Town Square

Post a New Topic

Prop 8 supporters seek to nullify ruling that struck down measure

Original post made on Apr 26, 2011

The sponsors of California's Proposition 8 filed papers in federal court in San Francisco yesterday seeking nullification of a ruling that struck down the ban on same-sex marriage.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, April 26, 2011, 7:32 AM

Comments (30)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by What if the judge were "Straight"?
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 26, 2011 at 11:30 am

Should that have disqualified him or her from the case?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Support Human Rights
a resident of Happy Valley
on Apr 26, 2011 at 11:50 am

More idiocy from the right-wing hate crowd who seek to deny people fundamental human rights.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tennessee Jed
a resident of Jensen Tract
on Apr 26, 2011 at 12:29 pm

I don't agree with the decision, but I stand with Judge Vaughn Walker on this one!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dave
a resident of Birdland
on Apr 26, 2011 at 12:57 pm

Let's see, the people of California passed Prop 8, and a gay judge struck it down (or attempted to), and one thinks that has no bearing on his decision for this case. Time to get your head out of the sand. Heck yes, he should have disqualfied himself from the case!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Julie
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 26, 2011 at 3:52 pm

Julie is a registered user.

Well, Dave - what sort of judge do YOU think should have heard the case? A heterosexual? Should African American or Latino judges excuse themselves from cases that involve race discrimination? Female judges from cases involving rape?

If you think judges rule based on personal feelings instead of law, then thank goodness you are not a judge! "Walker said the gay marriage ban violated the federal constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection." THAT'S why he struck it down. How do you even know he wants to get married? Not all straight people want to be married, why assume that all gays do. Shall they grill Judge James Ware now regarding his orientation? Maybe he has gay family members!! It's a conspiracy!

Tennessee Jed, good for you to be able to see more than one side of an issue!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by SteveP
a resident of Parkside
on Apr 27, 2011 at 8:26 am

SteveP is a registered user.

Since being gay has been deemed to not be just a lifestyle choice, but is closer to a genetic defect, by extension, this judge is not fit to serve in upholding the law or the peole who elected him to his position. Although, in Calif. with the influx of fruits, nuts and flakes, it's no wonder we have no morals being observed or upheld.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by common decency
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 27, 2011 at 9:32 am

Post removed because it addressed another commenter and not the issue being discussed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tim
a resident of Downtown
on Apr 27, 2011 at 12:31 pm

The 2nd headline is correct, "Proponents 'grasping at straws because they have no legal case," Clearly Judge Walker made the right decision based on the Constitution. The other side has no REAL defense, so now they're attacking the messenger. All of us fit into various "demographic" groups, including judges. There would be no way for us to have any sort of judicial system if judges had to recuse themselves of any case involving the demographic group they fit into. Should Christian judges not hear case about discrimination against Christians? Maybe we should have male judges not be involved in cases where a man is on trial? Walker and ALL judges are required to base their rulings on the Constitution and the law. There's no evidence Walker didn't follow this requirement.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Homo Rights
a resident of Downtown
on Apr 27, 2011 at 7:20 pm

Homosexuality is not a genetic defect, it is a psychological defect.

Regardless, the U.S. constitution protects people with defects.

In fact we all flaws, just some are more serious than others.

Homosexuals are entitled to their rights and protection, as well.

We don't have to like it, but that will not change the situation.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by common decency
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 27, 2011 at 7:45 pm

Post removed because it addressed another commenter and not the issue being discussed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jeb
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 27, 2011 at 9:22 pm

Should Christian judges should recuse themselves from cases involving church and state issues? Of course not, and neither should this judge have in this case


 +   Like this comment
Posted by common decency
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 27, 2011 at 10:24 pm

Hmpf. Well, I'll give it another try. Here's what an above poster claimed: "Homosexuality is not a genetic defect, it is a psychological defect." But of course there is absolutely no evidence that supports such a claim, thereby making the claim either an intentional falsehood or an example of jaw-dropping ignorance. Either way, I will refrain from commenting on the mental health or lack of mental health of a person making such a claim.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by bowwow
a resident of Pleasanton Village
on Apr 29, 2011 at 9:03 am

Let's let anyone marry anyone, this will then open the door and allow me to marry my reincarnated dog, Spot, when he comes back as a sheep!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by freedom lover
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 29, 2011 at 9:32 am

I for one support bowwow's desire to marry his sheep. I've heard about how lonesone country boys such as bowwow -- and I'm certain he's very lonely indeed -- tend to think.

