Federal judge overturns marriage definition in Oregon constitution

posted at 9:21 am on May 20, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Remember when traditional marriage advocates put their trust in constitutional amendments to keep activist judges from unilaterally imposing a requirement to recognize same-sex marriage? In Oregon, that’s not ancient history; 60% of voters approved the constitutional amendment just ten years ago, when several states did the same thing in response to state courts changing the definition of marriage. The strategy didn’t last, as a federal judge overturned the clause in the state constitution — after the state refused to defend it:

A federal judge threw out Oregon’s same-sex marriage ban Monday, marking the 13th legal victory for gay marriage advocates since the U.S. Supreme Court last year overturned part of a federal ban.

State officials earlier refused to defend Oregon’s voter-approved ban and said they wouldn’t appeal.

The National Organization for Marriage sought to intervene, but both U.S. District Judge Michael McShane in Eugene and a federal appeals court rejected its attempts to argue in favor of the ban.

This is the same situation as Proposition 8 faced in California. In both cases, the state refused to defend a law in federal court despite having been passed by the voters in a fully legal manner. As I wrote last year in the Supreme Court decision on Prop 8, the refusal of the Oregon’s Attorney General to represent the voters of his state is a lot more troublesome than the decision itself:

 The voters in California amended the state constitution by referendum legally, to define a legitimate government policy regarding the recognition of marriage.  The court is making the case that this is a matter for California to settle, not the federal courts, and there is a very good case to make there.  However, the effect of this is to overturn an election whose legality was never in doubt just because some people didn’t like the outcome.  That to me is a more dangerous outcome than a precedent-setting decision on standing.

In this case, the issue was settled by the voters. Oregon voters still had the opportunity to change their definition of government-recognized marriage through the same mechanism of a referendum or legislative action to amend the state constitution themselves, if they changed their mind on the issue. And again in this case, the Attorney General is the people’s lawyer, their legal representative as well as their top law-enforcement officer. If the state’s elected lawyer doesn’t want to represent the people in court, then he or she should resign and let someone else take the job. The people deserved to be represented in court by their paid attorney, whether the AG liked the law or not.

If attorneys argue — correctly — that rapists and murderers deserve a defense, then why should that be denied to the people of Oregon and California?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3 5

State officials earlier refused to defend Oregon’s voter-approved ban and said they wouldn’t appeal.

Lawlessness.

workingclass artist on May 20, 2014 at 9:25 AM

If attorneys argue — correctly — that rapists and murderers deserve a defense, then why should that be denied to the people of Oregon and California?

Because shut up.

Mr. D on May 20, 2014 at 9:25 AM

Arrrrgh
Votes don’t mean squat anymore

cmsinaz on May 20, 2014 at 9:27 AM

The people deserved to be represented in court by their paid attorney, whether the AG liked the law or not.

States Rights!

workingclass artist on May 20, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Is it any wonder why many folks feel it’s useless to go vote ?
Disgusting.

pambi on May 20, 2014 at 9:28 AM

In Oregon, that’s not ancient history; 60% of voters approved the constitutional amendment just ten years ago, when several states did the same thing in response to state courts changing the definition of marriage.

So we essentially no longer have constitutions as well as laws. It’s all based upon the whim of federal judges and whatever mood they happen to be in that day.

rbj on May 20, 2014 at 9:29 AM

I took an oath but I think I’ll pass on defending these laws
-lefties

Oath schmoath

cmsinaz on May 20, 2014 at 9:29 AM

So if Oregon cannot define marriage, what is the definition then?

CH on May 20, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Because, in Obama’s new Enlightened and diversified America, the overwhelming majority of Americans’ opinion does not count, as they no longer have any right to express it.

kingsjester on May 20, 2014 at 9:30 AM

I feel so discouraged right now. Is there anything that can be done to counter these activist judges?

skilaki on May 20, 2014 at 9:31 AM

An occasional legal process or two might need to be trampled in the name of Social Justice and Speaking Truth To Power, maybe if you bigots read a geology book you would understand that.

