David Boies on Prop 8 ruling: We proved that same-sex marriage won’t hurt society
posted at 7:52 pm on August 4, 2010 by Allahpundit
Note well: He’s emphasizing the factual findings in the case here, not the ostensibly more important legal conclusions about due process and equal protection. That’s smart as a legal strategy insofar as the facts, not the law, are binding on the appellate courts that’ll hear this case, and it’s smart as a political strategy insofar as the average joe will likely be interested in the sociological testimony from the trial but not so much the tedium of due process analysis. If you’re going to use your limited time on camera to push gay marriage to the public, this is precisely the sort of thing you’d want to emphasize.
That said, while it’s no secret that I support gay marriage too, I think they’ve made a needless mistake in pushing this in the courts instead of doing it legislatively state-by-state. The optics are uniquely bad — a federal judge imperiously tossing out a public referendum enacted by citizens of one of the bluest states in America on the shoulders of a multi-racial coalition. If the goal of gay-rights activists is to make same-sex marriage palatable to the public, then embittering opponents by torpedoing a hard-fought democratic victory seems like … an odd way to go about it. The response to that will be that equality can’t wait, just as it couldn’t wait vis-a-vis school desegregation in the 1950s. Except that (a) no one, including gay-marriage supporters, seriously believes that the harm here is as egregious as the harm to blacks under Jim Crow, and (b) there was no assurance of a legislative solution to racial injustice in the 1950s the way there currently is for gay marriage. A strong majority already favors civil unions; as I noted earlier, opposition to same-sex marriage is in decline and down to 53 percent. When polled, young adults are invariably heavily in favor, guaranteeing that the legal posture on this issue will shift further over the next decade. The real effect of this decision, assuming it’s upheld on appeal, will be to let gay-marriage opponents claim that they were cheated in a debate that they were losing and bound to lose anyway. That’s what’s called a pyrrhic victory. Too bad.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 8 9 10 11 Next »
You tell me. You’re the one that keeps using the word.
blink on August 5, 2010 at 3:48 PM
That higher level of sophistication being “don’t be bigots against kid touchers”.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:48 PM
Ouch. That hurts my feelings.
The “F” in FLDS stands for “Fundamentalist,” FYI.
The LDS and FLDS are a world apart. One is an offshoot of Christianity. The other is a cult of kiddie diddlers, polygamists, wife-beaters and racists.
Good Lt on August 5, 2010 at 3:49 PM
I know this pains you, but Marbury vs. Madison isn’t going to be overturned anytime soon, so again EPIC FAIL on your part. What’s your next ridiculously dumb point?
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 3:49 PM
you’re WAY too stupid to explain the differences to.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:49 PM
Oh, sorry. I’ll be sure to refer to them as ephebophiles or hebephiles, if that will make you feel better. Accuracy is important.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:50 PM
So, even using your claims, then why aren’t all age of consent laws set at 16?
blink on August 5, 2010 at 3:50 PM
its not in the constitution…as Jefferson said….
“The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.” –Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
“The Constitution… meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” –Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:51 PM
“Make me.”
Racist, sexist, and a child. Bad start to life, son.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:51 PM
Now will you admit your bigotry?
blink on August 5, 2010 at 3:51 PM
racist.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:53 PM
Heh.
There is.
Not too outlandish, right?
And since things can’t merely be defined by what a law says (per your, um, crusade here), but rather by what some higher sophistication can deduce from it’s inherent nature that only certain wannabe diddlers can deduce, then it doesn’t matter anyway.
Thanks for playing.
Good Lt on August 5, 2010 at 3:54 PM
Your lame ass passive/aggressive tactics have long ago been exposed, so give it up. We get it. Gay marriage is the end of society as we know it. Next it’s people marrying animals and adults having sex with children. We’re all sliding down that slippery slope to hell. Just come clean with your goofy agenda blink. You’ll feel better. Plus, it really is more Christian than the dishonest approach you’ve taken here so far.
