Gay Marriage Back in the Courts

The "black-robed tyrants" will be taking up the love that dare not speak its name again this week. Actually, there is news in California and in Massachusetts, but I figured it'd be easier to wrap it all up in one big old gay post.

First, the California Supreme Court is hearing the Prop 8 case today and has devoted a nearly unprecedented three hours to oral argument. No one is pretending that this case isn't a big deal. The argument will be from 9am to 12noon PST and can be streamed here (if their servers don't crash). The Court's Prop 8 page, which has all the filings and other information on the case is here.

Dean Ken Starr will get sixty minutes to advocate for Protect Marriage, the official sponsor of Prop 8. On the other side, Shannon Minter will represent the couples; he successfully argued the gay marriage case last year that kicked off this whole shindig. Jerry Brown, California AG, was allotted thirty minutes to present his peculiar argument. And a bunch of cities and counties, led by Los Angeles and Los Angeles County, San Francisco, and Santa Clara County will get thirty minutes for their arguments.

The issues are:

1. Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?
2. Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
3. If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

The case law on the first issue is muddled at best. Let me one more time hate on a state that was stupid enough to allow constitutional amendments by majority vote, but fail to define the difference between an amendment and a revision.

Jerry Brown will be making an unusual argument that it does not matter whether Prop 8 is a revision or an amendment because either should be overturned by the Court. In his view, which is probably the least supported of the arguments being made even taking into account the sad state of the law on revisions, an "inalienable right" protected by the California Constitution can never be taken away by amendment or revision and that the Court last year determined that gay marriage is such a right.

Because nothing is ever easy, the third issue could also go either way. There is a great deal of law supporting the position that changes in constitutionally protected rights do not have retroactive effect unless there is an explicit statement of retroactivity in the legislation or, in this case, proposition. On the other hand, the intent of Prop 8 to nullify all California gay marriages and refuse to give them any recognition whatsoever in the future was pretty damn clear even without an explicit statement that it would apply retroactively.

It will be interesting to see what the California Supreme Court does with this. Six of the seven justices were appointed by Republicans, but that did not stop the Court from finding 4-3 that the California Constitution forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and requires the overturning of a statutory ban on gay marriage. The Court then unanimously denied a petition for a stay of the effect of that decision until after the election.

Second, a pretty mixed group of individuals married in Massachusetts are challenging one section of the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court. Section 3 of DOMA prevents the federal government from treating gay couples married under state law as married under federal law. This has made it impossible for the couples, and in one case a widower, to receive things like health benefits, social security benefits, pensions, tax benefits, and in one interesting case a passport in his legal name. The plaintiffs argue that this is a violation of equal protection secured by the Fifth Amendment. The complaint is here (PDF).

I'll only mention the passport guy because it's a little different than what has become the "usual" equal protection complaint of gay spouses. Al Fitzpatrick married Keith Toney in 2004 and, as is legal under Massachusetts law, changed his name to Al Toney, so he would have the same last name as his husband and their daughter. His driver's license, credit cards, and other identifying documents now carry his legal name, "Al Toney."

However, when he sought a new passport with his new name the State Department rejected his request. The rejection letter informed Toney that because of DOMA "the marriage certificate issued by Massachusetts, which you have submitted in support of your name change, is not acceptable as evidence for recognizing an immediate name change on the basis of marriage." He also sent an affidavit and photocopies of his driver's license and voter registration cards attempting to get the passport issued in his legal name, but his request was still rejected.

His problem now is that things like airline tickets and hotel reservations purchased with a credit card have his legal name, but his passport has his old name. This has caused problems when he has to explain the inconsistency to strangers, often with a language barrier, abroad. Not to mention that it would be nice to be able to travel on the DL about that whole gay thing in certain parts of the world.

The case is one to watch out for.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:46 AM

Comments

1 Yawn

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at March 05, 2009 09:49 AM (5aa4z)

2 Only in Kalifornia

Posted by: In Exile at March 05, 2009 09:54 AM (rh9Bx)

3 "unprecedented three hours to oral argument"

MMMM, sassy!! and very gay!!!