Bishop on May 20, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Since voting doesn’t seem to matter to the ruling elites it maybe time to exercise our second amendment rights and make them comply with our wishes…

Doomsday on May 20, 2014 at 9:32 AM

Arrrrgh
Votes don’t mean squat anymore

cmsinaz on May 20, 2014 at 9:27 AM

The Oregon AG is guilty of Malfeasance

The commission of an act that is unequivocally illegal or completely wrongful.

workingclass artist on May 20, 2014 at 9:32 AM

In ancient times of yore, when American people still had balls and inalienable rights, this federal judge’s carcass would be decorating a tree or a lamppost.

Rix on May 20, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Yepper wca

Following holder’s moves

cmsinaz on May 20, 2014 at 9:34 AM

Is it any wonder why many folks feel it’s useless to go vote ?
Disgusting.

pambi on May 20, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Thats their intent. All authoritarian regimes want their subjects to feel hopeless.
Resistance is futile. Assimilate now.

Mimzey on May 20, 2014 at 9:35 AM

If attorneys argue — correctly — that rapists and murderers deserve a defense, then why should that be denied to the people of Oregon and California?

Well said Ed.

Great post.

gwelf on May 20, 2014 at 9:35 AM

If the legal justification for Gay Marriage is the equal protection clause…

Why not tax everyone equally?

That was what the Redeye Radio overnight guys were asking last night.

workingclass artist on May 20, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Since voting doesn’t seem to matter to the ruling elites it maybe time to exercise our second amendment rights and make them comply with our wishes…

Doomsday on May 20, 2014 at 9:32 AM

In ancient times of yore, when American people still had balls and inalienable rights, this federal judge’s carcass would be decorating a tree or a lamppost.

Rix on May 20, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Yeah, that will end well.

Good Lt on May 20, 2014 at 9:36 AM

“The people don’t want it, but we’re going to do it anyway.”/EU president.

OldEnglish on May 20, 2014 at 9:36 AM

THIS is the problem with saying that social issues should be handled locally and statewide. They SHOULD, but leftist don’t allow that.

melle1228 on May 20, 2014 at 9:38 AM

We’re not a nation of laws. We’re a nation of men. This is the consequence of such fundamental shift in our country’s principles.

p0s3r on May 20, 2014 at 9:39 AM

In Oregon, that’s not ancient history; 60% of voters approved the constitutional amendment just ten years ago, when several states did the same thing in response to state courts changing the definition of marriage.

So we essentially no longer have constitutions as well as laws. It’s all based upon the whim of federal judges and whatever mood they happen to be in that day.

rbj on May 20, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Gotta wonder if Progressives invite…large scale civil conflict through exploiting anarchy.

workingclass artist on May 20, 2014 at 9:39 AM

Activist judges? I’m sure alchemist will appear to disabuse us of this notion – that a right no one saw in the constitution 15 years ago is now suddenly there because The Constitution! and originalism.

gwelf on May 20, 2014 at 9:39 AM

This is what happens when people think that they are their own god.

Situational Ethics and Ambivalent Morality.

kingsjester on May 20, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Bullying works. Especially when you have black-robed autocrats backing you up.

CurtZHP on May 20, 2014 at 9:40 AM

The majority in Oregon got gay shoved up the gazzop and there is nothing they can do about it.

docflash on May 20, 2014 at 9:40 AM

workingclass artist on May 20, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Another reason why this Texas run-off is so important.
Whomever wins will be replacing GREG ABBOTT.
He’s been a kick-azz AG. His successor needs to be kick-azz as well.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 20, 2014 at 9:41 AM

This is what happens when people think that they are their own god.

Situational Ethics and Ambivalent Morality.

kingsjester on May 20, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Translation:

My religious beliefs are not being imposed by force of government on the population, and that makes me a sad panda.

Good Lt on May 20, 2014 at 9:41 AM

When the patriarch Phil Robertson was lambasted for his majority opinion, I found it fascinating that mainstream Christianity ‘leaders’ were either silent, or told him he was off the mark. These same milquetoast preachers told us to, wait and do this in the courts, use the law of men to change society. As if the coming wave isn’t large enough for us to see.

Government needs to get out of the marriage business.

LaughterJones on May 20, 2014 at 9:42 AM

As President Obama has so proudly and so publicly demonstrated, if you don’t agree with the law just don’t enforce it or obey it. Simple really.

Joseph OHenry on May 20, 2014 at 9:42 AM

Speaking of Oregon:

Any story on Monica Wehby, the NRSC choice who has been accused of stalking not only her ex-husband but now a boyfriend as well, replete with a 911 tape?

