thousand years of recorded history, until koolaid drinking socialists came to power, no society has ever enshrined gay marriage as a right. Even the pedophiliac ancient Greek society did not do so, nor the gay friendly Renaissance societies ever thought such a 'right' was fundamental or even desirable. Indeed, libs like to talk about other countries loathing us, but if you go to a hundred countries around the world, part of their problem with 'democracy' and/or western constitutionalism, is the rabid extremist 'liberty' that makes abortion and gay marriage mandatory and excluded from the political process. They have no desire to destroy millenia of traditional marriage by socialist social engineerings of activist judges.

Taking away a judge concocted 'right' is not taking away any rights at all. The fact that half a dozen politicized judges caved into libtard pressure is no reason for the rest of the body politic to approve and sanction such radical departure from historical understanding and practice of marriage.  If Jerry Brown can't uphold the law he should resign and be replaced by someone who will do so.

114

There seems to be an elephant in the room that no one sees: homosexuality is a behavior, not a state of physical existence.

Gender, physical disabilities and race (Jacko notwithstanding) are states of physical existence; they do not change depending on public-ness or private-ness. But homosexuality, euphemistically sexual orientation, is a behavior; if you do it, you’re a homo, if you don’t then you really aren’t . . . wait; if you never do it publicly, how can anyone be certain that you are . . . perhaps some sort of state examination / licensing program, with periodic renewal testing . . .

Society / culture decides what is and isn’t acceptable behavior, and homosexuality is a behavior that virtually all human societies define as unacceptable.

How is it that a behavior is equated to an observable state of existence? We (CA) passed a law. It didn’t seem to be a bad law.

How did the CA Supreme Court arrive at their decision to declare homosexual marriage a right? They derived all sorts of things from the law we passed.

In doing so, they set / tried to set / may have set a few bad precedents:

1a. They, the CA Supreme Court, may derive/invent rights when and as they see fit

  b. Implicitly then, they may revoke those rights when and as they see fit

  c.Also implicitly, they may revoke any rights when and as they see fit

2. Behavior now qualifies as a condition to be awarded special rights and protection

What sort of behavior is next? Where do we draw the line?

115 Dave you're defining privalege, liberty, and duty all as rights, and that's a mistake. You have the right to property, you have the privalege of own in a specific property. If you take away any of the base elements of a right (inalienable, individual, and God-given) they cease to be rights.

116 I'm sure this gentleman is now in dereliction of his duties, and will be immediately removed from office. Oh, sorry, man, here's the bong - I didn't mean to bogart. When do we see just how pitifully piss-poor our political class is? When do we shoot them?

117 although the Prop 8 campaign's shady commercials about gays seeking to indoctrinate your children belie this argument

At least that commercial showing two Mormon elders confiscating the lesbians' wedding rings and ripping up their marriage certificate wasn't shady.

118 Marriage is not a right for the simple reason that it requires a license - just like the privilege of driving.

119
flenser, you really should get an education before you go spouting nonsense.  It makes you look stupid.  Especially after your errors were pointed out to you.

120

The state does have other interests in protecting the marriage union. One interest is that of stability for the children of the union. A child needs a father and a mother to develop normally. While I am fully aware of the existence of many single parent families, the optimal environment for normal child development is a loving family.

Posted by: Harry at December 20, 2008 04:10 PM

More to the point, it is in the interest of society to have boys grow up in households with male role models and girls grow up in households with female role models. Moreover, it is beneficial to society to see boys and girls see male and female adults interact in an appropriate manner with one another to promote civil discourse in society, generally. Therefore, it is interest of the state to promote strong heterosexual unions.

121 119-

flenser hasn't posted for about two hours, stupid.

122 114, put me down as "me, too", but add a "Dammit!" for emphasis.

118, and just like all State-issued licenses, the State gets to set whatever conditions it chooses when issuing those licenses. (So long as the requirement is both in writing and not subject to a subjective standard, that is.)

If you want a contractor's license, you pass the tests and meet the State's requirements or you don't get it.
If you want a license to practice medicine or law, you pass the tests and meet the State's requirements, or you don't get it.
If you want a license to drive on State-built roads, you pass the tests and meet the requirements, or you don't get it.

If you want a license to get married, you meet the State's requirements (minimum age, health, consanguinity, number and gender) or You Don't Get It.

123

Especially after your errors were pointed out to you

Jog my memeory, dipshit. Which errors would those be?

124

The United States of America is a constitutional republic. It was not and is not and with any luck will never become a democracy.

They don't call this a moron blog for nothing.

Tell you what, eman. Reach into what you think is your considerable bag of tricks and attempt to define "democracy".

 

Here's mine.

Democracy -  government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

I admit, I got that from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. But it seems like a more reiliable souce than some hobo on the interthingy. You will notice that the USA is indeed a democracy by the standard dictionary definition.

But by all means share your own. I need a laugh.

 

125

Democracy -  government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

I admit, I got that from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Glad to know now that representative democracy is redundant. I'll never use it again, despite it's use in my middle school civics classes many moons ago...

126 If you want a contractor's license, you pass the tests and meet the State's requirements or you don't get it.
If you want a license to practice medicine or law, you pass the tests and meet the State's requirements, or you don't get it.
If you want a license to drive on State-built roads, you pass the tests and meet the requirements, or you don't get it.

If you want a license to get married, you meet the State's requirements (minimum age, health, consanguinity, number and gender) or You Don't Get It.

And if those standards are unfair? If the standards discriminate based solely on solely on sexual orientation? You can easily see the problem if you consider a marriage license that is denied based on skin color, as the miscenegation laws were.