Posted by: Michelle Obama's Ass Crack at March 05, 2009 10:01 AM (LdYLm)

4 The gay frenzy over Prop 8 now includes petitioning the IRS to attack the Mormon Church's tax-exempt status. Ironic for a group complaining about having their rights stripped should try to strip others' rights, simply because they disagree with their political and religious views. http://tinyurl.com/awuxtt

Posted by: Danny S. at March 05, 2009 10:07 AM (vCLeJ)

5 I could give a rat's ass, as long as it comes from the people, not the courts.

Posted by: . at March 05, 2009 10:07 AM (gQLr2)

6 Is there any question that the CA supreme court granted these expanded rights to gays in the first place so that they could strike down the upcoming amendment as a revision (particularly considering that even when the AGs of other states asked them to wait in implement it in view of the upcoming referendum)? I'd put the odds of it being ruled as an illegal revision at about 99%.

Posted by: gm at March 05, 2009 10:09 AM (aXpYP)

7 Hmmm...a legally murky issue of whether Prop 8 is a revision or an amendment - I wonder what the judges will decide? It certainly won't 'err' on the side of the voice of the people.

Posted by: Bald Ninja at March 05, 2009 10:10 AM (4pdbX)

8 What the Supreme Court does in California will have ripple effect across the country. If they decide against the will of the people (again) you can say goodbye to our constitutional government as we know it. Propostion 8 was a legal amendment to our state constitution, passed by the voters of this state. Our own elected officials in Sacramento (nearly all Dems) voted and passed a resolution asking the Supreme Court of California to overturn the will of the people. These are the peoples represenatives basically telling the voters to fuck off we don't give a flying fuck what you think or what you want. If they get away with this shit here in California, it wont be long before you see this trashing of the constitution throughout the United States.

Posted by: Sparky at March 05, 2009 10:12 AM (J1f2W)

Lesbian marriage = oral argument

Gay marriage = anal argument

Posted by: GReg at March 05, 2009 10:12 AM (KsxrY)

10 Why do these people keep trying to ram a square peg into a round hole?

Posted by: Roy at March 05, 2009 10:12 AM (cB77O)

11 Hey those jackoffs sitting on the supreme court of CA are pissed off because the people of CA overturned them. The Mass SC has been laughing at them ever since. They are going to pull out their pimp hand and smack down the citizens of California.

Posted by: sears poncho at March 05, 2009 10:18 AM (uj/0b)

12 I believe you mean:
"Why do these people keep trying to ram an oblong peg into a tiny round hole?"

But...who am I to judge.

Posted by: In Exile at March 05, 2009 10:18 AM (rh9Bx)

I'd like these excess gay marriage threads better if Gabriel would attach cheerleader pics to them.

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at March 05, 2009 10:20 AM (rImxH)

14 Stocks right back where they were before yesterday's rally.

Posted by: Blue Falcon in Boston at March 05, 2009 10:22 AM (SMD8k)

Sparky #8 nailed it.

If the Kalifornia Supreme Morons decide they are no longer just an equal branch of government and are now superior in every sense of the word then the people of that state no longer live in America.

Regardless of how anyone feels about gay mariage (yawn) the Consitution of this nation was very specific - the people decide what is and isn't law. The courts enforce our will - period.

This isn't a gray area or some tea-sucking Ivy League debate issue - it is one of the most basic principals this nation was founded upon. It will be just one more indicator that the courts have gotten completly out of control and when the revolution begins the lawyers (and judges) gotta go.

Shakespear was right - open season, no bag limit and $5 a pelt.

Posted by: Murph at March 05, 2009 10:22 AM (WrP0N)

16 Posted by: Murph at March 05, 2009 10:22 AM (WrP0N)

The Constitution's been dead since Woodrow Wilson. We're just having the funeral, now.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at March 05, 2009 10:24 AM (5aa4z)

17 Get government out of in the bedroom!

Posted by: Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight at March 05, 2009 10:24 AM (taJZA)

18 How can an amendment to a constitution be unconstitutional? How on earth do you square that circle?

Posted by: CTD at March 05, 2009 10:26 AM (RurGt)

19 Gabe

After all these years, you still haven't gotten it through your head that people here hate you.

Posted by: ergastularius at March 05, 2009 10:28 AM (B62QN)

We love Gabe, but just not in a gay way.

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at March 05, 2009 10:32 AM (rImxH)

21

ahhh, if it's Thursday, it's eggmcmuffin.

