Oh my: Ninth Circuit stays Walker’s order, postpones gay marriage in California until December; Update: Prop 8 opponents won’t appeal
posted at 7:35 pm on August 16, 2010 by Allahpundit
Via Legal Insurrection, here’s the order in its entirety.
Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal. This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California.
The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997).
Emphasis mine. I’m amazed they were willing to wave away Walker’s order that marriages should begin immediately with something as brief as this. As of an hour ago, the first weddings were set to start at 5 p.m. on Wednesday; now they won’t happen until December at the earliest, with no explanation given of how Walker erred. Presumably they figured there’s enough of a chance that Prop 8 supporters will win on appeal that they didn’t want to let marriages happen now, only to have to void them later. That’s the good news for gay-marriage opponents; the bad news is that two of the three judges here are Clinton appointees and they’re clearly quite interested in Walker’s argument that Prop 8 supporters lack standing to appeal his decision. Merely postponing the inevitable here?
If you missed it over the weekend, enjoy the NYT’s editorial demanding court-ordered gay marriage not only in California but in all 50 states. Clearly, they have their finger on the pulse of American populism. Exit question: From a strictly political standpoint, is this good news or bad news for conservatives ahead of the midterms?
Update: No appeal coming from Prop 8 opponents, says the Advocate.
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 2 3 4 Next »
Yep, I was very disciplined I think about my self-ban-hammering. It was the right thing to do.
hawkdriver on August 16, 2010 at 10:04 PM
Huzzah!
Aquateen Hungerforce on August 16, 2010 at 10:04 PM
As far as I know there were no Gay marriages in those cultures… and I’m pretty sure no culture before this one even considered such a thing.
So if you are trying to appeal to history as an example of how to define the word marriage.. you lose… game over.
petunia on August 16, 2010 at 10:05 PM
I’ll hazard a guess, but I think consent has something to do with it.
Aquateen Hungerforce on August 16, 2010 at 10:06 PM
Were all Roman sanctioned executions legitimate?
blink on August 16, 2010 at 10:06 PM
The government should protect its citizens from thieves and murderers and, where possible, rehabilitate them so that the transgressors can function in a civic society. It doesn’t do a good job with the first and utter fails with the second. Why? Because it concerns itself with matters that it should leave alone.
year_of_the_dingo on August 16, 2010 at 10:07 PM
Consent has something to do with overturning consent laws????
Logic error!
blink on August 16, 2010 at 10:08 PM
Polygamy is definitely coming, it has far more historical standing and world-wide cultural approval than “gay linkage” does.
ebrown2 on August 16, 2010 at 10:08 PM
Actually, someone upstream claimed all marriages were a covenant with the Christian God.
I was simply pointing out to them that if that was the case, probably 95% of all marriages were illegitimate. Simply by the dearth of Christianity in human history and the fact that many people marry outside the Christian faith.
Aquateen Hungerforce on August 16, 2010 at 10:08 PM
I like you hawk…I do…but why do you keep bringing this up? Practice your Baptist faith. As you well know I’m Catholic, and as such I would certainly welcome you, a brother in Christ, to come back to the universal Church.
Then you can receive the Eucharist.
Anyhoo, God bless all. Still coming off a bit of a religious “high” if you will from Sunday when we celebrated the assumption of the Virgin Mary in body and soul into Heaven.
Peace.
JetBoy on August 16, 2010 at 10:08 PM
I’m wondering if you saw my question about the Holy Communion?
hawkdriver on August 16, 2010 at 10:09 PM
So you’re saying that the government shouldn’t judge thieves and murderers?
Theft and murder is a matter that the government should leave alone?
blink on August 16, 2010 at 10:09 PM
So was the decision to come back just glad you chose that route.
bluemarlin on August 16, 2010 at 10:10 PM
So, I’m a blond who hated the jokes as a kid. Nothing more.
Esthier on August 16, 2010 at 10:12 PM
Yes, as far as I know. The Church recognizes the protestant denominations. Only Mormons are considered to be outside of the faith, I think.
year_of_the_dingo on August 16, 2010 at 10:15 PM
No such claim was made. You misinterpreted what was stated.