It’s not as if Hot Air isn’t aware of who she is; you’ve run stories on her.

It’s not as if Hot Air isn’t interested in how embarrassing accusations might affect a primary–see your hasty suggestion that McDaniel was behind the videotaping of Cochran’s wife.

What gives, guys?

will77jeff on May 20, 2014 at 9:43 AM

The people deserved to be represented in court by their paid attorney, whether the AG liked the law or not.

Paging Eric Holder. Eric Holder to the white courtesy phone.

Lance Corvette on May 20, 2014 at 9:44 AM

My religious beliefs are not being imposed by force of government on the population, and that makes me a sad panda.

Good Lt on May 20, 2014 at 9:41 AM

Translation:

I have no cotton-pickin’ clue as to who actually founded my country and why.

kingsjester on May 20, 2014 at 9:44 AM

This is how modern “western democracy” works. On important matters, the people don’t get a vote. Or if they do vote, their vote is set aside by unaccountable officials.

And people whisper, and talk candidly only to friends when they think what they say won’t be passed on, because they are afraid, because they think they can be punished if they speak freely. And they’re right.

This is the old Communist system. Yes there were elections in East Germany and the Soviet Union. You just didn’t get to vote on what mattered.

(And when was the last time you got to vote on whether you wanted your country swamped and blended away by mass immigration?)

And if you did vote on an issue but your vote was “wrong,” nothing came of your vote. That is what happened on California’s “Save Our State” and it is what is happening on “gay marriage” too.

And, just as in the Soviet Union, you can have any opinion you like, as long as nobody ever finds out about it.

The way they arranged this in East Germany was, they had all kinds of theoretical human rights, but having any particular job is not a human right, so of you spoke out of line you could lose your job. And that was sufficient to keep people in line.

The same system is working in the West now.

We’re not the good guys any more. We’re living under a lot of the uglier parts of Communism – the parts that gave even “soft” post-Stalinist “late Communism” a bad name.

Only we’re such browbeaten, heavily indoctrinated suckers that while Eastern Bloc people knew that they were being tyrannized, a lot of us believe that we really have “freedom of speech” and substantial, effective “democracy”.

What we have, like Soviet citizens, is the empty shell of freedom – constitutions that say wonderful things, accompanied by a system that implements its own preferences regardless of the masses’ will.

And for “progress,” the new elite agenda is utterly depraved and pro-homosexual.

David Blue on May 20, 2014 at 9:44 AM

If the legal justification for Gay Marriage is the equal protection clause…

Why not tax everyone equally?

That was what the Redeye Radio overnight guys were asking last night.

workingclass artist on May 20, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Well that’s the magic of judicial activism. You don’t have to adhere to coherent principles. You get to use the byzantine and contradictory legal history of Constitutional “interpretation” to do whatever you want to do. Of course Gay Marriage is covered by equal protection? Why isn’t most anything else the government does regarding taxation and regulation? Well, you’re just a homophobe that doesn’t understand the Constitution.

gwelf on May 20, 2014 at 9:45 AM

My religious beliefs are not being imposed by force of government on the population, and that makes me a sad panda.

Good Lt on May 20, 2014 at 9:41 AM

Translation: In your face you religious puke, you will now bow down to MY morals being imposed by force of government.

melle1228 on May 20, 2014 at 9:45 AM

Translation:

My religious beliefs are not being imposed by force of government on the population, and that makes me a sad panda.

Good Lt on May 20, 2014 at 9:41 AM

Very typical of the pro SSM side to create strawmen and then destroy them.

gwelf on May 20, 2014 at 9:46 AM

Can state constitutions be amended as to force government officials to defend laws in courts or else require them to hire an outside counsel to do so? Or, if hiring an outside attorney is not feasible, amend constitutions to allow citizens to defend duly enacted laws and amendments?

This is pure abdication of duty!

powerpickle on May 20, 2014 at 9:46 AM

We’ve descended into government by judicial fiat. The executive is too inept to govern and the congress is too spineless.