Hi, fuckhead!

After all these years, you still haven't gotten it through your head that people here hate you.

1) Gabriel is not brown, therefore we do not hate him.

2) you're wrong but you don't even know why you're wrong

Posted by: Darling at March 05, 2009 10:33 AM (G/CAx)

22 Gabe,

I love you. Where is "here" exactly? Here in front of my dusty computer?

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at March 05, 2009 10:33 AM (n2eCn)

23 I love ergie. He makes me chuckle.

Posted by: toby928: Optimist at March 05, 2009 10:33 AM (PD1tk)

24 This is the wrong blog for this. Stop making pedantic rants about subjects that are only important to a minority of a minority, most of which is composed of hypersexual men with no long-term intent of fidelity. The whole raison-d'ete of a bugcatcher's lifestyle is to spill as much semen with as many men as possible and not have to worry about tedious subjects like pregnancy or STDs... If you doubt this, read the barebackcity.com ad by RAWMUSCLGLUTES, the gay blogosphere's advocate in chief for gay marriage.

Posted by: Gabey Babey at March 05, 2009 10:34 AM (sftw8)

25 For the sake of accuracy, can we please stop referring to it as "the love that dare not speak its name" and start referring to it as "the love that won't shut the fuck up!"

Posted by: Kasper Hauser at March 05, 2009 10:34 AM (ZPwZl)

26 Same-sex marriage would be a non-issue, if people went about it through their legislatures. This whole "judge knows best" thing has got to stop. Between Hawaii's decision (which created sex-discrimination as a PLURAL right--that is to say, based off of the sex of another individual, not one's own) and Vermont's (with its bizarre "civil union" caveat and clear use of an incorrect level of scrutiny), it is just obviously the beliefs of judges that they know what is best.

Posted by: In Exile at March 05, 2009 10:35 AM (rh9Bx)

27 Hate Gabe?! No fkn way. He can do whatever he likes. I like his posts and he's a smart guy.

Posted by: Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight at March 05, 2009 10:35 AM (taJZA)

28 25 For the sake of accuracy, can we please stop referring to it as "the love that dare not speak its name" and start referring to it as "the love that won't shut the fuck up!"

I LOL'ed.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at March 05, 2009 10:36 AM (XOTI3)

29 My guess is that any so-called conservative gay man (what is that, someone who uses a condom?) will be secretly rooting for Jerry Brown et al.

Posted by: Gabey Babey at March 05, 2009 10:37 AM (sftw8)

30 The odds of a California judge accepting the will of the people over his own opinion are not something I'd like to bet on, unfortunately.

Posted by: Guy in Utah at March 05, 2009 10:39 AM (V3WTz)

31 Personally, I don't have feelings one way or another about Gabe, since I don't know him.

As to the post, I have a feeling that when the state supreme court softball league starts up this spring, the CASC doesn't want to be taunted by the Mass SC, so we know how they are going to decide.

Posted by: sears poncho at March 05, 2009 10:40 AM (uj/0b)

It's a butthole thing.

Posted by: Pelvis at March 05, 2009 10:43 AM (LlaBi)

33 >>My guess is that any so-called conservative gay man (what is that, someone who uses a condom?) will be secretly rooting for Jerry Brown et al.

Only if they're not consistent on principles.

Posted by: Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight at March 05, 2009 10:44 AM (taJZA)

34 Should be a fun three hours. I doubt the Court will announce it's decision right after oral argument, so it will be some time before an opinion/decision/order is rendered.

Gabe, who submitted amicae curie briefs? Not sure I spelled it right, but would be nice to know who all the players are, other than the parties themselves.

FYI amicae curie (i think Latin for 'friend of the court') briefs are papers submitted by people who think they have something useful to add, generally in furtherance of whatever views they have.

Posted by: Penfold at March 05, 2009 10:45 AM (lF2Kk)

35 Gabe is a Moron in Good Standing.

erg, time for your nap.

Posted by: eman at March 05, 2009 10:49 AM (CUR/M)

Ironic for a group complaining about having their rights stripped should try to strip others' rights, simply because they disagree with their political and religious views.

I don't call it ironic. I call it predictable. I wish I could say predictable of liberals, but I'm afraid that's human nature. Although I think I can claim that liberals are more guilty of this than conservatives. After all, it is liberals who changed the definition of tolerance.