The state can't deny citizens equal protection under the law. The arguments I'm seeing here, they're an attempt to make a reasonable argument against gay marriage, and they would be, except for one thing. The idea that "it is interest of the state to promote strong heterosexual unions" to promote reproduction, stable families, etc. That's a good argument. I would say it's the best argument against allowing gay marriage.

The problem is the actions of the government utterly belie its importance. The state has never implemented any restrictions regarding marriage to acheive those goals. Any man and woman can get married (with the exception of brother and sister), no matter whether they're good parents or bad, whether they are able to reproduce or not. No restrictions. The state has never before taken an interest in those things. Yet now these are vital. Scott Peterson is engaged to be married. Murders, arsonists, rapists, people who have done all three can get married. They can still be in jail and get married. But a gay couple who have never so much as jaywalked cannot. It is not just.

127 Isn't there something like a common law definition of marriage?  In the millennia of English common law, was there ever a recognized homosexual marriage?

I don't think so....the recent invention of such by the State Supreme Court is is a distortion of law and a usurpation of power.  Correction by the express will of the people was our first remedy. 

If the Supremes rule against Prop 8, then recall of the justices and of AG Brown will be the escalation.

As to barring homosexuals from teaching positions in public schools DOES have a rational basis - the prevention of recruitment into the homosexual lifestyle.  The biggest investment parents make is in their offspring.  They make this investment in the hope of perpertuating their line.  Diversion into a non-reproductive lifestyle is a direct threat.

128 @14: The California SC said gays and lesbians had an equal right to get married like straight people.

Prop H8 took that right away.

 

Um, courts can't actually create rights, so Prop 8 didn't take anything away.  You know, laws having actual meaning 'n shit.

129

There seems to be an elephant in the room that no one sees: homosexuality is a behavior, not a state of physical existence.

If people still thought that, there would be no debate. But most people accept that homosexuality is genetic.

I can make the case against state-sanctioned gay marriage, while acknowledging the obvious.

130

The state does have other interests in protecting the marriage union. One interest is that of stability for the children of the union. A child needs a father and a mother to develop normally. While I am fully aware of the existence of many single parent families, the optimal environment for normal child development is a loving family.

Posted by: Harry at December 20, 2008 04:10 PM

More to the point, it is in the interest of society to have boys grow up in households with male role models and girls grow up in households with female role models. Moreover, it is beneficial to society to see boys and girls see male and female adults interact in an appropriate manner with one another to promote civil discourse in society, generally. Therefore, it is interest of the state to promote strong heterosexual unions.

Posted by: gm at December 20, 2008 06:36 PM (aXpYP)

This whole thread leads back to these points.

I would add that the girls need male role models in the home as much as boys do. They need to see how a man acts, so they have a concept, a standard for how they should be treated.

To recap the big point:

Heterosexual marriages serve the community. Homosexual marriages serve the couple. There's a fundamental difference.

131 flenser, recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

132 And if those standards are unfair?

As defined by whom? Who says they are unfair? Isn't that a bit like a child whining that bedtime is unfair? Are speed limits unfair? Is it unfair to deny a drivers license to a blind person or a license to carry a concealed weapon to a recidivist criminal? If not, what possible reason - other than FAILING TO MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS - would be sufficient?

The rules and requirements for a given license are completely separate from what a person chooses to do behind closed doors.

That marriage definition doesn't say anything about a requirement that you love the other person, or what sexual preferences the respective partners have, or anything like that, just that a marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

I also find it laughable that homosexuals were screaming that the State stay out of their bedroom activities, but now they want a license to do those same things. One more time, for the feeble-minded: if you want permission from the State to do something, sometimes you're gonna get told "No". And you deserve that denial for even bothering to ask...

If gays want to get married, then it is up to them to find someone willing to go through it with them, someone to officiate, someone else to witness it, and invite friends and families. If, at that point, they suddenly decide to get State sanction, then they have to play by the State's rules.

The People of the State of California have expressed their will. Twice. Overwhelmingly. Why should the whim of an unelected handful of people in black robes get to overturn that? The only States where same gender marriage is permitted is because of a reinterpretation of a centuries-old document by those same sympathetic judges, not because of the legitimate legislative process.

Every single time that same gender marriage has been put on the ballot, the traditional view of marriage has won out. Every. Single. Time. What makes you think that a Federal Amendment would fail, especially given that 3/4 of the States (38 out of 50) already have such a definition written into either their State Laws or their Constitutions?

Speaking of which, please show me where in the Constitution that it mentions marriage, because if you can't, I want you to explain why the States can't define marriage however they like, especially in view of the Tenth Amendment granting such power to the States.

Finally, if we were to agree to remove the gender limitations on marriage, what possible arguments could you advance to prevent the removal of the other requirements, such as age (NAMBLA*), number (polygamist sects), consanguinity or even species?

(* - the National Association of Marlon Brando Look-alikes, of course)

133 If people still thought that, there would be no debate. But most people accept that homosexuality is genetic.

Change that word to "inherent" and you have a point - there's zero evidence of sexual preference being genetic. However, even though that is true, acting on homosexual urges is entirely voluntary and behavior based. Just like acting on any other urges we have - even those psychologists still call psychoses or mental disorders.

134

They still do. Just to people of the opposite gender, just like everyone else.

The Prop 8 Amendment doesn't say anything about the sexual orientation or orifice preference of the partners in a marriage, just that it consist of one man and one woman.

Period.

Thanks, Drumwaster.