Btw, were all Roman sanctioned executions legitimate?
blink on August 16, 2010 at 10:16 PM
Then you obviously don’t know very far.
blink on August 16, 2010 at 10:18 PM
Marriage is ordained of God. In every society and under every religion.
But civil unions are ordained by the state.
How can there be a “civil right” to define the word “marriage” differently than the people of California did by popular vote?
All rights and privileges of traditional marriage were given in the civil union law of California.
The issue before the Supreme Court of California was whether to call civil unions of gays “marriage”.
The court said yes, to take away the “stigma”.
The people said no, that is not how we want to define the word “marriage.”
The issue is not whether gays have the same rights as heterosexuals in California, they do.
petunia on August 16, 2010 at 10:23 PM
Well, your answer is a non-answer and also dismissive and patronizing as if I’m some moron who knows no better. If I were in a funny mood, I guess I could quip, find a girl and I’d gladly accept your desire for marriage, Peace!
If you can’t see the irony of a Catholic who holds sacred one ceremony, so strong in his beliefs that he would deny it to a fellow Christian and yet dismiss a ceremony we collectively describe as “Holy Matrimony” then I guess our faith is already pretty much a joke.
I don’t want your Communion. I respect the beliefs of the Catholics. It’s just sadly ironic you can’t do likewise.
hawkdriver on August 16, 2010 at 10:24 PM
Not true. Communion is the most important of the sacraments…and one needs to be of The Church to receive the body of Christ.
Even many Catholics are forbidden to take the Eucharist…women on birth control, for example. One must be Catholic, but also in a “state of grace”, without mortal sin (or at least having confessed such sin and done penance).
JetBoy on August 16, 2010 at 10:25 PM
Actually it is for that reason that I am 100% sure that this is not going to be the end of activists trying to “push the envelope” of what is called marriage.
And I think their motivation is as religiously based as Christian’s motivations are religiously based.
They want religion to be gone, they find it offensive.
petunia on August 16, 2010 at 10:28 PM
You bring it up enough.
And when have I ever not respected you’re beliefs as a Baptist? Receiving the Eucharist isn’t my rule. Send your gripe to Rome. I consider Protestants as brothers and sisters in Christ. And as all Catholics do, I pray for our unity in One Church someday, as Christ intended.
I’m sorry if you take that belief as “disrespect”, but you’re wrong my friend.
JetBoy on August 16, 2010 at 10:29 PM
If by “judge” you mean casting a moral judgement, then I say no. It does not have the moral authority to condemn anyone, not even thieves. The purpose of judging in a court of law is to determine culpability.
year_of_the_dingo on August 16, 2010 at 10:30 PM
I keep reading words like “should” and “ought” in the arguments offered by gay marriage proponents. What’s their justification for all of this moralizing? If they justify it by appeals to a transcendent moral authority, then we opponents are justified in appealing to the Bible w/o their whining about “judgmental h8rs.” if they appeal to consensus as the source of moral principles, then they lose because Prop 8 won at the polls. Is there any other basis for their moralizing that I’ve missed? If not, then the only way they win is through an exercise of raw power by a tyrannical minority.
Which is exactly what they’re doing.
OhioCoastie on August 16, 2010 at 10:31 PM
Just so I understand you correctly – are you saying that you disagree with the Church’s position of disallowing Protestants from receiving communion in a Catholic church?
blink on August 16, 2010 at 10:32 PM
Actually, no. Only Catholics are permitted to receive the Holy Eucharist. Hawkdriver would be very welcome at Mass, but it would be inappropriate for him to partake of the Holy Eucharist.
Of course, it is also even more inappropriate for Catholics who persist in sin, which includes practicing/promoting heresy like advocating homosexual activity and marriage, to partake. In fact, it is a grave sin. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
pannw on August 16, 2010 at 10:33 PM
Um, yeah, I mean judge as in a court of law. You know, like Prop 8 is a law.
Are you somehow claiming that Prop 8 condemns homosexuals?
blink on August 16, 2010 at 10:34 PM
No, I fully agree with the Catholic Church’s position on disallowing Protestants the Eucharist. Even on gay marriage, I’m not out to change Church doctrine or redefine the sacrament of marriage.
