Ninth Circuit rules Prop 8 unconstitutional.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

1. CaDan is well, ignore worthy, but I won't give him the trophy - "yeah typcial liberal, can't handle..." toss toss toss.

2. TJ, that's honestly pretty disrespectful, as someone with a law degree, to be told that the Judge couldn't make a legal decision on the status of Prop 8 because he's gay is offensive. Then people who have children shouldn't sit on family law cases, and on and on.

3. I'm kind of half-way with Bacon and Torie here. I don't think the legal reasoning is that weak, but nor do I think it really provides a strong legal premise. The decision is deliberately narrow, which is both its blessing and its curse. A narrow CA-only focus clearly was meant to not have an effect on states like AZ, ID and MT. But a narrow focus also makes the broader Constitutionality issue quite a lot weaker than I think it actually is.

If SCOTUS gets involved, expect probable overturning, but yes, Kennedy will be the determining factor, yet again.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

2. TJ, that's honestly pretty disrespectful, as someone with a law degree, to be told that the Judge couldn't make a legal decision on the status of Prop 8 because he's gay is offensive. Then people who have children shouldn't sit on family law cases, and on and on.

I never said he couldn't make a legal decision. I just said it would be rather obvious what he would decide.

Sorry, but respectfully, that's exactly the same thing. By saying you knew what he would rule, you're suggesting he's not judging the case on it's legal merits.

If the government decides to force the Church to participate or me to enter one myself, then yes, I might engage in civil disobedience but I doubt it will come to that in my lifetime.

The government forcing you to get gay married......I don't see how that would ever be possible. I don't even get how you came up with that. Lots of people, including people like me who are 110% for gay mariage, would have a huge problem with that. I dunno, it's just too silly to respond to....

On the other hand I can see a situation where a church is forced to wed a gay couple, but I'm thinking that is unconstitutional. Regardless, I would be against that. Just like I would be against forcing any church to wed a mixed race couple.

The degree of hyper-paranoia from the religious right on this issue is quite amusing.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

To suggest the possibility at any time is paranoia.

I don't disagree that the politicisation of the judiciary is a HUGE problem - which is why I completely reject the election of Judges and pure political appointments.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This only applies to California. I could see the full 9th upholding this ruling and the Supreme Court declining to hear this. There is a ballot item in the signature gathering phase to repeal Prop. 8.

Yeah, the narrowness is clearly designed to create a disincentive for SCOTUS to get involved.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You have to determine that a fetus is a legal person first if you want to use the Fourteenth that way.

Nobody of note has ever denied that gays and lesbians are legal persons.

Give JCL time.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

To suggest the possibility at any time is paranoia.

We're psychologising the use of counterfactuals to pose a contrast now? 

Philosophy professors everywhere, you are forewarned. 

Indeed...