It just needs to be repeated every single time this tedious issue rears its head, because some people still can't grasp the notion that gays have exactly the same marriage "rights" in every state that straights do.

Identical.  Indistinguishable.

If you're a, say, 20 year-old single male who wants to enter into a marriage legally recognized by your state of residence, you simply need to find an unrelated, of-age single female willing to enter into that exclusive legal arrangement with you, and the state will issue you both a marriage license.

See what I did there?  I got two people married without even once mentioning their sexual orientation!  It's maaaaagic, I tell ya.

135

#44...they have such a place...it's called Europe.

#129...serious question...has there been scientific proof of the "gay gene"?

Most people accept AGW, but that doesn't mean it's real or true. 

 

136 State recognition of marriage is not a "universal right". There are legitimate state interests in the continuation of the family structure, and the right to define what is, and is not, a "family" under civil (family) laws, rests with the Legislature or with vox populi initiatives. Or, as needed, Constitutional Amendments.

Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all of them prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives (parent-child, or siblings), even if the individuals wishing to be married are infertile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.

Why should the State have any interest at all, much less a compelling one, in whether a couple choosing to spend their lives together be of opposite gender in order to receive that State sanction and license? Because heterosexual couples are MUCH more likely (even if not certain) to produce offspring, and the propagation of society through producing future taxpayers is an overwhelming interest of government, since without future generations, there will be no more society.

Same gender relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. So far, this burden has not been met. (And don't even try to offer the red herring of "adoption", because that is merely taking care of some other heterosexual couple's unwanted child, not producing a child of their own. That also includes artificial insemination of lesbians, since a male had to be involved at some point.)

Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation. Similarly, the prohibition of same gender marriage says nothing about the sexual preferences of either partner, as the many anecdotal instances of gay men marrying women, and lesbians marrying men and having children. Those marriages were perfectly acceptable to the State, and the private activities thereof were never even contemplated in the definition.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. We have already seen the social damage this attitude has wrought over the past several decades, so why would relaxing it further help these societal ills?

Finally, what kind of other limits on marriage would fall? I hear a lot of derision regarding the so-called "slippery slope", but nothing approaching a coherent argument, despite the clear instances of the Law of Unintended Consequences already occuring.

137 Wow, all that, and not a single reference to any religious claims. So spare us the "bible thumper" assertions.

138 I love the way these things always devolve into discussions of what's good and bad or just or love or whatever. None of that matters, never has. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, that's it. That is the definition of marriage, always has been. It makes no difference what gays do, why they do it or where they do it. Whatever it is it ain't marriage. Gold is a specific thing, a particular type of metal. There are many other metals, but none are gold. I'm sure there are many people who have copper. Wouldn't it be great and wonderful for them if we said copper was gold too? There's one problem, copper isn't gold. Never was, never will be. There were defined long before there was a United States. The US can set any value it wants on those 2 metals, even make them worth exactly the same, but copper won't be gold.

There is no such thing as "Gay Marriage", never has been. It could be a union, but it's not a union of a man and woman. So, not marriage. Invent any name you want, but marriage is already taken.

So why not deal with the real issue here? The real issue is Gays can't stand the fact that society places no value on their unions. Could care friggin less. Gays want there unions to be valued by society as much as marriage. The problem is these unions offer none of the things that marriage does which make it valuable to society. They don't promote monogomy, nor procreation, nor child rearing. So society will just go right on not caring about gay unions, unless of course you are the poor parent of a gay who will guilt you into the ground until you abandon every principle you ever had to show you love them. Because loving someone is giving them what they want right?

139 I just want to know which of these other requirements for marriage should be abolished for "civil rights" reasons, based on the same arguments as gay "marriage:"

-both partners must be alive
-both partners must be over the minimum age for the state
-both partners must be human
-both partners must be single
-both partners must be willing participants
-neither partner can be too closely related to the other

Which of those is a violation of civil rights? Which must be discarded as soon as an advocacy group demands it?

See, Drumwaster brings up the "slippery slope" but that's a bit of a misnomer. It isn't that once you start down this path you'll likely fall and slide to oblivion in an inevitable cascade of sequential events. It's that when you make a legal decision of this sort, it necessarily opens up dozens of other related legal decisions - the warning Scalia gave about the Supreme Court's striking down of Texas Sodomy laws is the same sort of concern.

It's one thing to argue that society ought to allow homosexuals to be wed. It is another to demand it be so and force it upon everyone by law. Doing so not only violates one of the basic principles of the founding of America: the majority rules, but it is a legal nightmare because of what else it results in, intended or not.

140 flenser...Exactly how many times is the word "democracy" used in the Constitution?

141 TB, don't try to reason with the guy...

142 140 Speaking of which, I wonder how flenser's "America is a democracy" argument will stand up to the plain language of Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution...

Of course, some people don't take facts into account when making assertions.

143 The "animus" test is a bunch of horse crap invented by Sandra Day Timer.

It says "Voters can't decide that something is morally right or wrong, legislate accordingly and impose their will on society...but judges can!"

144 Words have meanings and in the case of gay "marriage" it is the proverbial sow's ear demanding that it be declared a silk purse.

So, nine men in black dresses may convince men with guns to force those who issue licenses to acquiesce that a "sow's ear" shall now be known as a "silk purse", it does not make it true.

145

most people accept that homosexuality is genetic.

 

Most people don't know what genetics is.

146 Didn't flenser say that the country was based on majority rule, not that it is a democracy? I'd have to say that it is based on majority rule. You can't get any law passed without bicameralism (majority of congress, 2-0). You can't get a law passed without a majority of the House. You can't get a law passed without a majority of the Senate. Even our coming oligarchy of the judiciary is based on a majority of the Supreme Court.