In keeping with the great liberal tradition, it is bowwow's right as an individual to do whatever he desires ... only to be prohibited if his action demonstrably causes harm to another human (or in bowwow's case, to another animal). This rules out marriage between a free adult (who can consent) and a child (who cannot yet do so); it also rules out marrying an animal and then inhumanely mistreating it. Of course, said sheep, beloved object of bowwow's desire and affection, being a nonhuman, sadly but understandably, would be ineligible for spousal partner rights.

But I support bowwow's urge to marry a sheep. I imagine that as intellectual partners they'd be a fine match, and it would be an antidote to bowwow's extreme loneliness.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by b
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 29, 2011 at 10:29 am

What does winning an election have to do with anything? The Republican obstructionists didn't win majorities in the U.S. Senate or California Legislature, and yet seem to strangle most every piece of commonsense legislation that comes out of those bodies.

Gay marriage is a human rights issue. U.S. history is littered with egregious human rights violations, that were supported by majorities (and sometimes the US Constitution) in their time.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of Highland Oaks
on Apr 29, 2011 at 5:05 pm

Sexual preference cannot be cited as a disqualification because it would disqualify everyone.

The law protects persons involved in contractual relationships, such as business partnerships and unions between individuals, and this protection must include everyone to have any meaning.

'nuff said?



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike's Right!
a resident of Downtown
on Apr 29, 2011 at 8:03 pm

Sounds reasonable to me, Mike. But prejudice and the fear and hatred upon which it is based isn't going to let your rational thought get in its way.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by not right
a resident of Amador Estates
on Apr 29, 2011 at 9:05 pm

So freedom lover , you support the sheep boy. Would you support the brother and sister that wanna marry each other, how about the father and daughter , mother & son , sister & sister ,brother and brother? If this door is opened then we all lose. You cannot stand there and say it's okay to be gay and be married, and not approve a mother & son getting married when he's at age of consent .
You will have some weirdo wanting to marry his 21 year old daughter because they're in love , and they think they have that right . That will be next , and everybody knows it . You said that age of consent is illegal , so is gay marriage . But that's different right . If you change something that is illegal , to legal. Then you open up so many other doors . That's what is the world is afraid of .
Remember " In God we trust " It's gotten us this far .


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Its a Legal Question
a resident of Del Prado
on Apr 29, 2011 at 9:26 pm

The argument is not that he was gay, but that he should have recused himself because he stood to gain from his decision. The key sentence in the article was:

"a personal interest in the outcome of the case because he might want to marry his partner"

Seems obvious to me.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by freedom lover
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 29, 2011 at 9:33 pm

You can trust in your god. There are no boogymen living under my bed, no holy ghosts or goblins clamoring in my attic, I have no totem poles or statues of beejus to worship in my backyard. Of course it is your right to trust in your delusion.

I know the whole concept of marriage between gays is difficult for you. There was a time not so long ago when god-fearing delusionals like yourself were afraid of interracial marriage, too. And they used god as cover for their hated-filled rationale to keep the races separate. People got over it ... or did they? Have you?

I honestly have not thought through the issue of interfamilial marriage between consenting adults. For me, it would depend on what experts have to say about the likelihood of birth abnormalcies. Yes, I've read that interfamilial conjugation has a higher rate of abnormal births than other groups. But I'd need to know more about it. I do know that some advanced civilizations permit first cousins to marry. (One of my absolute favorite movies: Lone Star, in which brother and sister marry without knowing they are blood relatives. After they find out, they remain married, and quite happily so, which I found entirely plausible.)

But let's be real -- perhaps too tall of an order for someone living in a delusional fog of hatred like yourself -- but c'mon. You don't like gay marriage not because it might lead to brother-sister marriages. You just don't like gays, do you? And so strong is your attraction (and so the necessity for you disliking them so), that you're willing to deny gays the rights that all other U.S. citizens enjoy.

Your words: "If you change something that is illegal , to legal. Then you open up so many other doors . That's what is the world is afraid of ."

Nope. You're wrong. That's what YOU'RE afraid of. You're so rattled even at the prospect of writing about it that you can hardly make yourself understood. Your egregious grammatical failings (yet again) reveal much about you: you're hopelessly lost at sea in a fog of fear and hatred.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Julie
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 29, 2011 at 11:30 pm

Julie is a registered user.

Why are some people so intent on comparing the right for two gay people to enter into a marital contract with...incest? beastiality? Is that truly the fear, that if gays are allowed to married then all of a sudden fathers will want to marry their daughters; farmers will want to marry their sheep?