None of this will end well.

trigon on May 20, 2014 at 9:48 AM

Gotta wonder if Progressives invite…large scale civil conflict through exploiting anarchy.

workingclass artist on May 20, 2014 at 9:39 AM

How did Mussolini and his northern neighbor gain power? by exploiting crises. Mao did the same, as did the original, Lenin. The marxist left wants a civil war and they are training the police and military to obey them.

rbj on May 20, 2014 at 9:48 AM

My religious beliefs are not being imposed by force of government on the population, and that makes me a sad panda.

Good Lt on May 20, 2014 at 9:41 AM

Translation:

I have no cotton-pickin’ clue as to who actually founded my country and why.

kingsjester on May 20, 2014 at 9:44 AM

Translation:

I’d like to use an historical anecdote to justify bigotry.

Good Lt is spot on.

Irritable Pundit on May 20, 2014 at 9:49 AM

Nullification at the State level. What’s the problem?

Plus it’s Oregon, not The Heartland.

antisense on May 20, 2014 at 9:50 AM

The AG had his fingers crossed when he took the oath to uphold state laws, and who hasn’t done such a thing from time to time.

Bishop on May 20, 2014 at 9:50 AM

Let me get this straight.

There has been a definition of “marriage” that has been around for as long as human history. It has been understood and preserved for thousands of years, by countless generations, and by every culture in every nation by tens of billions of people.

This generation, by a relative handful of post-post-modernists, have decided for the world, that this definition of “marriage”, which they inherited from a world, which they never were a part of defining, declare by fiat that succeeding generations will be deprived of the most basic foundations of civilization and mankind.

All for vanity. I suppose the hebdomadal week is next.

Reuben Hick on May 20, 2014 at 9:50 AM

Irritable Pundit on May 20, 2014 at 9:49 AM

Why are you equating a sexual deviance or preference to a Race?

kingsjester on May 20, 2014 at 9:51 AM

Funny to watch the antireligious bigot Good Lt project the fact that he and his fellow bigots are acting out of hate and anus toward religious belief, which has explicit Constitutional protection.

northdallasthirty on May 20, 2014 at 9:51 AM

I support marriage definition of one man and one woman BUT the socons defeated themselves in this whole debate.

You cannot oppose gay marriage because “God says”, come up with reasons why it’s bad. Unfortunately these new arguments of why gay marriage is bad is new.

Public opinion has shifted. The SCOTUS will follow suit as well as strike it down everywhere.

weedisgood on May 20, 2014 at 9:51 AM

Laws are meaningless anymore…

Unless of course you are on the side of enforcing the ones you want to enforce…

This will not end well for the people of the USA…

PatriotRider on May 20, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Because shut up.

Mr. D on May 20, 2014 at 9:25 AM

Yes that’s why.

And that was the same reasoning that prevailed under Khrushchev and Brezhnev, Ulbricht and Honecker.

David Blue on May 20, 2014 at 9:52 AM

I feel so discouraged right now. Is there anything that can be done to counter these activist judges? skilaki on May 20, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Don’t worry, the backlash is going to be fantastically entertaining.

Akzed on May 20, 2014 at 9:53 AM

Translation:

I’d like to use an historical anecdote to justify bigotry.

Good Lt is spot on.

Irritable Pundit on May 20, 2014 at 9:49 AM

Agreed.

When do we start recognizing polygamy and bestial marriages, I’m go**am sick and tired of the bigotry this nation exudes towards those who wish to marry outside their species.

If an AG needs to ignore the legal process then so be it.

Bishop on May 20, 2014 at 9:53 AM

weedisgood on May 20, 2014 at 9:51 AM

Weighted polls have shifted.

The overwhelming majority of Americans have already voted against hit.

That is why Judicial Activism is being used to overturn the will of the people.

kingsjester on May 20, 2014 at 9:54 AM

I’d like to use an historical anecdote to justify bigotry.

Good Lt is spot on.

Irritable Pundit on May 20, 2014 at 9:49 AM

Yes, because ALL state licensing is “bigotry. I mean exclude a blind person from driving- bigotry. Exclude an unlicensed contractor from a bid – bigotry. Exclude an unschooled person from a nursing license- bigotry..

melle1228 on May 20, 2014 at 9:54 AM

weedisgood on May 20, 2014 at 9:51 AM

So how do you explain agnostics and atheists who have made the case against gay marriage? Oh yeah, that’s right, you were just throwing out straw.

melle1228 on May 20, 2014 at 9:55 AM

Actually, weedisgood, the problem is that antireligious bigots like yourself are irrational and are using gay-sex marriage to attack Christianity.