This whole Eucharistic argument with me and hawkdriver goes back a ways.
JetBoy on August 16, 2010 at 10:35 PM
Hater
blink on August 16, 2010 at 10:37 PM
Interesting that you would use that example rather than active homosexuals, considering the topic of the thread.
pannw on August 16, 2010 at 10:37 PM
Sorry, it was a question I actually already knew the answer to. And I’m not allowed. The funny thing was I didn’t know. I dated a Catholic girl in HS and we visited each others churches all the time. We took communion in each. I guess no one ever question I wasn’t Catholic. I was an adult the first time I was refused. I was going to the confirmation of my company commander who converted for her husband while deployed. She invited a lot of us who were not Catholics. The Chaplain announced for non-Catholics to please go to the back of the Chapel after her ceremony while they did the Holy Communion. It was a little hard to take at first, but I told myself, this is different than your faith and to respect what they believed. So, I really either understand or don’t care what non-belivers think, but to know that Catholics hold this (communion) so dear but have completely dismissed the sactity of marriage, well, I really don’t even know what to think or say. You expect it from the rest of the entire world, but not from fellow believers.
Thanks, but I really don’t know though. This site gets harder to come back to all the time.
hawkdriver on August 16, 2010 at 10:38 PM
Jetboy, is the communion I take holy?
hawkdriver on August 16, 2010 at 10:40 PM
That was the common theme of my comments.
Esthier on August 16, 2010 at 10:41 PM
What? Are you going to leave your church then?
hawkdriver on August 16, 2010 at 10:42 PM
I stand corrected. Truth is, I haven’t gone to church in years.
year_of_the_dingo on August 16, 2010 at 10:43 PM
You should be embarrassed to admit that.
blink on August 16, 2010 at 10:43 PM
Only dissenting Catholics have done this, hawkdriver. The Church is and always will hold to the Truth. She is the Bride of Christ. True marriage will always be sacred.
pannw on August 16, 2010 at 10:45 PM
I’m not touching that one, hawk.
Gonna finish watching the Jets/Jints, and going to bed. Cheers.
JetBoy on August 16, 2010 at 10:45 PM
Oy. Hawk, I believe the Catholic Church to be the One, True Church of Christ. If I leave it knowing that, I’m doomed to eternal damnation. So no…I will never leave The Church.
JetBoy on August 16, 2010 at 10:47 PM
How many times are you going to walk out on that question.
Is the communion I take holy?
hawkdriver on August 16, 2010 at 10:48 PM
This is a bit odd, Jet. You fully support the Church on this but not on homosexuality? Do you believe all Christians are “saved” regardless of their denomination?
Esthier on August 16, 2010 at 10:49 PM
As long as you keep asking it, I’m “walking out” on it. Not gonna get into some religious flame war.
Jet, out. God Bless, hawk.
JetBoy on August 16, 2010 at 10:49 PM
Well, not to throw too much of a curve ball, but JetBoy should be allowed to accept and reject whatever part of Catholic doctrine that he wants.
blink on August 16, 2010 at 10:51 PM
OK, Est deserves a last minute reply…
I support secular gay marriage. Pretty simple. And as far as the Church is concerned, being gay is not a sin. As far as my sins go, I confess them…probably not as often as I should, but I do.
And yes…as a Catholic, we believe in salvation outside the Church.
JetBoy on August 16, 2010 at 10:51 PM
So you admit that homosexual acts are sinful, because the True Church of Christ can not teach error in matters of faith, but advocate and practice them anyway? How do you reconcile that position?
pannw on August 16, 2010 at 10:52 PM
I reject no part of Catholic doctrine. How many times do I have to say it…I am not out to make the Church perform gay marriage. End of story.
JetBoy on August 16, 2010 at 10:53 PM
Any pre-marital sex, gay or straight, is sinful. Not to mention, my sins are between me, my Church, and God. And no one else.
JetBoy on August 16, 2010 at 10:54 PM
And prop 8 was struck down in accordance to the legal framework that currently exists. So how can the law be perfectly moral in one moment and a complete travesty in another?
year_of_the_dingo on August 16, 2010 at 10:55 PM
I am simply asking a question that requires one word to answer. You answer it once and I’ll never have to ask it again. The problem is that your Catholic faith requires you answer in a manner that allows no opinion but what you’ve been taught.