It's a ridiculous and illogical argument because there is no sane or logical argument to support gays *not* being allowed to marry. Another strategy is to focus on irrelevant facts. So the judge was gay. How do you know he wants to marry his partner? Plenty of heterosexuals enjoy being single. And, even if he does want to marry his partner, I still don't agree he should have excused himself from the case. Judges will always have personal feelings about cases because they are human beings. They put those feelings aside and rule based on law. The judge explained his line of reasoning. You may not agree with it, but that doesn't mean he was wrong.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by still not right
a resident of Amador Estates
on Apr 29, 2011 at 11:32 pm

Nice, freedom " lover",
I never called you names , never put words in your mouth, never assumed something about you. I never said you were a hater . But you manage to do all that in your story to me . You don't know me, so don't put words in my mouth, You don't know if I'm black or white , Russian or French. I just put my opinion out, on what I think might happen . Somehow, you think this is a forum , for calling names and pointing fingers . I ask a question, and shared my concerns . You shared your feelings and concerns , before and I never called you names and pointed fingers at you . More importantly , I never put words in your mouth . I never said I hated anybody . What I said never spewed hatred like what you said to me. There are people out there that are gay , and have the concerns that I have . You have no idea if I'm gay , and have these concerns or if my brother is gay and he too has these concerns. We both maybe gay.
Please, don't respond to this message . You lost all credibility of having an opinion . You were close when you said "that you honestly hadn't thought about it" . That would have been a great start in having a good conversation about the topic. I am done talking to you. So please don't bother explaining yourself to me . Really just don't. I would like to read what other people might have to say . I'm not a hater. I'm really not .
Thank you. Good-bye.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by truth be told
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 30, 2011 at 12:05 am

"If you change something that is illegal , to legal. Then you open up so many other doors . That's what is the world is afraid of ."

Beyond your blustery, bullying attitude that you turn into poor-little-misunderstood-me victimization whenever you're challenged, it really boils down to your grammar and inability to put together a coherent thought that trips you up and makes you readily identifiable every time you post; and these don't simply indicate sloppy thinking --- though they do that --- but more significantly, they reveal a conspicuously deep psychological torment. It doesn't take a ph.d. in linguistics to recognize this, though perhaps I see it more clearly than some others precisely because of my educational background. I've said it before to you on so many other posts: I feel badly for you and wish I could help you.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by still not right
a resident of Amador Estates
on Apr 30, 2011 at 12:32 am

Truth be told,
I'm very sorry for the the error . I did my best from my phone . I do wish they had spell check on my phone like you have on your computer at your home. But we do our best.
Thanks for the heads up !


 +   Like this comment
Posted by truth be told
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 30, 2011 at 12:51 am

Yes, you who claim yourself to be "still not right", I have a spell checker but I don't use it. I don't have to. I'm my own spell checker. Believe it or not, you who claim to be "still not right," that's what having a good education does for you.

We both know what is "still not right" though, don't we? And it isn't a question of phone texting or using a spell checker.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by still not right
a resident of Amador Estates
on Apr 30, 2011 at 1:21 am

I said sorry and thanks. I really do wish they had spell check on phones. Why are you so mad. You and freedom lover friends?

Glad your a good speller . I am not the best.
Theses things don't have anything to do with topics at hand.
People don't want to read this stuff.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Because
a resident of Birdland
on May 1, 2011 at 12:32 pm

Julie

Because two guys having sex is just as perverse as a guy having sex with a dog. Things are not genetically designed to go there


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Active and Healthy
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 1, 2011 at 12:47 pm



... which I imagine makes @Because one rather boring sex partner, assuming that ... well, I won't go there. But I will say this. My husband and I have great fun exploring all sorts of multiple possibilities. Hey @Because, it's the 21st century. You oughta try to live a little! There's a lot to like! It might break down some of the barriers of prejudice you build and defend in order to protect yourself from yourself as well as others.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by dublinmike
a resident of Dublin
on May 1, 2011 at 10:46 pm

dublinmike is a registered user.

I know several same-sex couples in the Tri-Valley, and they are bewildered by how some of you are hostile in your beliefs. They pay their taxes, they believe in getting along with neighbors, making sure their neighborhood looks great, safe neighborhoods and watching out for each other, watch out for strange cars driving through. But, you know what...! get this, some are Republicans! Go figure...

Cheers.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rita
a resident of Downtown
on May 2, 2011 at 8:56 am

Dublinmike,

So you are saying that normally homosexuals are Democrat?


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

CIA’s Five Stages of Woe
By Tom Cushing | 30 comments | 1,577 views

Las Positas Foundation CEO Ted Kaye announces his retirement
By Tim Hunt | 4 comments | 1,102 views

Where's the wind?
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 668 views