Posted by: katya at March 05, 2009 10:52 AM (oRJZj)

37 This should be a five minute session which mostly involves all the justices yelling at the lawyers for wasting their time with blatantly unconstitutional requests.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 05, 2009 10:55 AM (PQY7w)

You have the right to be ruled by unelected judges, and nothing else.

I think it's time to start over. We're back to monarchy, we just call the Kings a different name.

Posted by: MarkD at March 05, 2009 10:56 AM (MMy4A)

As long as we're on this gay thread:

Tossing Salad: Better to Give or Recieve?

^{_{And yes, I would be interested to hear what the CA SC has to say on that topic.}}

Posted by: pendejo grande at March 05, 2009 10:57 AM (PXZI9)

I LOLed.

So did I.

I doubt the Court will announce it's decision right after oral argument, so it will be some time before an opinion/decision/order is rendered.

The Court has 90 days from today to issue the written decision. Today will simply be an opportunity to see where the Court is headed and gauge the effectiveness of the advocates.

Gabe, who submitted amicae curie briefs? Not sure I spelled it right, but would be nice to know who all the players are, other than the parties themselves.

There are dozens of amicus briefs. See the second link in the post.

Posted by: Gabriel.Malor at March 05, 2009 10:57 AM (ztNrs)

41 Hmmmm.

IMO You'd have to be out of your mind to live in California.

Posted by: memomachine at March 05, 2009 10:58 AM (oNWAo)

42 What is the compelling Government interest in gay marriage?

The beneficial status accorded to and management of marriage was introduced by Government to due to society's interests in a foundation for economic growth (ie. a 2.1 child replacement value), stable home environments for civic development (ie. less crime), and to ensure genetic diversity (ie. improved health).

What is the case for Government's interest in prescribing benefits to or management of gay marriage?

What if a Government wants to manage Gay marriage to ensure economic stability by requiring Gay couples to self fund Government retirement programs; unless they are willing to adopt up to the 2.1 ratio? What if a Government want to manage Gay marriage to address public health issues in the Gay community?

Supporters of Gay marriage need to be careful about inviting the Government into their affairs. You should have more a reason then, just "to be fair" or to make yourselves "feel good" or to be "empowered." Some day it might not be munificent Schwarzenegger leading California, but Bob Dornan.

Posted by: Jean at March 05, 2009 10:58 AM (L64A6)

43 Not the way to go about this. Forcing it through courts was what led to prop 8 in the first place. I support civil unions but I really think it's better to change peoples mind, not force upon the populace through our black robed philosopher kings. This will lead to acrimony and less acceptance of the gay community.

Posted by: Alex at March 05, 2009 10:59 AM (2hcV2)

44 This petulant and long-winded post on gay marriage reads like something the highbrow marxist mayor of the gay area might have written in the morning with his eyes still closed, before an extra fruity bottle of Boone's. Serve him a white russian and see if he'll blog "THE DOOR'S WIDE OPEN NOW. IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT."

Posted by: Gabey Babey at March 05, 2009 11:02 AM (sftw8)

45 I'd like these excess gay marriage threads better if Gabriel would attach cheerleader pics to them.

Here ya go adolpho.

Posted by: Deety at March 05, 2009 11:13 AM (1jglO)

46 39 As long as we're on this gay thread: Tossing Salad: Better to Give or Recieve?^{_{And yes, I would be interested to hear what the CA SC has to say on that topic.}} Posted by: pendejo grande

Its like breathing: better to exhale or inhale? A salad tossed is never lost.

Posted by: She Will Always Have A Place To Sit In CA at March 05, 2009 11:13 AM (/Vw3q)

The Constitution's been dead since Woodrow Wilson Abraham Lincoln.

I tried to get a copy of that original CA ruling that struck down the first of the mandates that were done via voter referendum. I read that thing and read it and never did understand their line of reasoning in the differences between a revision and an amendment. To me they are the same damn thing. One other thing to keep in mind is that if they lose in the CA court they will be sure to take it to the 9^th district federal court which is SURE to overturn it. That being the case, there is no federally protected right that I am aware of for gay marriage.

