FUCK YOU, CAL SUPREMES!!!

[Hepburn]

:grr:

You listened to Mormon bullshit ~~ that was not the voice of the Cal Voters. That was outside money coming into our state and turning around an election for their own little twisted interest group.

As a Californian and as a California attorney all I can say to you, the Cal Supremes is:



Little me to Big you:

[L0oniX]

1. Hey ...where can I get one of those red fuck you keys?

[Hepburn]

5. LOL....

...wouldn't that be a nice addition to a keyboard for times like this.

I am soooooooo totally pissed ~~ and what is REALLY getting to me? The RW bigot assholes who are out celebrating that some of us are treated less equally than others!

Fuck that shit!

[Rebubula]

6. RW bigot assholes...

...now, I agree that they are a MAJOR road block in this whole thing - let us NOT FORGET that our own President\VP does NOT support gay marriage.

We have plenty of people with a 'D' next to their name that are still against equal rights.

[Hepburn]

12. This bullshit hits me just like the bullshit when certain states did not...

...allow different races to intermarry.

This is wrong...just plain fucking wrong and I am steamed. This is about treating EVERYONE equally. Seems like suddenly it is the "politically correct" thing for those D-people to make nice-nice with the fundies.

Fuck that!

[Rebubula]

18. Making Nice?

I am not exactly sure what you are saying, but if you are saying that these people are espousing unfair policy stands just to appease some fundies - I would say that has nothing to do with it...OK...not much.

For many people, this is a religious issue and there are many on our side that still cling to outdated mythology. I have seen nothing from President Obama to contradict that theory. He seems to be opposed to the issue on his own merits; not on the hope that some asshole will vote for him.

And yes...fuck playing nice with fundies. I do what I have to in order to succeed in my line of business and support my family (as it relates to dealing with fundie assholes), but in personal situations no one gets a pass.

[Echo In Light]

2. K&R

[Hepburn]

3. Thank you for the Recs....

...I am pissed as hell. What they Cal Supremes did is WRONG. They did take away rights. No way around that!

:grr:

We will fight on....!!!

Edit for typo.

[GodlessBiker]

4. Don't forget Lilly Allen's song, "Fuck You":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ITZBBV8Syg

[Hepburn]

7. Link to FREE pro-gay marriage stickers:

From Helderheid's OP on the greatest page:

https://act.credoaction.com/stickers/?r_by=-250172-j0CS6Zx&rc=taf.stickers&sp=i_love_love

I figure it cannot hurt to post this link everywhere possible!

[regnaD kciN]

8. Well, the ruling is that minority rights can be superceded by popular vote...

...so let's start an initiative in California declaring that "freedom of religion" only applies to religions that were present at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights (i.e. not Mormons).

[Hepburn]

9. Well, I think all of us Californians NEED to do something to...

...wipe this trash off the face of our state.

I am not only pissed ~~ I am totally embarrassed!

[Staph]

13. Yes!!

Scientologists won't be allowed freedom of religion either!


(My sympathies to all in California -- your Supreme Court sucks!)

[proteus_lives]

10. That red key is awesome!

Let GLBT people wed!

[Hepburn]

11. Can you imagine having that key on your keyboard!

:evilgrin:

There are some things that really and truly deserve a giant FUCK YOU. Today's Cal Supreme ruling is most certainly right at the top of that list.

I am soooooooooo mega pissed....:grr:

[proteus_lives]

16. Me too!

I hate the fact that people aren't allowed to be happy and equal. It's backward and unworthy of an American court. :grr:


"Can you imagine having that key on your keyboard!"

On many days I'd be pounding away at it like it dispensed cigarettes and orgasms! ;-)

[Hepburn]

17. LOL....

...to funny! :hi:

[anigbrowl]

14. As an attorney, please explain why they're wrong, then

Morally I agree with you 100%. Legally, I don't see what else they could have done, but I'm interested in eharing your argument.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF is the previous decision from last year about the legality of prop 22, as opposed to prop 8 which modified the consitutional rather than the legislative environment.

This is today's opinion: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF I haven't finished reading it yet, but in essence it hinges on the question of whether prop 8 is a revision or an amendment of the state constitution (which was one of the arguments made by opponents) and conludes that it is a valid amendment.

[Hepburn]

15. I agree with Justice Moreno's dissent:

Proposition 8 is invalid because it is not a lawful amendment of the constitution. In essence, it alters the equal protection clause to deny same-sex couples equal treatment. IMO, a majority cannot vote away the rights of a minority.

[anigbrowl]

20. It's strongly argued, but I wonder...

although prop 8 has the effect of denying rights to gay people (to marry others of the same sex), the distinction seems to be that it's marriage which is being amended rather than rights directly.

Thus, if Prop 8 said 'only heterosexuals are allowed to marry in CA', that would clearly violate the state EP clause. But by amending the definition of marriage, it trickily circumvents this. In other words, if I'm gay, I can still get married - to a person of the opposite sex. That said Moreno makes good points about the cases cited by the majority and the extrapolations drawn from those.

[Hepburn]

22. I still am at this point:

What effectively took place ~~ even if the Cal Const was legally amended ~~ is that a majority took rights from a minority. I see these rights as CONTRACT RIGHTS. And gender, sexual orientation, etc., has NO place in the discussion of contract law.

To me, one of the most important pillars of justice is that a minority is protected from the tyranny of any majority. It was wrong what was done ~~ legally wrong ~~ even tho the Cal Supremes dealt with the fantasy that the amendment was done in a permissible way. What a fucking cop out.

Also: I see the "marriage" issues as basic contract law. Two consenting adults DO have a right to alter the legal relationships between themselves by forming a different/new contract between themselves through making an agreement which the state sanctions, empowers and enforces. Well, that held true until Prop 8. My issue is: Why is gender an element in regard to contract rights and/or contract law? I simply do not see this. Marriage is nothing more than a civil contract. PERIOD. Why are those of a particular sexual orientation denied this right? There is no legal principle which supports that contention.

JMHO

[anigbrowl]

23. Quite

Although it's interesting to note that the main opinion explicitly says CUs must have identical scope and that that the marriage thing is strictly a semantic reservation, muddying the waters further. Personally, I put most of the blame on our broken constitutional/ballot initiative system, which mandates the same threshold for constitutional changes as for legislative ones.

[Are_grits_groceries]

19. Justice George said

that Proposition 8 did not “entirely repeal or abrogate” the right to such a protected relationship, but argued that it “carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term ‘marriage’ for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/27marriage.html?hp

So now they are going to carve out "narrow and limited exceptions????" They are gerrymandering the law. What will be the next little niche carved out.

[HOLOS]

21. k&R