147 Speaking of which, please show me where in the Constitution that it mentions marriage, because if you can't, I want you to explain why the States can't define marriage however they like, especially in view of the Tenth Amendment granting such power to the States.

States cannot define marriage in such a way that violates equal protection under the law under the 14th amendment.

Same gender relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. So far, this burden has not been met.

The burden of proof has never before been on the individuals seeking marriage. Nobody has to show that they would provide a stable family before getting married, or show that they would be a good role model for getting married, or anything of the sort. Felons can't vote, but they can still get married, even while in prison.

Take Turner vs. Safley. Now, I'm not personally convinced that marriage is a fundamental right, but in that case the SC held that inmates had a fundamental right to marry. (Scalia was part of the majority opinion.) So two people in freaking Oz meet the state's interests, while a law-abiding gay couple does not. And nobody's introducing any amendments to change that. Prop. 8 didn't, either. If you're going to introduce a "Defense of Marriage Act", how about you defend marriage from fucking murderers.

148 "Um, courts can't actually create rights, so Prop 8 didn't take anything away."

Anglo-American courts have created rights since time immemorial.  That's what the common law is: judge-made law.  Talk to an attorney who practices in the civil-law world and the power of a common-law appellate court will blow their mind.  What the courts can't do is place their law above statute or other positive law, e.g., the state or federal constitutions in the US.

149 States cannot define marriage in such a way that violates equal protection under the law under the 14th amendment.

But (as has been pointed out above) gays have EXACTLY the same rights to get married as everyone else - to someone of the opposite gender.

Marriage has nothing to do with love, nor with sexual preference, and Prop 8 covers everyone equally. I am not allowed to marry another man, and my sexual preference is irrelevant. That is equal treatment under the law, and until a law is passed that forces gay people to get married, that is how it stands.

The burden of proof has never before been on the individuals seeking marriage.

It IS on the people seeking a redefinition of the condition to fit their abnormal demands. They are seeking to change literally thousands of years of both secular and religious precedent, and with nothing more on their side than "IwantitIwantitIwantit". It is up to gays to show that they meet the minimum requirements to get a marriage license.

If they have a partner who is:

* of a minimum age
* not closely related by blood
* not already married
* of the opposite gender

then the State will eagerly give them a marriage license. If not, they don't. It's as simple as that, and the SCOTUS has already said that States have the right and authority to regulate marriages, so long as a compelling State interest can be shown. It is up to same gender couples to show that their whims should override that interest.

If you're going to introduce a "Defense of Marriage Act", how about you defend marriage from fucking murderers.

Were they of opposite genders? Then no defense is necessary. And in case you've forgotten, it was Clinton that signed the Federal DoMA, not to mention "Don't ask, don't tell" for the military, and Obamalama is against gay marriage, as well.

Sounds like the social pressure against gay marriage is not only overwhelming, but bipartisan.

No one has the "right" to marry anyone they want, especially if they are demanding that the State sanction their actions. Life sucks. Deal with it.

150 Anglo-American courts have created rights since time immemorial.

Sort of. They've recognized rights in the past, and invented faux "rights" like the right of marriage, but they cannot create actual rights, because the only one who can do that is the creator. That's part of the definition of rights.

And majority rule is the rule of the land, through representatives in most cases, and through direct vote in others.

151 and invented faux "rights" like the right of marriage

Or the "right" to kill an unborn baby, but that's another hot-button issue that has never been put to a vote of the people, but has instead been handed down by an unelected and sympathetic Super-Legislature in black robes that doesn't have to answer for their actions.

In a similar vein, it's amazing how judges in Massachusetts can find a right to same-gender marriage in a document written more than 200 years ago. (Written by John Adams, fercrissake.) Then deny the Massachusetts Legislature the power to decide the issue through its legislative authority (like that same document requires).

So what happens when judges violate the Constitution? Who do we appeal to?

152 "They've recognized rights in the past, and invented faux "rights" like the right of marriage, but they cannot create actual rights, because the only one who can do that is the creator. That's part of the definition of rights."

No it isn't.  Not every right is of the fundamental, God-given, unalienable variety.  If they were, there would be no man-made law.  Are my specific remedies under a particular contract, or my right to take a particular percentage under or in contravention of a particular testator's will or, in the absence of a will, of a decedent's intestate estate, God-given rights?  Of course they aren't, but they ARE rights: conditions that if violated give rise to remedies and provide me with standing to sue and enforce those remedies.

153 Gab, what did you expect from California?

154 All the arguments in #149 could have been used in defense of miscenegation laws. Yes, even the bit about how gays are currently "allowed to get married". (Because after all, black people could still get married to other black people.)

155 dorkafork, you're right, they could be. The question isn't whether or not there's a case for gay "marriage" in terms of law, but whether there's a compelling enough case to overthrow millennia of human institution and the plainly stated overwhelming will of the people.

Answer: there is not. "What can it hurt" is not sufficient.

No it isn't. Not every right is of the fundamental, God-given, unalienable variety. If they were, there would be no man-made law.

Your problem is you think every instance where someone insists on a "right" then they are actually describing an actual right rather than a privilege, obligation, or liberty.

To whatever extent contracts refer to "rights" they either are misusing the term, or are referring to a broader right given specific use in this instance; the right to property, for example.

Rights have a definition, one that has been destroyed incrementally by lawyers and activists over the years, to the point they have almost no meaning yet all the emotional compulsion.