The other thing I could not understand in their reasoning is how either a �revision� or an �amendment� to the Constitution can be unconstitutional. There was just no logic in their ruling whatsoever.

As for Gerry Brown�s argument that even the constitution can not remove an �inalienable� right, I fart in his general direction. He is a nutcase and the fact that any court would allow him in chambers is in itself a travesty and shows what depths of depravity the courts have become.

Posted by: Vic at March 05, 2009 11:14 AM (f6os6)

48 I heard that Jerry Brown used to give blowjobs to fellow jesuit seminarians at Sacred Heart Novitiate before he realized he couldn't stomach being a priest...

Posted by: Gabey Babey at March 05, 2009 11:18 AM (sftw8)

49 OT: How many of you morons are going to midnight showings of Watchmen?

Posted by: Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight at March 05, 2009 11:20 AM (taJZA)

50 While we're dealing with gay issues, I'd like to take this opportunity to say I hate Stacy and Clint on "What Not to Wear".

Posted by: katya at March 05, 2009 11:20 AM (oRJZj)

"right, I fart in his general direction"

Isn't that how gays blow kisses?

Posted by: Gabey Babey at March 05, 2009 11:20 AM (sftw8)

52 Dirty Sanchez's for EVERYONE!

Posted by: Michelle Obama's Ass Crack at March 05, 2009 11:21 AM (LdYLm)

53 I was under the impression that here in California (yes, unfortunately I live here--where the illegal immigration balances out the citizens flight out of the state) reelected our supreme court judges every six years or so. They had better remember that we voted out one chief justice a number of years ago, and we can still do it again (I think). As for Moonbeam, we've always known he had gay tendencies.

Posted by: TimothyJ at March 05, 2009 11:27 AM (IKKIf)

54 This is a case where the Judicial branch of the State of California is being pressured by the Legislative branch, to overturn a completely legal admendment to the State's Constitution. Where the Legislative branch of the government completly ignores the very people they represent. Forget the gay marriage issue, that's small potatoes compared to what's at stake here. The Dems really believe they have a mandate of complete power.

Posted by: Sparky at March 05, 2009 11:28 AM (J1f2W)

I heard that Jerry Brown used to give blowjobs to fellow jesuit seminarians at Sacred Heart Novitiate before he realized he couldn't stomach being a priest

Back when I lived in CA many years ago I had some buds on the Oakland Vice Squad tell me that they busted Jerry in bathrooms many times with his �partners� when his father was Governor.

Posted by: Vic at March 05, 2009 11:30 AM (f6os6)

56 Nothing makes sense anymore in our legal system. Our law makers can be trusted to serve up pure chaos. In the words of Mel Gibson, "We are on our own."

Posted by: katya at March 05, 2009 11:30 AM (oRJZj)

57 " amicae curie (i think Latin for 'friend of the court') briefs"

There's a joke about gays and friendly briefs in there somewhere.

Posted by: right at March 05, 2009 11:35 AM (EquV1)

58 57 " amicae curie (i think Latin for 'friend of the court') briefs"

There's a joke about gays and friendly briefs in there somewhere.

I think the one about negotiations and strange bedfellows is appropriate as well.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at March 05, 2009 11:41 AM (XOTI3)

59 I like how erg always says we hate Gabe every time Gabe posts about SSM. Like erg gives a fuck.

Gabe could say, right now, 'You're right, erg. Fuck you morons! I'm a Lib now!' and every time Gabe posts on HuffPo, erg would be the first one to write that Gabe is a Rightwing Nazi that nobody should listen to.

What a fucking joke.

Posted by: Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight at March 05, 2009 11:46 AM (taJZA)

60 Holy shit - just execute general powers of attorney for each other and get on about your buttsex. Quit wasting our fucking time.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 05, 2009 11:56 AM (xGIqT)

61 Hey, man. People advocate worldviews which harm them. That's called "hegemony." Gabe is, uh, hegemonmized.

Just like you fuckers who want banks to fail to satisfy an ideology.

Posted by: ergastularius at March 05, 2009 11:58 AM (B62QN)

62 "Hegemony"? WTF are you on, erg?

Posted by: Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight at March 05, 2009 12:01 PM (taJZA)

63 His problem now is that things like airline tickets and hotel reservations purchased with a credit card have his legal name, but his passport has his old name.