But not Islam, because you are cowards.

So in that case, Christians need to start treating bigots like you and Good Lt the way Muslims do, and you will soon discover how rational our arguments are.

northdallasthirty on May 20, 2014 at 9:56 AM

Federal judge overturns marriage definition in Oregon constitution

State constitutions are totally meaningless in a superstate where all is controlled by the feral government, especially one where there is no Rule of Law, such as in the American Socialist Superstate.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 20, 2014 at 9:56 AM

Public opinion has shifted. The SCOTUS will follow suit as well as strike it down everywhere.

weedisgood on May 20, 2014 at 9:51 AM

You must have missed the whole “Prop 8″ thingie up there, something to do with a majority vote.

Eh, what am I saying, Dog Eater ignores laws whenever he wants, state AG’s should be able to do it too. Citizens are inherently stupid and need to be led by those few who have intelligence, usually leftists.

Bishop on May 20, 2014 at 9:57 AM

R attorney Generals should happily decline to defend Campaign Finance laws.

MWC_RS on May 20, 2014 at 9:57 AM

However, the effect of this is to overturn an election whose legality was never in doubt just because some people didn’t like the outcome. That to me is a more dangerous outcome than a precedent-setting decision on standing.

Oh, so THAT’S how Obama gets his third term!

OccamsRazor on May 20, 2014 at 9:57 AM

How far this country has fallen…very sad…

PatriotRider on May 20, 2014 at 9:59 AM

Y’know, maybe we could USE this cr&p against them !
Convince all of the libbies we know to stay home on voting days, since, apparently they have nothing to worry about.
THEN we all enthusiastically vote out these cr&ppy judges, replacing them with constitutionalists while they sit out the elections in question.

One can dream.

pambi on May 20, 2014 at 10:01 AM

Let’s see what other laws can be ignored…and by whom.

d1carter on May 20, 2014 at 10:01 AM

Is it any wonder why many folks feel it’s useless to go vote ?
Disgusting.

pambi on May 20, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Thats their intent. All authoritarian regimes want their subjects to feel hopeless.
Resistance is futile. Assimilate now.

Mimzey on May 20, 2014 at 9:35 AM

+100

bazil9 on May 20, 2014 at 10:03 AM

This is why I support national divorce. There is no more federalism, and without a full repeal of the 17th, it won’t be back. The constitution has become a death pact, and we will all die under the progressive thumb.

nobar on May 20, 2014 at 10:04 AM

OT. On the bright side, the ranch’s architectural committee was just by and approved my proposed new propane tank. Now, I get to have a gas stove in my kitchen. It took them about a nanosecond to give me an approval. I so love Texas.

trigon on May 20, 2014 at 10:04 AM

One of the marriage ban cases will make it up to the SCOTUS next term, the justices will strike down all remaining bans, and that will be the end of the SSM debate. Thank goodness.

As for the issue of defense, there is nothing stopping voters from kicking out those who refuse to defend state laws/amendments in courts or changing their laws to require a defense. This will happen again and again on cases involving all kinds of issues until it is stopped.

DisneyFan on May 20, 2014 at 10:06 AM

So if Oregon cannot define marriage, what is the definition then?CH on May 20, 2014 at 9:30 AM

It’s what judges say it is shut up.

Akzed on May 20, 2014 at 10:07 AM

The funniest thing about this issue is that had it gone back to a vote, it probably would have change it constitutionally in Oregon. Instead you have ONE judge making the call for a whole state. This is why these issues that get decided by judges stay controversial.

melle1228 on May 20, 2014 at 10:07 AM

State constitutions are totally meaningless in a superstate where all is controlled by the feral government, especially one where there is no Rule of Law, such as in the American Socialist Superstate.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 20, 2014 at 9:56 AM

I see what you did there.

David Blue on May 20, 2014 at 10:08 AM

“until it is stopped”

Add “by the people” to that last sentence.

DisneyFan on May 20, 2014 at 10:09 AM

I would like something on Monica Wehby too! WTH is truth and what is fiction?
As for this marriage bs……………it is all bs. Why do Gay/Lesbians need a “marriage” inclusion? It seems to me that Linda and Jennifer or Bob and Bill are fighting to no end to say that they are the same as the married couple down the street, except they are not. They are not.
What happened to Gay Pride?
Pride is not hiding in a definition you obviously don’t fit it is defining your own.
Until that happens the only thing this is doing is tearing down our laws and society. Period.
Disgusting.