156 "To whatever extent contracts refer to "rights" they either are misusing the term, or are referring to a broader right given specific use in this instance; the right to property, for example."

No, sorry, you're wrong.  You're putting forth a Humpty-Dumpty argument here: words mean exactly what YOU want to them mean, and everyone else is either deluded or acting with an ulterior motive.  Contractual, statutory and probate rights are rights under the legal instruments that created them; the Framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were plenty familiar with Blackstone, Coke, Bracton and the language of the English common law, which you're having a verbal tantrum trying to reject as somehow semantically incompatible with natural rights. 

As I stated elsewhere above as an example, the right to own property in general is a fundamental unalienable right; my right to posess Blackacre (i.e., a SPECIFIC piece of property) may be a contractual, testamentary or intestate right, and it has as much value as it does BECAUSE it is alienable: i.e., it may be freely bought and sold, in whole or in part.  The emergence of free alienability of property in England from Quia Emptores in the 13th century to the Statute of the Tenures in the 1660's was a major part of emerging English liberty as a nation of freemen rather than serfs, contrary to what happened on the Continent.  If all rights were unalienable, the Declaration of Independence would not need to refer to unalienable rights to distinguish and place them above alienable rights.

157 You're putting forth a Humpty-Dumpty argument here: words mean exactly what YOU want to them mean, and everyone else is either deluded or acting with an ulterior motive.

I didn't define rights, the founding fathers and the philsophers they studied did. Go ahead and read Locke, Rousseau, Jefferson, Madison, and others on the topic and get back to me about how I'm wrong about this. Until then, stop and think about it a while.

Rights have a meaning, that meaning has been degraded over the years - deliberately in at least some cases - to the point you think a piece of paper and a handshake creates one.

158 Christopher, you seem to think we're not on the same side here.  As I also mentioned here, I've spent my entire professional career fighting for the people's right to govern themselves rather than be subject to judicial whims (first for the legislative and then the executive branch).  But that doesn't make your understanding of the Framers any less incomplete.  To understand the American Revolution, yes, you have to recognize it is a break with the past and appreciate the influence of the Enlightenment philosophers (Locke and Montesquieu especially, but shame on you for invoking Rousseau, the father of all modern utopian totalitarianism).  But you also have to recognize it is as a part of the continuum of the piecemeal progress of English liberty, of which the advance of the King's justice at the expense of feudalism was a part.  If you don't, you can't understand why, say, Edmund Burke was a fervent supporter of American independence but the most eloquent advocate against the French Revolution.

159 All the arguments in #149 could have been used in defense of miscenegation laws.

Amazingly enough, I have yet to see a single argument in favor of same gender marriage, other than "IwantitIwantitIwantit". Can you explain why the whims of such a small minority should redefine the very bedrock of society at large?

And why removing that gender requirement from the definition should be the only limitation removed? What about polygamists? Child brides?

Please explain why same gender marriage would be beneficial. Why should we vote in favor?

While I'm thinking about it, I have one other issue with your earlier assertion that "The burden of proof has never before been on the individuals seeking marriage."

That's bullshit. In case you have never been married, let me explain what has to happen. Both partners must appear before a State/County employee to swear under oath that they are not married in any other jurisdiction, that they are of the minimum required age to marry, and that they are the persons actually intending to be married. The license is not "activated" until a State-authorized person who performs the ceremony signs it (also under oath) along with a witness, verifying that the persons named were actually the ones married.

That may get lost in all of the flower-tossing and cake-eating, but it happens every single time. (I speak from personal knowledge, having been married myself, a witness in three others, and - last but not least - I am ordained and can actually perform weddings.)

That sounds like "burden of proof" to me.

160 Dave J your historical information is accurate but irrelevant: rights have a specific definition, as given by Thomas Jefferson in short in the Declaration of Independence.

Anything that doesn't fit that definition is not a right, no matter how many lawyers claim it is. The truth is not subject to a vote, something is what it is no matter how many lies are told about it or how many laws are written.

Amazingly enough, I have yet to see a single argument in favor of same gender marriage, other than "IwantitIwantitIwantit".

They do offer two more:
1: What harm can it do?
2: you're a (insert insult here) for disagreeing

Admittedly the last one isn't an argument for or against anything, but it is what is most often offered in place of an actual argument. Just like if you bring up the points you and I have someone inevitably screams about how you are drawing an equivalence between pedophiles and homosexuals, when that has nothing to do with what you've said.

It's all they have. Because it all starts with a lie: they don't want marriage for marriage's sake, they want it to force society to embrace and accept them so they stop feeling guilty, wierd, and uncomfortable. The problem is, that feeling doesn't come from society.

161

Drumwaster:

Good comment and anayl;sis.  I haven't seen one legitimate argument for queer marriage.  I have the seen the leftwingnuts take away the unwritten rights guaranteed us in the Constitution chipped away bit by bit.  If anyone can cite the rights to marriage arguement made by the founders I'd like to see it.

162 Jerry(moonbeam)Brown still a whinning worthless demaRAT and still as stupid as always he gave CALIRFORNIA the infamous ROSE BIRD and tried to make HANOI JANE the arts counsoler he by far is still a stupid brainless numbskull

163 There's one question I've always wanted to ask about this whole gay marriage thing:

Prop 8 supporters and those against gay marriage:

What's it to you? Why do care if gays get married? How will it affect you?

And stop with the animals and people marrying, incest, underage bullshit. This is about 2 consenting adults promising to support each other 'till death do they part.

 Very simple. And what happened to the right's "government get out of my business" thing? What happened to that?