Why is it hard? I’ll accept whatever you say. Seems like if you thought it were holy it would be easy enough to say yes.
hawkdriver on August 16, 2010 at 10:56 PM
You’re the one attempting to claim that the law somehow makes a moral statement.
blink on August 16, 2010 at 10:57 PM
I certainly care what you think about me.
Esthier on August 16, 2010 at 10:57 PM
Everyone sins. I think JetBoy should be allowed to deal with his own sin between himself and God.
blink on August 16, 2010 at 11:01 PM
My statement wasn’t opinion. It was definitive truth.
blink on August 16, 2010 at 11:04 PM
Well, I’m a member of the Church as well. Also, you bring others into it. Your sin is quite public, Jetboy. You advocate it regularly. That creates scandal. You are scandalizing all non-Catholics who read this site who likely are already confused about what the Church actually teaches. Now, they may believe it is all right to be an active homosexual, because hey, here’s one and he says he’s an active Catholic, etc…
You know what Jesus said about scandal. Please think about it. Please.
pannw on August 16, 2010 at 11:05 PM
Since the Obama presidency obviously isn’t working out where does one go to buy a federal judge or group of them to overturn the results of the 2008 election? Are judicial rulings offered on eBay now or does one have to find a broker or a judge pimp to make the transaction?
Heidi Fleiss missed her calling. She could have arranged match-up parties between bidders / interest groups and judges and take a finder’s fee percentage. She wouldn’t have to worry about prosecution because she would know who to buy and what court would “fix” her problems. Alphonse Capone would be so proud!
Expect the 9th Circus to play balanced then when the heat dies down expect the old switcheroo. Voters be damned when gummint knows best what rules the peons need to follow.
viking01 on August 16, 2010 at 11:06 PM
Thanks, though sorry for keeping you here.
I wasn’t talking about marriage or just being gay, but I don’t need to push it.
Just wondering, but I’m sensing that the Church doesn’t believe in the sacraments outside of the Church, otherwise I imagine you would have just said yes to Hawk. I get it but also don’t. I believe in one Body of Christ. I just don’t believe we necessarily need to all be in the same church.
Esthier on August 16, 2010 at 11:06 PM
And I’m sure you know what that is.
Esthier on August 16, 2010 at 11:07 PM
Thank you.
blink on August 16, 2010 at 11:09 PM
Judge Walker …. playing the sudden alledgedly liberal gay judge.
Conservative pushers and defenders of Prop 8 …Playing themselves.
A former Young Repubican and Microsoft hater along with lawyer who won Bush Vs Gore ….playing the ultra liberal lawyers bent on gay world domination.
Sure a conservative judge can all of a sudden be “outed” even though in the past when he ruled against gays, no one mentioned his fabulous flame.
And, of course Bush buddies and Republicans could just be hit with the intense desire to bring gay marriage to all 50 states.
It’s all totally believable and any conspiracy that says it’s all just a ruse to get the case to the conservative Supreme court certainly has no merit.
LeeSeneca on August 16, 2010 at 11:13 PM
Jetboy, if you’re really off to watch your game then fine. Let me finish the conversation for you. You don’t believe we other Christian faiths actually consecrate our sacraments and therefore do not believe in the slightest that what we observe as communion, is holy. Forget that Jesus simply told ordinary men, not priests, to do this in remembrance of him. That’s your belief. You hold that dear as a Catholic.
But you can’t answer my question truthfully and then say that you don’t believe in the sanctity of a man and a woman who are joined in holy matrimony in the sight of God. It doesn’t matter what non-believers say or believe. Marriage is just a word to them. It is part and parcel to our faith though and you know it.
hawkdriver on August 16, 2010 at 11:19 PM
Then he needs to stop proclaiming it from the hilltop. He can’t have it both ways. Again, it is a scandal to others.
Please don’t think I’m just trying to harass Jetboy. I know I’m a sinner. But the thing is, I hate my sins. I don’t announce them proudly and say everyone should have to deal with them, that they are inevitably going to be made the law of the land. That isn’t keeping it between oneself and God.