So file w/ the State for an official name change.

Cry me a fucking river. If it was really a problem, he'd file for a name change. he hasn't, because being a political football is more important to him than fixing the problem.

Screw him.

Posted by: Greg Q at March 05, 2009 12:05 PM (87k2j)

64 Cal Channel is already down. An alternate live feed is here. Shannon Minter is up first.

Posted by: Gabriel.Malor at March 05, 2009 12:05 PM (ztNrs)

65 Kinda like a jew, who's a nazi.

O what I'm sayin', gabe?

Posted by: ergastularius at March 05, 2009 12:05 PM (B62QN)

66 Careful there bomber. You're asking the boy to engage in a rational discussion. Which would reqire a rational thought. Which means you're gonna be here a while.

Posted by: pendejo grande at March 05, 2009 12:07 PM (PXZI9)

67 Unlike gabe, more people understand by the day that the Limbaugh-gop hates them.

Posted by: ergastularius at March 05, 2009 12:08 PM (B62QN)

68 Know what I'm sayin', gabe?

Posted by: ergastularius at March 05, 2009 12:09 PM (B62QN)

69 Just remember that civil unions in California already have the SAME rights married couples do- they are just stomping their feet because they want the *term* marriage.

Sad.

Posted by: DavidM at March 05, 2009 12:10 PM (R/e5b)

70 Yeah.... I'm just noticing that erg doesn't deny what I wrote. Funny that.

Posted by: Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight at March 05, 2009 12:14 PM (taJZA)

71 That's called "hegemony."

Avenge me!

Posted by: the english language at March 05, 2009 12:14 PM (PD1tk)

72 And, you know, Liberals are such loving, caring folks. Everything they say is always positive and uplifting...

Posted by: Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight at March 05, 2009 12:17 PM (taJZA)

"the love that dare not speak its name"

Sooo 1895. Give me a freaking break.

It's the love that can't shut up long enough to come up for air.

Posted by: comatus at March 05, 2009 12:25 PM (jfJmZ)

74 @73, LOL, that's funny on so many levels...

Posted by: MikeH at March 05, 2009 12:35 PM (LdYLm)

how many times will the Courts spit in the face of the ppl?

gay marriage bans pass all over the country practically every single time they are on the ballot, then the libs use the Courts to thwart the will of ppl.

what fucking good are the Courts if they are nothing more than a tool used by the libs to force ppl who don't agree with them to accept their morality?

since when does the minority get to tell the majority how things are?

they cry "tyranny of the Majority!"

when do we get to say "tyranny of the Minority!"?

Posted by: shoey at March 05, 2009 12:42 PM (IRh55)

76 "...the love that dare not speak its name"? More like "the love that won't shut the hell up for a minute so someone else can get a word in edgewise".

Posted by: Ace's liver at March 05, 2009 12:51 PM (LtIsn)

ergastularius

So, a gay conservative who doesn't support judicial activism comes to that decision, not from principal but self hatred.

Got it.

Posted by: armybrat at March 05, 2009 01:04 PM (S6IpL)

Liberals: "Democracy is only valid when we get the results we want"

Posted by: Iblis at March 05, 2009 01:37 PM (9221z)

it is just obviously the beliefs of judges that they know what is best

It's libertarianism in action. Down with this hateful representative government! Long live our judicial overlords!

Posted by: flenser at March 05, 2009 02:14 PM (cbyac)

Kinda like a jew, who's a nazi.

O what I'm sayin', gabe?

You're saying you should have been stuffed in a trash can at birth. But it's still not too late. You just need a bigger trash can.

Posted by: flenser at March 05, 2009 02:21 PM (cbyac)

81 Will again the will of the people be over turned by the imperial court system and especialy the sinister 9TH CURCUT COURT? its time for some liberal actvists judges to be benched and the paychecks taken away

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at March 05, 2009 02:59 PM (kwU5G)

Loves Gabe, and always enjoys the sight of Gabe's swankily wrapped old gay posts.

Posted by: Tres at March 05, 2009 03:03 PM (uoQtG)

83 Interesting that Gabe's summary of the "three issues involved" doesn't include the point that California continues to have (even after Prop

extremely comprehensive domestic partnership laws (legal analysts have said that California's version of DP have the same force as Vermont's "civil unions" -- just under a different name. Since the availability of DP would seem to weaken any argument that Prop 8 created hardship for same-sex couples, how can the CA court avoid addressing it? Or was this just an oversight by Gabe?