I'm a heterosexual...if 2 women in my neighborhood get married, I probably wouldn't even know it. How does it affect me? It doesn't. Anti-gay marriage is just bigotry  - plain and simple.

My nephew is gay and very good friends of my family are a committed, life-long gay couple. I cringe at the hate they have to endure with laws like this one.

They pay taxes, they work, they are Americans. They want to commit to each other they should be able to.

What's it to any of you? really?? Straight people opposed to gay marriage really have no stake in this at all. I'm so sorry you're all such haters...

164 Yeah... haters consumed by hateful hate. That's all you are. If you knew or had a family member who is gay, you might think differently... Or I would at least be able to show some respect for your opinion

Remember what happened to accepted racism in this country....you're all going to go the same way separate water fountains did.... You might as well wake up now...

Gays will be able to marry in this lifetime.... so get used to it..

165

It is not a matter of flopping. He has come to the conclusion that the people of Kalifornia are to stupid.

I personally don't care if gays marry or not I've been married 30 years and advise both my son and my

daughter that if they were smart they would avoid marriage. The people of California obviously don't

understand that some people in the state are better than they are. The people of the state voted, if you

agree or do not agree, a new idea called democracy says that it. This is the second time the have chosen

this answer and still they are told by the elite they are wrong. These elected officials if they were mine

I know What my response would be when its time for reelection. "I am too stupid to see your name"

The rule of the privileged elite is much more important than the law.

 

166 What's it to you? Why do care if gays get married? How will it affect you?

This is not an argument. This is a bratty child whining "Why no-o-o-o-ot?"

And what happened to the right's "government get out of my business" thing? What happened to that?

That went away the instant gays started demanding government recognition for those so-called "private business" issues. Either you get to have the State decide whether its okay or you don't. You don't get to have it both ways.

They want to commit to each other they should be able to.

They should go right ahead. California has the most sweeping definitions of civil union But that isn't what they want. They don't want the ceremony (which they can have the moment they hire the hall), they don't want the condition (because they already have that under California Law, with decades of precedents to back them up), they want the WORD.

And the rest of society said, "thanks, but no thanks".

Hint: sometimes when you ask the Guvmint for permission, the Guvmint's gonna say "No".

Gays will be able to marry in this lifetime.... so get used to it..

They already can, just not in California.

So what are you going to do about the McCarthyist tactics and blacklists being openly utilized by the H8rs among the Gay Mafia? Pushing around little old ladies, breaking into churches, extorting from local businesses, and violating the rights of everyone around them, for no other reason than the urge to throw a tantrum?

If you knew or had a family member who is gay, you might think differently...

I do know several, you arrogant ass, and you have no right to speak for them, especially given that they might disagree with you. What does that say about the alleged logic of your position (such as it is)?

Do you actually have any arguments in favor or are you too busy calling people names?

167 Yeah... haters consumed by hateful hate. That's all you are. If you knew or had a family member who is gay, you might think differently... Or I would at least be able to show some respect for your opinion

Can't you just FEEL the love? Gays love everyone so much that they are ready to take away jobs, post personal details of those with whom they disagree in a "I'm not asking for anything to happen, but I wouldn't be surprised (nudgenudgewinkwink)" sort of way, and beating up little old ladies who want to exercise their Constitutionally-protected rights...

Just oozes from every pore, it does...

168

   I like to play Fiesta online, so I like to buy fiesta Gold. I think fiesta money is very useful in this game.

   My friends usually give me a lot of fiesta online gold. If you like to play this game, you will find it is interesting to buy fiesta Gold. Thanks for bring me fiesta online money and Fiesta online.

169 nike shoes cucusoft converter cucusoft air jordan shoesadidas shoes starcraft cd key warcraft 3 cd key diablo 2 cd key diablo 2 cd keys dvd to ipod converter free dvd to ipod converter ipod video converter free ipod video converter nike shoes air jordan shoes fake air jordans air jordan

170

When I have my seal cegel, you feel it is not the point, but there is a lot of emotional feeling cross, complex and exciting. When you have more sealonline cegel, you can own the entire world. Once you have seal online cegel, you can do more! Quickly go alone in unfamiliar streets, there is no concern and warmth look of sympathy, just silently listening to headphones, different styles of music, his eyes drift without purpose, I do not know whether to find his own corner. Although we have cheap seal cegel, At least I can have my own things, rather than wishful thinking. When you buy seal online cegel, you can make a choice if you had been ready for it!

171

Welcome to our company which sells all kinds of cabal online alz, very cheap cabal alz, and the more cabal gold. If you have to buy cabal alz, please come to our company, we can give you the best service for you to buy cabal money.

172 http://www.bestprog.com
http://www.interbd.com
http://www.zappeduster.com
http://www.grupopenelope.com
http://www.42plus.com
http://www.brv-inc.com
http://www.meditacija.net
http://www.aec-dk.com/
http://www.mb-friends.net/
http://seo-mobi.net/jk/
http://www.hmt-ag.com/
http://www.biotechcgi.com/
http://www.hi-tech-reno.com/
http://www.mb-deai.net/
http://www.littlediablo.net/
http://www.ccc-p.com/
http://www.sit-n-shop.com/
http://www.mtdcases.com/
http://www.louisville-realtor.com/
http://www.heartminders.com/
http://www.targetvehiclerental.com/
http://www.mail24x7.com/00/idkb0022.html
http://www.kessel-diamonds.com
http://sincerely-love.com/00
http://www.cambridgeins.com/
http://www.lots-ins.com/
http://www.chihuahuaelpub.com/
http://www.aec-dk.com/merutomo/
http://www.andritz-na.com/merutomo/
http://www.hi-tech-reno.com/merutomo/
http://www.sugudeai.com/

173

My friends and I like to buy kal geons, because the kal gold is very useful to upgrade equipment. Only your equipment becomes better, then you can win this game. In kal online geons, you can buy everything you want in this game. Yesterday is my birthday, so my friends bought me some kal online gold as gifts. I am so happy. They understand me so well, kalonline Geons is my favorite.