Believe it or not, I say these things because I truly care. I don’t want him jeopardizing his immortal soul, ie. eat judgment to himself. But I also don’t want him and those supporting him here, to bring this sort of scandal to the Church that I love. Look what hawkdriver had to say about Catholics not upholding the sanctity of marriage. He has been scandalized. That upsets me.
pannw on August 16, 2010 at 11:20 PM
I agree. It is increasingly difficult to return. For me, it is because of a juvenile tendency toward name-calling in place of a well-considered argument. What is it for you?
DrMagnolias on August 16, 2010 at 11:20 PM
Yes. That is a point often missed in this discussion.
The real question is going to be… and I think this is the whole stigma argument of the California Supreme Court:
“If we are married how can you say we live in sin.”
Marriage is the term that defines the boundary between sin and no sin, that is not the business of the court or really even the people.
Marriage=no sin.
Without Marriage=sin.
It is only Gays who are so offended to be living outside the boundaries God has set. I don’t see heterosexual couples who choose not to marry trying to get the state to remove their “stigma.”
Liberal judges cannot change the laws of God. No matter how hard they try.
A civil union is a secular thing. I believe in allowing people to make their own choices about how to live their lives. But when they try to change religious laws they have over stepped.
It is now the gays who are standing in judgement of religion and demanding that churches declare them sin free.
But it will not work.
We are talking about two starkly different kinds of relationships one inside the bounds God has set for sexual behavior and one outside those bounds.
Most churches, but not all, will continue to make a distinction between the two kinds of relationships.
petunia on August 16, 2010 at 11:30 PM
I ask this in earnest, and I’m not asking to start an argument: how do you believe someone gets “saved?”
citrus on August 16, 2010 at 11:30 PM
Hey Doc. The same. Namecalling and intolerence to discussion. That and agendas.
hawkdriver on August 16, 2010 at 11:33 PM
Of course, I mean clearly robots have the ability to think for themselves and consent to wedded bliss so long as that’s what they were programmed to do. That’s the objective truth. I know when I’m put in my place.
Esthier on August 16, 2010 at 11:37 PM
That’s the thing though. Heterosexuals must choose not to marry. That’s not the same as wanting a way for their relationship to be counted among the “blessed”.
That said, you are right that many churches will continue to say that homosexual relationships are sin with or without gay marriage, so if that’s what people want, it won’t necessarily work.
Esthier on August 16, 2010 at 11:47 PM
What a tremendous, unexpected victory!
Certainly, Mitch Daniels would agree, now is the best moment to surrender. It’ll make us appear gracious, or something.
joe_doufu on August 16, 2010 at 11:49 PM
Yes, they process informational inputs electrically. The human brain processes informational inputs electrically, too. A robot’s process are constrained by programming. The human brain is constrained by programming, also. Ingrained social norms are merely one form of programming constraints on the human brain’s processing of information.
blink on August 17, 2010 at 12:03 AM
Which one of the black robed fairies do we pray to to get what we want?
Mojave Mark on August 17, 2010 at 12:46 AM
I would just like to say bravo. You have been spot on all night on this. And I think you truly hit on something with the idea of homosexuals trying to offset the premarital-sex, whether gay or straight, being sin. In rereading Jetboy’s quote, he does seem to be emphasizing that the premarital part is the sinful thing. However, he does say that he only advocates ‘secular gay marriage’, and not sacramental, so that wouldn’t solve the problem, for him anyway. As you rightly note, secular laws don’t deal with sin. Anyway, well said.
Also re this:
To clear that up for non-Catholics (and probably some Catholics, due to the catechesis of late) when he says that in the Church it is not a sin to be ‘gay’, the Church teaches that it is not a sin to have homosexual attraction. People who do are to be loved, respected, and encouraged in their efforts to live a chaste life. However, it is a sin to act on it and participate in homosexual activity. On that, the Church is very clear.
pannw on August 17, 2010 at 12:47 AM
Exactly.
OhioCoastie on August 17, 2010 at 1:07 AM
Here is an excellent column by Debra Saunders about the duty California Attorney General (and candidate for Governor) Jerry Brown and Governor Arnold Schwarzennegger have to defend the California Voter in the Prop. 8 case.