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 3:54 PM
If I were bigoted, I would. The bigot here is the one making homosexuals out to be the same as pedophiles. Need a mirror?
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:54 PM
I, for one, am bigoted against child molesters and child rapists.
MadCon?
Good Lt on August 5, 2010 at 3:54 PM
I’m going to be disappointed if this thread doesn’t hit 1000 comments. 995 more to go!
mmnowakjr85 on August 5, 2010 at 3:56 PM
Er 95, well…94 now..
mmnowakjr85 on August 5, 2010 at 3:56 PM
name the hetero equivalent of NAMBLA.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:56 PM
No shit. The fact of the matter, however, is that Jefferson lost on that one and history went a different way. Marbury vs. Madison is now the long, long established law of the land whether you like it or not. That fact is not going to change, so any argument you make in that regard is extremely silly and pointless. Next?
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 3:57 PM
FLDS
No homosexuality, and LOTS of kiddie diddling.
Good Lt on August 5, 2010 at 3:58 PM
Be back later, if there’s still a party.
Play nice, kids.
No touching the children, blink.
:-P
Good Lt on August 5, 2010 at 4:00 PM
that is my point, dumbass. the judges decide what our laws mean. duhhhhhhhhh
like this decision, and KELO decision…our laws and constitution are whatever the judges say they are…
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 4:00 PM
You don’t understand marriage; without REDEFINING it, a homosexual union can never be its equivalent in point and purpose. It contracts the definition to exclude the reason it exists at all.
SarahW on August 5, 2010 at 4:01 PM
they’re polygamists….your ‘point’ like everything else you say, is BS.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 4:01 PM
I must agree.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 4:01 PM
its not a law…its just the tyranny of the judiciary.
duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 4:02 PM
I understand this. Do you?
You linked to a definition that allows the law to grant majority (adulthood) to an individual at whatever age, less than 18, that the applicable law allows.
In other words, a state can set whatever age it wants.
Again, everyone knows that you’re only able to repeat the fact that you defer to state age of consent laws.
You’ve yet to defend the age at which these laws establish.
blink on August 5, 2010 at 4:02 PM
The German Left.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 4:02 PM
I think he’s a zombie.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 4:03 PM
You’re hopelessly obtuse. If two parties differ on the meaning of a particular statute, ordinance, regulation, etc., in your world who determines such meaning?
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 4:05 PM
I’ve never done that. I’ve merely attempted to use your progressive stance towards homosexual issues to try to get you to understand this issue.
But apparently, you will simply march lock step with social stigmas.
blink on August 5, 2010 at 4:05 PM
thanks again for proving your stupidity.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 4:06 PM
this ruling has nothing to do with the meaning of a law, this judge invented a right out of thin air, that has never existed before, just like abortion ruling….
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 4:07 PM
Another inappropriate joke about me.
Do you make gay jokes about all the lawyers fighting pro-bono against prop 8?
blink on August 5, 2010 at 4:09 PM
Mm hmm.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 4:10 PM
I make kid toucher jokes about anyone who whines about bigotry against kid touchers.
But I don’t think homosexuals and kid touchers are the same. You do. That’s why you keep asking that stupid question.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 4:11 PM
You’re one of these idiots that’s so stupid you don’t even realize just how stupid you are. Most dumb people are aware enough to be sort of embarrassed at their stupidity, especially when interacting with folks of normal intelligence. Let me make it really, really simple for you: Since almost the very beginning of our republic (see Marbury), the the supreme law of the land is the US Constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS. Capiche? Maybe you don’t like that fact, but it remains true nonetheless. Now what?
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 4:11 PM
talk about dumbass…you’re agreeing with my point that courts make up law out of thin air…
thanks!!
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 4:14 PM
People against Judicial Review in this case will be singing a different tune if large swaths of Obamacare get struck down by the Supremes.
Holger on August 5, 2010 at 4:14 PM
You admit to not having read the opinion, yet you know exactly what it says? That’s pretty amazing. This judge “invented” no rights. Here’s your assignment: Get on wiki (cause I think that’s really all you can handle) and look up the Equal Protection clause and “fundamental rights” (marriage being a long standing one under constitutional precedent). Then, take just a little time to read the factual basis in Judge Walker’s decision. Try being informed prior to making a fool out of yourself. It’s liberating.
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 4:16 PM
seriously how stupid are you? gay marriage has never been a ‘right’ in the history of the world.
there is no factual basis to it. just as the abortion decision, or marbury V. madison, this is raw judicial power.
pathetic.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 4:18 PM
and if you believe this, and you obviously do…then why is polygamy not a RIGHT?
why is pedophilia not a right? since sexual activity is obviously protected under equal protection.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 4:19 PM
Keeping using kid toucher the same way people use to bigotedly call gays the f-word.
Seriously, why are you in lock step with social stigmas? Why do you think it’s so unacceptable to take a serious look at the validity of the ages used in age of consent laws? Why are you so afraid? Is it because you’re worried about what society will think of you?
blink on August 5, 2010 at 4:19 PM
You’re seriously not this dumb, are you? You’re just messing around, right? The meanings of words in statutes, especially as applied to particular sets of facts, are almost never entirely clear. Tell me genius, when there’s dispute regarding what such a statute means, how is that dispute resolved with respect to such a particular set of facts?
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 4:19 PM
we’re not fascists who use the courts to further our agenda like you are.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 4:19 PM
hey dumbass, judicial review is not a law, nor is it a dispute about a law…its pure judicial tyranny, just as abortion, just as this ruling is.
how hard is this?
pathetically stupid…this isn’t a disagreement about the meaning of a law…this is making up law with the wave of a pen by a black-robed thug.
you really are dumb wow.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 4:21 PM
Be honest. Judges are greatly swayed by their own set of moral standards, and that such moral standards change over time. You certainly can’t deny that too many judges believe that the Constitution is a living, breathing document.
blink on August 5, 2010 at 4:22 PM
and its not like the congress can come along and further refine the meaning of the law because they disagree with the ruling…oh no…this is now a constitutional RIGHT that has never existed before because some judge says it is.
”Stroke of the pen,” Paul Begala, an aide to Mr. Clinton, said in summarizing the approach. ”Law of the land. Kind of cool.”
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 4:23 PM
Well, it’s been fun jackass, but all good things must end. I suspect that in addition to being really, really stupid, you are also mentally disturbed…seriously.
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 4:28 PM
mmnowakjr85 on August 5, 2010 at 4:28 PM
That’s the key phrase right there. That’s what determines what gets a green light and what gets a red light.
The definition of state interest can expand or contract depending on the issue at hand and is greatly affected by culture.
blink on August 5, 2010 at 4:30 PM
you really are a piece of shit
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 4:30 PM
What’s your point?
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 4:32 PM
yeah it works real well…right…
in In 2008, Justice Stevens was part of the 5-4 majority in Boumediene v. Bush that took the extraordinary step of refusing to obey the Military Commission Act’s order that the courts cease hearing cases involving Guantanamo detainees.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 4:33 PM
Thanks for asking.
My point is that the courts take a dynamic approach to what discrimination the state do and don’t have an interest in regulating.
Thousands of state laws are discriminatory. The biggest criterion with respect to the repression of sexual freedom or the freedom to marry is state interest. Does the state have an interest in restricting marriage to individuals that aren’t related? Does the state have an interest in limiting an individual to one marriage? Does the state have an interest in restricting marriage based on certain ages?
Frankly, I’m surprised that my arguments today didn’t boil down to state interest. When I engage with lawyers well versed in this area of the law we quickly debate state interest.
They almost immediately acknowledge the points that MadCon and Good Lt failed to understand. I know they’re not lawyers, but I thought I spoon fed them enough.
blink on August 5, 2010 at 4:46 PM
I don’t think the word marriage should be used when refering to a union between lesbiens and/or homosexuals.
The Garden of Eden was inhabited by Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Eve and Alice.
.
philly_PA on August 5, 2010 at 4:58 PM
It is utterly Orwellian what R4L does.
Holger on August 5, 2010 at 5:05 PM
There are enormous differences between the constitutional amendment the people of California adopted and the legislation hated by a majority of the country that was forced on us by idiot legislators who refused to read and understand what they were imposing on us.
alwaysfiredup on August 5, 2010 at 5:05 PM
Oh I agree there are light years difference between the two. One highlights why Judicial Review is a good thing, the other highlights why it is a bad thing. Under unlimited Judicial Review (which is what we have), the Courts could declare a Constitutional Amendment abolishing the Judiciary to be Unconstitutional which is absurd logic, as soon as the Amendment was passed the Supreme Court no longer had any authority. They could even declare an amendment that limits Judicial Review to be Unconstitutional.
Holger on August 5, 2010 at 5:16 PM
It doesn’t seem to be a distinction that the 14th Amendment makes. Regardless of how a state arrives at a law, they aren’t allowed to violate the 14th Amendment or the incorporated Constitutional rights.
dedalus on August 5, 2010 at 5:24 PM
On day one of a social experiment w/o peer, you have proved nothing, jackass.
Akzed on August 5, 2010 at 5:24 PM
POTUS Palin will sign the appropriate constitutional amendment into law in 2018, reaffirming marriage as between one man and one woman. POTUS Todd Palin, that is. Former POTUS Sarah Palin will be standing at his side, golfclapping her approval.
Akzed on August 5, 2010 at 5:27 PM
I’m pretty sure MadCon understands the “state interest” concept. It sort of goes without saying if you feel up to intelligently discussing constitutional issues such as the one at hand. The state interest concept is the bread and butter of any constitutional issue regarding potential infringements of fundamental rights (or otherwise, for that matter). Is there more to what you’ve been trying to say?
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 5:29 PM
Keep the day job Ak. BTW, methinks Ak failed grammar school civics.
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 5:31 PM
He certainly did his best to pretend that this concept wasn’t at the heart of the issue I was discussing.
blink on August 5, 2010 at 5:36 PM
Just how did David Boies prover as a factual matter that gay mariage won’t hurt society??? That’s the interesting question, not the political spin here or anywhere else.
From what arguments that I have been able to understand, David Boies did not prove factually that gay marriage does not hurt socisety. He set up a series of propositions that had the veneer of a factual argument but were actually ideological in content and avoided dealing with how gay marriage does hurt society.
Also, Boies is trying to deal with the subject as a factual matter as a way of avoiding the point that the People have the right to formulate their judgments on the pros and cons of allowing gay marriage, not some judge imposing the judge’s own policy preferences. It’s clever in some ways, but the factual argument is no really a factual argument.
Phil Byler on August 5, 2010 at 5:37 PM
Nah. I think he was simply cutting through the BS and calling you out on your passive/aggressive attempts to equate gay marriage with pedophilia.
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 5:39 PM
Honestly, I don’t know how to respond. The fad for enacting constitutional amendments by public vote is relatively new. I know that there is plenty of precedent saying that no state law may contravene the federal Constitution but I don’t necessarily believe it follows that no state Constitution may contravene the US Constitution. That would present a very interesting question of federalism.
alwaysfiredup on August 5, 2010 at 5:41 PM
Oh, and it matters excessively how a state arrives at a “law.”
alwaysfiredup on August 5, 2010 at 5:42 PM
Are you sure firedup?
I direct your attention to Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, to wit: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 5:54 PM
What mechanisms, referendum or otherwise, could a state use to reinstitute slavery, prevent women from voting, or outlaw synagogues? Fundamental rights don’t come from the government, but from a Creator. I’m not sure how they can be legislated away–even if it is done by one’s neighbors.
I’d like to see more federalism, rather than less, and I agree that the commerce clause is abused by the Court. However, individuals have certain rights regardless of what their state legislators do.
dedalus on August 5, 2010 at 5:56 PM
Then surely there must be a case somewhere where SCOTUS invalidated a state constitutional provision? I’m having trouble finding one but please, be my guest.
alwaysfiredup on August 5, 2010 at 5:58 PM
And pretty stupid.
We’re told marriage is, though.
Why can’t gays marry, then?
Good Lt on August 5, 2010 at 5:58 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704080104575286931017169308.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
I must have missed this when it came out. Because the IRS wants to treat domestic partnerships the same as married couples, but it can’t (because of DOMA), it is now requiring that gay partners “must combine their incomes together and then divide the sum equally.” I assume this also extend to deductions, like home loan interest and such. What a stupid roundabout way to get what you want without having to advocate a politically-difficult change in laws. F***ing executive branch.
alwaysfiredup on August 5, 2010 at 6:03 PM
Straight marriage is (Loving v. Virginia). Gay marriage is not, at least not yet. That’s just how it is right now. And something tells me Justice Kennedy isn’t going to go along with these blatant attempts to game the trial system.
alwaysfiredup on August 5, 2010 at 6:05 PM
There are plenty, and if I get more motivated, I’ll find you a few. You’re not seriously disputing the plain language of the Supremacy Clause are you?
You may want to look a little further into Kennedy’s positions regarding gay rights. Sorry, but this case was meticulously lawyered and decided and will ultimately be upheld by the Supremes. If you’re going to discuss these sorts of issues intelligently, you should know that appellate courts give extremely wide deference to findings of fact by the trial court. Get used to it…gay marriage is here to stay whether you like it or not.
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 6:17 PM
I simply can’t declare either side on this issue as “right” or “wrong.”
I have friends who have been together as a couple for over 25 years. It’s appalling to me to think that they can’t be given the same benefits and respect as other couples. Good gravy.
I also have met some of the most wackadoodle people in my life in the gay community, and I frankly think they need boundaries.
So I’m just going to sit this one out. :)
AnninCA on August 5, 2010 at 7:04 PM
this from the fascist sob who threatens people he disagrees with. you’re trash.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 7:21 PM
talk about BS, you sure can’t address the issue…since sex is a protected right now, then why isn’t polygamy and pedophilia?? hmmmmm??
dumbass
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 7:23 PM
talk about stupid, you are truly an idiot.
why can’t pedophiles marry then? why can’t polygamists marry then?
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 7:24 PM
yeah who cares about freedom of speech, or religious liberty?
people who disagree with the gays should be in jail, according to fascists like you
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 7:25 PM
Doesn’t ‘civil unions’ give them the same rights ?
So, what’s behind this push to call it ‘marriage’ ??
pambi on August 5, 2010 at 7:28 PM
I attempted to equate nothing of the sort.
I was merely rejecting his attempt to claim that I couldn’t use the same legal strategy that the gay marriage proponents have used.
blink on August 5, 2010 at 7:44 PM
But the state can restrict rights, including the right to marry, based on specific criteria.
blink on August 5, 2010 at 7:59 PM
Funny !
runner on August 5, 2010 at 8:12 PM
can’t believe this thread is still going…
runner on August 5, 2010 at 8:12 PM
I disagree. We will have to see how it turns out. And I am quite serious here: I am having trouble finding any state constitutional provision invalidated by the federal constitution on due process or equal protection grounds. The only time I find it is if the provision directly contradicts federal law as expressed by Congress. Gay marriage has no been so enshrined. It cannot directly contradict a federal law, but it isn’t. It cannot explicitly contradict a federal constitutional provision, but it doesn’t. You have to imply preemption based on the 1th amendment, and I am saying I don’t see cases like that in a cursory review. I would appreciate input if you have it.
alwaysfiredup on August 5, 2010 at 8:29 PM
*imply preemption based on the 14th amendment
alwaysfiredup on August 5, 2010 at 8:29 PM
Which only proves my point about you and Orwell.
You call yourself a Conservative, but you preach Theocracy. You call Fascist those who are against your position because of its dangers to people’s Rights.
You proclaim yourself for Liberty but more often than not, you preach against it. You call fascist those who actually want Liberty for themselves and others.
You cite Homosexuality as a danger to your Freedom of Religion, implying your Religion should have special rights while railing against the supposed special rights of Gays.
You’d push your religion on everyone if given political power but rail against others pushing their political agenda on you and you call them Fascist for doing so but call yourself innocent.
You are a gigantic case of Newspeak and DoubleThink.
Holger on August 5, 2010 at 8:53 PM
this is not only a laughable lie, its typical of what a left-wing lunatic would say. in your case the jack-boots fit honey.
more lies and BS. you want a ‘liberty’ that has NEVER EXISTED IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD…where do you think RIGHTS COME FROM???? hmmmmmm???
jackass
Since when and who says that a sexual BEHAVIOR is a right?? its not in the constitution, its not anywhere. and since gay sex is a ‘right’ now to people like you then why isn’t polygamy and pedophilia a right too?? hmmmmm??
you have no problem denying freedom of speech and religion to those you disagree with. you want to MURDER those you disagree with you fascist piece of shit.
again more blatant lies…you sound like a left-wing stooge, and your positions confirm it. jackass
you have no problem denying religious liberty and freedom of speech to those who disagree with you…and you have admitted it. you would take their lives just for disagreeing with you.
you truly are a nazi pig.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 9:11 PM
I think most people would care about and defend freedom of speech and religious liberty. I don’t see how those freedoms are threatened. You can criticize marriages you don’t like or approve of. We do it with celebrities all the time. You are free to say that homosexuality is a sin.
I am curious why those against gay marriage see it as a threat to their own marriages or lifestyle. If two consenting adults love each other, what is so bad about letting them marry?
lexhamfox on August 5, 2010 at 9:16 PM
have you done ANY research on this issue? if you do you will find that every legal scholars think religious liberty is VERY threatened by gay marriage. I have not found one who thinks there will be no problems for religious liberty.
your comment is ignorant and uninformed.
again another uninformed and ignorant comment. have you done ANY research on the effects of gay marriage upon society or real marriage? try reading Kurtz’s research on gay marriage in the netherlands.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 9:20 PM
even the NY times ran this piece…
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/10/us/10beliefs.html
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 9:23 PM
Chai R. Feldblum, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a proponent of same-sex marriage, agrees that permitting gay couples equal access to civil marriage will inevitably burden the religious liberty of those religiously opposed.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 9:24 PM
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 9:20 PM
You don’t seem able to specify any valid reasons. Neither could prop 8 supporters.
I’m straight and can’t see how any relationship between two gay guys threatens my relationship with a woman. It does not threaten my beliefs.
Calling me ignorant and uninformed doesn’t address the valid question.
lexhamfox on August 5, 2010 at 9:25 PM
I recommend reading the ediotial at National Review Online, “Judge Walker’s Phony Facts.” It does a better job than my 5:37 PM post did exposing the bogus nature of the findings of facts in Judge Walker’s opinion.
Phil Byler on August 5, 2010 at 9:26 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/52445/same-sex-marriage-vs-religious-liberty/ed-whelan
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 9:27 PM
I just posted the evidence, and yet you refuse to believe it. so calling you ignorant is very applicable.
I knew from your questions that you don’t care about the religious liberty of others. in fact people like you are glad to silence those you disagree with.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 9:28 PM
so are you a constitutional legal expert? if so, please refer me to your CV and some papers that would prove your expertise in this matter.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 9:29 PM
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 9:28 PM
You didn’t post the evidence. You article didn’t specify anything. I did not see your follow ups until I had already responded to your calling me ignorant.
lexhamfox on August 5, 2010 at 9:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 8 9 10 11 Next »