ORconservative on May 20, 2014 at 10:11 AM

You must have missed the whole “Prop 8″ thingie up there, something to do with a majority vote.

Eh, what am I saying, Dog Eater ignores laws whenever he wants, state AG’s should be able to do it too. Citizens are inherently stupid and need to be led by those few who have intelligence, usually leftists.

Bishop on May 20, 2014 at 9:57 AM

Are you going to dispute that public opinion has shifted on gay marriage?

A gay marriage advocate can also say if we had put up a vote on whether blacks should use the same restroom as whites in Alabama in 1950 we know what the outcome would have been.
You defeat your argument when you make these Prop 8 arguments.

I support marriage as a union between a man and a woman but I also understand the ship has sailed and those who share my opinion are now in the minority.

weedisgood on May 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM

Public opinion has shifted. The SCOTUS will follow suit as well as strike it down everywhere.

weedisgood on May 20, 2014 at 9:51 AM

At least you have the intellectual honesty to admit that these judges aren’t drawing on consistent legal principles and instead are just going with the flow.

gwelf on May 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM

I would like something on Monica Wehby too!
ORconservative on May 20, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Look in the headlines….

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2014/05/20/another-old-harassment-accusation-against-monica-wehby-emerges/

melle1228 on May 20, 2014 at 10:14 AM

melle1228 on May 20, 2014 at 10:07 AM

True. It would have passed if they had gone to the voters instead.
Most people are sick of the issue and would just as soon have it passed and go away.

ORconservative on May 20, 2014 at 10:15 AM

Actually, weedisgood, the problem is that antireligious bigots like yourself are irrational and are using gay-sex marriage to attack Christianity.

But not Islam, because you are cowards.

So in that case, Christians need to start treating bigots like you and Good Lt the way Muslims do, and you will soon discover how rational our arguments are.

northdallasthirty on May 20, 2014 at 9:56 AM

How can I be anti-religious bigot when I support marriage as a union between a man and a woman?

weedisgood on May 20, 2014 at 10:16 AM

weedisgood on May 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM

Two hairy gay guys wanting the label of marriage applied to whatever it is they do in bed, does not equate to the Civil Rights Struggle faced by Black Americans.

kingsjester on May 20, 2014 at 10:17 AM

At least you have the intellectual honesty to admit that these judges aren’t drawing on consistent legal principles and instead are just going with the flow.

gwelf on May 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM

Justices follow public shift on social issues. They don’t live in isolation from real world events. I hate to break that news to you.

weedisgood on May 20, 2014 at 10:18 AM

So if Oregon cannot define marriage, what is the definition then?
CH on May 20, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Marriage is whatever hurts the fewest feelings and weakens the fabric of society so the Marxists can create more dependency upon the State.

p0s3r on May 20, 2014 at 10:18 AM

What gives, guys?

will77jeff on May 20, 2014 at 9:43 AM

I count two articles rolling through the Headlines.

In a situation like this, which is breaking but not earth shaking, the powers that be take a little time to collect relevant information to support a post that tries to tell readers what’s really going on.

Go take a dump. A post will likely go up soon.

BuckeyeSam on May 20, 2014 at 10:19 AM

OH! Thanks weed. Silly me, I thought judges followed the law.

ORconservative on May 20, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Another judge moved by Will & Grace, Brokeback Mountain, Modern Family, and Glee.

SSM is just so fashionable.

BuckeyeSam on May 20, 2014 at 10:20 AM

I feel so discouraged right now. Is there anything that can be done to counter these activist judges?

skilaki on May 20, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Yes.

Take the “Freedom From Religion” tactic and sue the federal government for issuing marriage licenses, which is a pratice derived from religious institutions.

We don’t do it, because we have groups on the right who are social progs to different degrees. They’re either kewl with ghey mirage, or they do like the gamesmanship that comes with Govt control.

It’s been argued here dozens of times. And the right-progs will come out and make their inane arguments about contracts, child custody, etc…claiming that the Govt must maintain control, and somehow, someway, deprive people of their Pursuit of Happiness.