Posted by: Throbert McGee at March 05, 2009 06:11 PM (w6H5X)

84 <i>That's called "hegemony."</i>

I thought Hegemony was the chick from the Harry Potter books.

Posted by: Throbert McGee at March 05, 2009 06:14 PM (w6H5X)

85 I watched a lot of the arguments with some very liberal classmates, some of whom had worked for SF attorneys last year preparing arguments for this case.

They did not seem optimistic. The one I had the longest conversation with seemed sure that they were going to lose (i.e., that Prop 8 would NOT be struck down by the CA-SC).

FWIW.

Posted by: Knemon at March 05, 2009 07:01 PM (gXEC6)

86 "People advocate worldviews which harm them."

That old False Consciousness rag, ergastularius? Pitiful.

Posted by: Knemon at March 05, 2009 07:05 PM (gXEC6)

87 Gabe Malor, my favorite gay! Now when I tell people that "some of my best friends are gay" they will know I mean you!

Posted by: Contributor X at March 05, 2009 08:48 PM (RcGCt)

88 Interesting that Gabe's summary of the "three issues involved" doesn't include the point that California continues to have (even after Prop extremely comprehensive domestic partnership laws (legal analysts have said that California's version of DP have the same force as Vermont's "civil unions" -- just under a different name. Since the availability of DP would seem to weaken any argument that Prop 8 created hardship for same-sex couples, how can the CA court avoid addressing it? Or was this just an oversight by Gabe?

Throbert, those are the three issues certified for review by the Supreme Court. I just cut and pasted it from their order.

The reason I didn't think to include it and they didn't either, I suspect, because the issue you raise was already discussed in the In re Marriage Cases. It is not at issue in the Prop 8 challenge, though you are not the first person who has declared a desire to re-litigate that case.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at March 05, 2009 09:59 PM (rWvvO)

89 货架货架托盘托盘货架

Posted by: google排名 at August 12, 2009 03:47 AM (KUnwh)

Posted by: retailike111 at October 16, 2009 09:07 AM (VnGnq)

91 discounthair straighteners
ghd hair
chi hair straightener
ghd straighteners
chi straighteners
chi hair
chi hair iron
hair straighteners ghd
ghd hair straighteners
free shipping!

Posted by: hair straighteners at October 24, 2009 08:37 AM (9oMrs)

Posted by: ugg boots at October 27, 2009 07:39 AM (Am8nx)

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

Posted by: fdsfds at October 27, 2009 07:39 AM (8kvkz)

94 Your post very good,thanks for sharing!Are you also like these:ugg boots uk,buy ugg boots,australia ugg,cheap ugg boots,ugg boots,ugg boots sheepskin,womens ugg boots,ugg australia boots,cheap ugg boots

Posted by: australia ugg at October 27, 2009 10:23 AM (c6EK2)

Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing

/>

business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on

Posted by: nike dunk sb at October 30, 2009 09:20 AM (LACJ9)

96 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.

Posted by: mbt shoes at November 08, 2009 08:25 AM (QhfLM)

Posted by: ugg boots at November 12, 2009 01:13 AM (IeIJx)

98 Supra FootwearThe supra shoe is comfortable and can wear all day.
supra ShoesThe bestsupra.com seems to be from strong material, and have many seems all over. They are really beautifull.
Supra Skytopbestsupra.com offer Great quality shoe for a reasonable price.
Supra 2009Comfort

Posted by: ryiu at November 12, 2009 10:11 PM (9dQ8A)

99 nike dunk sb

Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing

business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on

Posted by: nike dunk sb at November 14, 2009 12:27 AM (APB+g)

100 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

Posted by: cheap at November 14, 2009 04:26 AM (s7MB5)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 04:04 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: nike shoes at November 17, 2009 04:35 AM (DuP3Z)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 11:14 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 09:20 PM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 06:35 AM (C/zDM)

106 UGG BOOTS

Posted by: UGG BOOTS at November 19, 2009 07:11 AM (n0jE1)

Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.0443 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0082 seconds, 115 records returned.
Page size 92 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.