 

174 Hey. Make love, not war. Help me! Can not find sites on the: Stock spread trading. I found only this - stock Trading techniques. Bluebell wears pom dapi metallic rose velcro sandal. A book by nancy schulman buy hardcover at schulmanbirnbaum. With respect :cool:, Robin from France.

175 Some people like LV handbags,Some people like Chanel handbags,but most popel have been keeping an eye on cheap fashion brand handbags .we often talk about all kinds of designer handbags with my friends,most of my friends also like cheap fashion brand handbags.We admire cheap fashion brand handbags designer who often be able to design so many stylish handbags.We want to be a handbag抯 designer in the future too. In our store online，you can buy all series of cheap fashion brand handbags，include: Louis Vuitton,LV Luggage,LV Wallets,LV Agendas,LV Belts,LV Shoes,LV Accessories,Gucci,Gucci Wallets,Gucci Shoes,Marc Jacobs handbags,Marni handbags,Miu Miu handbags,Mulberry handbags,Prada handbags,Thomaswylde handbags,TOD handbags,Bottega Veneta handbags,D&G handbags,Dior handbags,YSL handbags,Coach handbags

176 UGG Boots Sale
ugg shoes
ugg classic
cheap ugg
UGG UK
bape shoes
bape shoes sale
cheap bape shoes
UGG UK
UGG boots sale
UGG Classic
discount UGG
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Amelie Suede
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Classic Cardy
cheap UGG Cardy
UGG Classic Crochet
UGG Classic Mini
UGG Classic Short
UGG Classic Tall
UGG Coquette Casual
UGG Gypsy Sandal
UGG Halendi Sandal
UGG Hammond Slipper
UGG Infant's Erin Baby
UGG KnightsBridge
UGG Layback Slipper
UGG Lo Pro Button
UGG Matala Sandal
UGG Napoule Sandal
UGG New Arrival 5389
UGG New Short Boots

177 Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots

178 buy Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefrom usa

179 Come to our website for shopping with high quality and best service! There have new products,MBT M. Walk
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.

180 Buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

181 buy [url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa

182 Replica Cartier | Replica Breitling Watches | Replica watches | Replica Rolex | Replica watches | Swiss Chanel Ceramic Replica Watch | Omega Watches | Christian Dior Replica Watches | Breitling Replica | Replica Chanel Watches | Chanel Replica Watches | Fake Girard Perregaux | Hublot Watches | Jaeger LeCoultre Watch Replica | Replica Roger Dubuis Watch

183 replica soccer jersey | Replica Omega | soccer jersey wholesale | Replica watches | Replica Cartier | Chanel Watch | Oris Replica Watches | replica watches | Concord Fake Watch | Hublot Watches | Replica Hermes Watches | Fake Frank Muller | Breguet Fake Watch | best replica watches | Cheap Technomari Fake Watch

184 mbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt sale

185 The proper function of man is to live, but not to exist.ugg classic cardyConquer fear of death and you are put into possession of your life. ugg classic tallThere is a time to speak and a time to be silent. ugg knightsbridgefree shippingmbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
MBT M.Walk

186 hot news for brand shoes online store ,do you want to win more discount ?and popular for younger,and nike air maxwith top quality A ,come on all air max shoes with lowest price for highest quality !

187 Wholesale Carbon Pendants Jewelry | Wholesal Tungsten Jewelry | Stainless Steel Rings Yiwu | Corrosion Cufflink Cheap | Cutting Pendant Fashion | Cutting Pendant Luxury | Wholesale Casting Earring Jewelry | New Jewelrys Cheap | Wholesal Rubber Bangle | Leather Bangles Luxury | Titanium Bracelet Best | Wholesale Plating Earring Jewelry | Wholesal New Jewelrys | Cutting Bracelets Fashion | Magnet Bracelets Yiwu | Wholesale Casting Rings Jewelry | Corrosion Necklace Best | Wholesal Necklaces | Cutting Pendant Luxury | Wholesale Key Rings

188 replica soccer jersey | Fake Cheap Rolex | Replica watches | Replica Breitling Watches | Replica watches | Replica Cartier | soccer jersey supplier | Replica watches | Luxury watches | replica watches | best replica watches | replica wristwatch | replica wristwatch | replica watches | replica wristwatch | replica watch | replica wristwatch | watches brand | replica watch | replica wristwatch | replica wristwatch | best replica watches | replica watch | replica wristwatch | Luxury watches | replica wristwatch | watches brand | best replica watches | replica watch | replica wristwatch | watches brand | watches brand | best replica watches | watches brand | replica watches | replica watches | replica watches | replica wristwatch

189 We supply authentic discount Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Trainers
New Lacoste
Lacoste Sale
Mens Lacoste
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste trainers shoes
lacoste camden retro
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste carnaby shoes
lacoste carnaby retro
lacoste shoes sale
New Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes online
cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoe
mens lacoste shoes
Lacoste Shua Lace
Black Lace shoes
white Lace shoes
lacoste swerve shoes
White Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes sale
Cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste Women Shoes
Women Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Shoes online
on line, cheap price,Top quality,Free shipping!