I don’t buy into SSM at all, but I do buy into the First Amendment and if two delusional people want to play married because they think it will make them happy, it’s their right. What is not their right is making me change my beliefs. So we need to separate Church from State, and the only thing stopping this argument is our own side.

budfox on May 20, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Are you going to dispute that public opinion has shifted on gay marriage?

A gay marriage advocate can also say if we had put up a vote on whether blacks should use the same restroom as whites in Alabama in 1950 we know what the outcome would have been.
You defeat your argument when you make these Prop 8 arguments.

I support marriage as a union between a man and a woman but I also understand the ship has sailed and those who share my opinion are now in the minority.

weedisgood on May 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM

It hasn’t shifted in Cali or Oregon as evidenced by the information you apparently missed in the topic.

If you want to equate civil rights based on skin color with gay marriage then brother, you are about to get skinned alive.

Bishop on May 20, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Gay marriages just means more money for divorce lawyers…
And fewer gay people having children…

albill on May 20, 2014 at 10:22 AM

OH! Thanks weed. Silly me, I thought judges followed the law.

ORconservative on May 20, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Of course they do, they just interpret it to fit the outcome they want.

weedisgood on May 20, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Are you going to dispute that public opinion has shifted on gay marriage?

A gay marriage advocate can also say if we had put up a vote on whether blacks should use the same restroom as whites in Alabama in 1950 we know what the outcome would have been.
You defeat your argument when you make these Prop 8 arguments.

I support marriage as a union between a man and a woman but I also understand the ship has sailed and those who share my opinion are now in the minority.

weedisgood on May 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM

If gay marriage opinion has shifted, then why do its proponents keep bringing it to the judiciary. Why not bring it back to voting public?

melle1228 on May 20, 2014 at 10:23 AM

The constitution has been shredded by the lawlessness of all three branches of government.

fight like a girl on May 20, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Don’t worry, the backlash is going to be fantastically entertaining.

Akzed on May 20, 2014 at 9:53 AM

What makes you say that?

skilaki on May 20, 2014 at 10:24 AM

If attorneys argue — correctly — that rapists and murderers deserve a defense, then why should that be denied to the people of Oregon and California?

Because they view opponents of SSM as being worse than rapists and murderers.

airupthere on May 20, 2014 at 10:25 AM

budfox on May 20, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Yep, take the state out of marriage. If all state marriage is is a “partnership for bennies.” Let the state issue “partnership” certificates or licenses where anyone can apply including a child and an aging parent, two friends etc..

melle1228 on May 20, 2014 at 10:25 AM

If gay marriage opinion has shifted, then why do its proponents keep bringing it to the judiciary. Why not bring it back to voting public?

melle1228 on May 20, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Well let me play devils advocate here.
let’s pretend this issue is not about gay marriage.
Why didn’t we put up a vote on whether certain groups of Americans based on their skin should have the right live as a free person or not?

weedisgood on May 20, 2014 at 10:27 AM

If you want to equate civil rights based on skin color with gay marriage then brother, you are about to get skinned alive.

Bishop on May 20, 2014 at 10:22 AM

That’s the arguments the gays are using to win in courts all over America. We better come up with good counter arguments that dismissing it.
The are using the issue of black injustice to push the gay agenda.
Fair or unfair it’s working.

weedisgood on May 20, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Why didn’t we put up a vote on whether certain groups of Americans based on their skin should have the right live as a free person or not?

We actually passed some constitutional amendments on that. What’s your point?

will77jeff on May 20, 2014 at 10:29 AM

than dismissing it*

weedisgood on May 20, 2014 at 10:29 AM

weedisgood on May 20, 2014 at 10:27 AM

Homosexuality is not a race. ry again.

kingsjester on May 20, 2014 at 10:30 AM

weedisgood on May 20, 2014 at 10:27 AM

Objections based on skin color: abhorrent.

Objections based on conduct: part of society since the dawn of man.

BuckeyeSam on May 20, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Marriage state-conferred benefit-equality for all!

… except polygmaists!

… and nambla-ists!

The Schaef on May 20, 2014 at 10:31 AM

The gay lobby says that those who support same sex marriage are in the majority, yet in most cases judges have overturned the will of the people.

fight like a girl on May 20, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5