Does Anyone Represent California Voters?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/16/EDUN1EUN7A.DTL
Regardless of your position on Gay Marriage, there are even bigger issues at stake here.
Vote carefully in November California!
wren on August 17, 2010 at 1:48 AM
You’re right, of course. It would be absurd to think we’re ever going to see sex with children permitted. That’s a ridiculous example, like, say, the notion that it would ever be legal for two men to get married.
Once you start breaking down barriers, each remaining barrier gets harder to justify. The age of consent is already as low as 13 or 14 in some states with parental consent. There is no hard and fast rule for setting the age of consent, unlike such a hard and fast rule as marriage being between a man and a woman.
There are of course other barriers that would fall faster, such as polygamy. But I don’t believe anyone who says “it could never happen,” because you have no way to be certain of it.
There Goes The Neighborhood on August 17, 2010 at 3:09 AM
LOL!
I do notice no one has refuted the gay communitities dealings with NAMBLA, or the gay communitie’s agenda.
Oh. Well I guess all the Catholics in my community don’t consider me a Christian.
That’s news to me.
But not surprising. I’m used to the criticism being LDS.
Guess that’s why blond jokes don’t bother me either.
Being used to years of incessant criticism for having white hair.
Perhaps. But one can also argue that once you start justifying all sorts of things, it becomes easier & easier.
After all, look at how we justify abortion.
Look at how divorce has been justified.
Look at how Congress justifies their corruption.
We are living in an informational age of huge proportions where the very definitions of words is being torn apart & twisted around.
Up is down, black is white (JK! lol!) good is bad & bad is the new good.
These are the hardest times people have ever lived in bcs of this.
We are psyching ourselves out to do evil.
Badger40 on August 17, 2010 at 8:47 AM
Are you sure about that? Who would have predicted that “gay marriage” would be even considered to be a matter of law, or that opponents to this breach of thousands of years of law and tradition would be called “homophobes”?
Despite the fact that at present children cannot consent (age varies by state), some government schools take minor children, who are not of the age of consent, to have abortions (without the parents knowledge or consent). Don’t they dole out condoms to children who by law are victims of statutory rape?
Moreover, if gay marriage is sanctified by law, children will be instructed in government schools that gay sex is equal to reproductive sex (which is contradictory to biology and science – something liberals claim to hold preeminent, but I digress). Their parents will have no power to withhold their consent, and by extension the minor child will be forced by the State to consent to be instructed in, and accept as truth, what is essentially propaganda created to eliminate “stigma”.
It funny, but when “gay marriage” advocates argue, “How does this harm your marriage?”, they never ask, “How does this harm your child, who is the product of your marriage?” or, “How does this harm your parental rights?”, or “How does this harm the truth?”.
Buy Danish on August 17, 2010 at 8:53 AM
But if you confess, you’re exonerated, right?
That’s how the Catholics around here act sometimes.
Badger40 on August 17, 2010 at 8:56 AM
You know, I already approached this this way.
No one had anything to say about it.
Minors can do many things now that their parents don’t have to be notified.
And it is natural that sexual rights would follow for children.
But the only response we keep getting is that is just can’t happen. That, oh, that’ll never happen.
Oh, people wouldn’t let it happen.
But we know how that works out.
Badger40 on August 17, 2010 at 9:03 AM
My God. If the libs can not get a favorable opinion from the Ninth Circus of Appalling decisions there is no reason to try to appeal their case to any other court.
MSGTAS on August 17, 2010 at 10:03 AM
Well, exonerate isn’t the word I would use. That reminds me of the legal use where one is found not guilty. By the very nature of confession, we are finding ourselves guilty. We use the word forgiven. If we confess and repent, we are forgiven any sin.
Oh my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended thee, and I detest all of my sins because I fear the loss of Heaven and the pain of Hell, but most of all, because they offend you, my God, who are all good and deserving of all my love.
I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy Grace, to do penance and amend my life. ~Act of Contrition said after making a sincere confession.