190 Glashutte Fake Watches | Replica Juicy Couture Watches | Watches Technomarine Fashion | IWC Replica Watches | Audemars Piguet Fake Watches | Replica TAG Heuer Watches | Replica Gucci Watches | Baume & Mercier Replica Watches | Watches Girard Perregaux Fashion | Replica Michele Watches | D&G Belt Replica Watches | Watches Swiss Fashion | Watches Breguet Fashion | Michele Fake Watches | Chopard Fake Watches | Panerai Fake Watches | Jacob & Co Replica Watches | Watches Omega Fashion | Watches Audemars Piguet Fashion | Replica Patek Philippe Watches

191 Nike basketball shoes Adidas basketball shoes NBA basketball shoes

192 Replica Tissot Handbags | Luxury Parmigiani handbags | Bulgari Fake Handbags | Best Aigner bags | Replica Fashion Rolex handbags | Replica Patek Philippe Handbags | Luxury Breitling handbags | Replica Express Shipping Fee Handbags | Dewitt Replica bags | Replica Fashion Rado handbags | Luxury Tag Heuer handbags | D&G Belt Replica bags | Replica Corum Handbags | Replica Fashion Oris handbags | Strap Replica bags | Replica Corum Handbags | Best Patek Philippe bags | Replica Porsche Design Handbags | Luxury Panerai handbags | Luxury A Lange & Sohne handbags | U-Boat Replica bags | Luxury Hermes handbags | Breitling Replica bags | Breitling Replica bags | Luxury Dolce & Gabbana handbags

193 Luxury Fendi handbags | Mulberry Fake Handbags | Luxury Hermes handbags | Best Marni bags | Louis Vuitton 2007 Replica bags | Best Louis Vuitton Cuir Taiga bags | Juicy Couture Replica bags | Replica Fashion Louis Vuitton handbags | Replica Fashion Louis Vuitton handbags | Chloe Replica bags | Replica Burberry Handbags | Best Versace bags | Giverchy Replica bags | Louis Vuitton Monogram Vernis Fake Handbags | Louis Vuitton 2007 Replica bags | Chanel Replica bags | Louis Vuitton Belts Fake Handbags | Best Louis Vuitton Wallets bags | Luxury Prada handbags | Luxury Hermes handbags | Marc jacobs Fake Handbags | Replica Gucci Handbags | Coach Fake Handbags | Designer Wallets Fake Handbags | Yves Saint Laurent Replica bags

194 Un total de once comunidades autnomas estn este jueves en alerta naranja Christmas gift ugg tall boots (riesgo importante) por nevadas y bajan las temperaturas en toda Espa09a, segn la Agencia Estatal de Meteorologa (AEMET). En concreto, se Christmas gift ugg napoule sandal trata de Aragn, Cantabria, Castilla-La Mancha, Catalu09a, Christmas gift timberland classic boots Madrid, Navarra, Comunidad Valenciana, Galicia, Pas Vasco, Asturias y Murcia. La cota de nieve bajar a menos de 200 metros en el CantbricoLa Pennsula Ibrica est bajo dos borrascas y un anticicln que crearn un pasillo que permitir el paso de una corriente de aire muy fro, como la que est provocando un temporal de fro glaciar en Europa, aunque es esperan que el fro que suframos no sea tan intenso como en otros pases. An as, se espera que las bajas temperaturas se mantengan hasta el domingo. La cota de nieve baja en el Cantbrico a menos de 200 metros

195

The H4 replica watches took replica watches Harrison a massive 13 years to replica watches construct-but this was only the end of a lifetime's work. His genius was clear from the very beginning. Unfortunately many astronomers such as Nevil Maskelyne were convinced that a mechanical solution replica watches would not work and that only astronomy could solve the replica watches longitude problem. The fact that Harrison was from a working class family and had little replica watches formal education probably didn't help his prospects.Solving the longitude problem through horology meant designing a timepiece that could work accurately at sea. When you watch consider the rolling waves, changes in replica watches temperature and generally adverse replica watches conditions the dificulty of this task becomes apparent.The H1 was completed in 1735 and proved replica successful at sea. However the Board of Longitude demanded a full a transatlantic wholesale watch voyage. They gave Harrison a grant of 500 pounds with which he began work on the H2 watches.

196 Certainly watches are Replica Watches used to help people record rolex Watches time, but rolex watches nowadays its functions have enlarged. Replica watches are now tag heuer Watches not only objects that tag heuer watches can tell you what time it is, they are also a status symbol. You should not feel strange when you find someone wearing a watch on his wrist, but use the cell phone to tell time. In that situation, the watch is just showing its luxurious function cartier watches. It is normal and cartier watches perhaps also happens to you. .If asked that among the watches of various brands, which one can suit your taste? There is no doubt that most people will choose Rolex. Whichever social class you are in, it is naturally Rolex was known breitling Watches and cherished breitling watches for a long time. However, the elements do not usually enter the market alone, always come with the price tag up to the hand. For this reason, many people, especially men, their dreams of luxury Rolex watches are buried in omega Watches his heart omega watches. What should I do? Rolex watches are simply stunning worn by the rich and famous, right? No, this world is not the world's richest men, is the world of each. All are equal before the search of luxury and be men's watches respected. Within men's watches, the law, when consumers are in the market, women's watches they should women's watches receive the same treatment. This is the real reason why replica Rolex watches are ladies watches ladies watches more welcome than Rolex. Because in this world are not difficult to understand that the rich are much less than people with low income, you agree with me? You are forced to nod and say with certainty that is the reality. These low-income people do not have enough money to save every month. They can not afford such luxury Rolex watches