Note that it must be sincere. You can’t just go and say you’re sorry with the full intention of continuing in your sin. It doesn’t work like that. Of course, that part, the part in your heart and soul, is only known by God. The priest can only give you the benefit of the doubt. When asked how many times a man should be forgiven, Jesus did tell the apostles, his first priests, “not just seven times, but seventy times seven.” Next to the Holy Eucharist, the sacrament of Penance is the kindest gift Jesus gave us, IMHO.
Do you not trust in God’s mercy?
pannw on August 17, 2010 at 10:05 AM
Sure, and this website processes information as well. Yet, it can only post what I or others make it post. The degree of the constraints are a bit important. That’s why we’ve decided at 5 a kid can’t possibly consent but that by 18, that same kid can.
All the cylon talk aside, it is absurd to pretend something that can only give the answers it’s allowed to give can at all consent to anything. If it could, employing them without paying would be illegal.
Esthier on August 17, 2010 at 12:14 PM
Except that the trend has been for the age to go up, not down. It used to be lower than it is today. Juliet was a young teenager, given to marriage to an older man. That wasn’t considering wrong or sinful. It was normal.
Mary, Jesus’ mother, was also young and engaged to an older man. This likewise wasn’t considered wrong or immoral.
Despite appearances, we’re actually trying to keep our children less sexualized than our ancestors.
Yes, it can happen, but it would mean a complete change of our culture. It would mean that we no longer seen children as beings that need to be protected. It would mean that we have different ideas on their employment.
It’s so much more than just sex, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality. Nothing. In fact, no fault divorces are much more to blame if you want to find a root cause, as that was the moment we decided religion was irrelevant to this sacrament.
If we ever allow children to marry adults without their parents’ consent, it’ll be because we’ve decided children are able to consent to all sorts of contracts, not specifically marriage, and it’ll have nothing to do with gays.
Esthier on August 17, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Who are you kidding, AP? Yourself, if you really believe that. Do you not get the implications of having a man like Jennings in the position of ‘Save Schools Czar’? I know you do. You’re too smart not to. What I don’t know is why you and the other deniers here are making these arguments.
Today paedophiles in the Netherlands announced that they are going to establish their own political party. The party, which is called Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit (Charity, Freedom and Diversity), will campaign for the legalisation of sex between adults and children. “Ten years ago we were ‘on speaking terms’ with society. But since [Belgian paedophile killer] Marc Dutroux there is no more discussion. All paedophiles are being put in the same box. We are being hushed up,” Ad van den Berg, the NVD co-founder, told the newspaper Algemeen Dagblad. The NVD party aims for a reduction in the age of consent in the Netherlands from 16 to 12, the legalisation of the possession of child pornography and the reduction of the minimum age for featuring in porn from 18 to 16. According to van den Berg, “rearing a child is also about introducing it to sex.” The NVD also wants to give more rights to animals and to allow ‘consensual’ sex between humans and animals.
They are exactly where homosexual activists were a mere few years ago, before they got Hollywood, the music industry, and public schools pushing their agenda (hello, Jennings). Once people are immersed in immorality, they don’t even recognize right from wrong anymore. There are over a hundred thousand child porn websites with thousands upon thousands of subscribers and so few ever get prosecuted. Why? There are numerous articles from many news sources on the prevalence of child sex rings all over the world (including much of the EU and US) participated in by politicians, celebrities, police, school personnel, clergy….
How’s this for horrifying?Booklets from a subsidiary of the German government’s Ministry for Family Affairs encourage parents to sexually massage their children as young as 1 to 3 years of age. Rzeczpospolita reports that the Eckhardt Scheffer of BZgA claimed that before releasing the manual the organization consulted parents, educators and child psychologists. 93% of whom gave a positive evaluation.
http://www.tpuc.org/node/151
The leader of one of the most powerful German parties, the Green Party, is a self confessed pedophile, meaning his supporters either agree with it or don’t care. Of course, Jennings is highly supported by many here in the US and one of his hero’s founded NAMBLA. Helloooo….
It is just a matter of time. Why are so many of you so quick to deny the possibility/probability? Homosexuals breaking down this barrier of traditional morality are definitely opening the doors, whether that is the intention of some homosexual marriage advocates or not.
pannw on August 17, 2010 at 12:29 PM
The Ninth Circuit does NOT believe there are DAMAGES involved in this case. So there was no compelling reason to create a new definition of the word Marriage.
This means they are likely to VACATE the ruling by Walker. The bottomless hole described by the 138 page Walker ruling is simply not going to have any legal standing.
Look for another trial, and a major admonishment of Judge Walker.
I also think Boies and Olsen realize this is what will happen.
Freddy on August 17, 2010 at 1:03 PM
All this has been said over and over again. I have never seen a group more demonized than homosexuals. Everytime a thread is opened on HotAir concerning the subject it sure brings on those with their opinions.
SC.Charlie on August 17, 2010 at 1:48 PM
Good argument, SC.Charlie. Accuse us of demonizing in an effort to shame people into silence on the facts.
But as you noted, it won’t work. People do come out to express their beliefs and arguments on the subject, in rather large numbers. It begs the question why this is being allowed to fall off the page rather than be put in the top picks though, doesn’t it? I don’t know how those are selected, but this thread has far more comments than all but one of the current top picks, and yet it sinks lower and lower into obscurity, while we still have some video game thread right up front. Hmmmmmmm….
pannw on August 17, 2010 at 2:17 PM
correction, it has more comments than all but two…
pannw on August 17, 2010 at 2:19 PM
Because it will be back, soon. And, the same remarks will be made.
SC.Charlie on August 17, 2010 at 2:35 PM
Maybe it’s escaped your attention, but the Top Picks aren’t always the ones with the most comments. But gay marriage posts very often get the Top Picks, just not usually when they only get three pages of comments, mostly driven by a handful of posters.
And some people should be shamed into shutting their mouths. Believing homosexuality is a sin isn’t a problem. Pretending that it’s a sin that will destroy America and bring about legal pedophilia and/or is on par with pedophilia is. Charlie’s right. There often isn’t much civility in these threads.
Esthier on August 17, 2010 at 2:56 PM
Esthier on August 17, 2010 at 2:56 PM
It is not mine, yours, or anyone else’s fault that folks like Badger40 and hawkdriver can’t let go of their North Dakota-like sheltered lives and refuse to see the compromises and half-measures that make modern society. A modern society that, BTW, benefits Badger40 more than any other society ever has.
BradSchwartze on August 17, 2010 at 3:52 PM
pannw on August 17, 2010 at 2:17 PM
Unless your idea of “loving witness” is the same as the Westboro Baptist Church’s idea of it, how have all these threads not had a demonization element to them?
BradSchwartze on August 17, 2010 at 3:56 PM
I’m not sure what you mean by compromise and half measures. I’ve never seen any proposed on this issue, at least not in the last year or two.
Esthier on August 17, 2010 at 4:12 PM
First, whatever my opinion is, it’s not important the manner in which I come to my conclusions; even if it had been a product of my environment. And B, if you’d seen half the world that I visited, you could consider yourself lucky. Noirth Dakota is one of the few places I haven’t nbeen.
Try not to generalize with people you don’t even know kid. This is my point though, you guys have to attack anyone, or be dismissive of anyone who doesn’t toe the line on this issue.
hawkdriver on August 17, 2010 at 5:23 PM
Hmmmm. What Would
JesusAlinsky Do? I have noticed some “demonization” of those who don’t embrace “gay marriage”. Maybe we could call it “heterophobia”.Buy Danish on August 17, 2010 at 5:52 PM
You obviously don’t understand anything about AI or Expert systems. With such systems consent can be given based on extensive arrays of criteria and logic.
Are you seriously attempting to link the two issues?
The degree of constraints isn’t why a 5 year old doesn’t have the power of consent.
And what about a person that’s 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, or 17? Why does the law arbitrarily discriminate against people that want to have consensual sex with or marry them?
I’ll tell you why – social stigmas which society hasn’t progressed enough to reject YET!
blink on August 18, 2010 at 6:21 AM
Nobody has ever said that it had anything to do with gays.
But it has everything to do with due process, and this ruling is a foundation precedent for it.
blink on August 18, 2010 at 6:24 AM
Are you crazy?
Pedophiles are much more demonized that homosexuals.
blink on August 18, 2010 at 6:27 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »