Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 19:28:12 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/6/14 7:11 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
...sad about The Supreme's ruling to let gay marriages in five states stand.

William J. Howell, the Republican speaker of the Virginia House of
Delegates, said in a statement that he was disappointed by the courtÂ’s
ruling, and he criticized Mark Herring, the stateÂ’s Democratic attorney
general, for refusing to defend the stateÂ’s ban on marriage, adopted in a
constitutional amendment in 2006.

“I am a strong supporter of traditional marriage. There are many
Virginians who agree with me and some who do not,” Mr. Howell said.
“Regardless of how one feels about marriage, we should all agree that
Virginians deserve to have their voices heard and votes vigorously
defended in court. That did not happen in this case.”

Mr. Herring waved aside the criticism during an impromptu news conference
on the steps of the Arlington courthouse. Flanked by gay members of the
Arlington county board and the State Legislature, Mr. Herring hailed
the courtÂ’s ruling.

In an interview after the news conference, Mr. Herring said Virginia had
long been on what he considered to be the wrong side of history, citing
the civil rights cases of Brown vs. Board of Education and the 1996 case
that struck down the male-only admissions policy at the Virginia Military Institute.

“I was determined to make sure that the injustices of Virginia’s position
in those past cases were not repeated again,” Mr. Herring said.


(Indeed, Virginia has a long and sordid history of denying civil rights
to its citizens. Herring did not mention Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1
(1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme
Court which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

From Wiki:

The case was brought by Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard
Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in
Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the Virginia's
anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which
prohibited marriage between people classified as "white" and people
classified as "colored". The Supreme Court's unanimous decision held this
prohibition was unconstitutional, overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and
ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

The decision was followed by an increase in interracial marriages in the
U.S., and is remembered annually on Loving Day, June 12. It has been the
subject of two movies as well as songs. Beginning in 2013, it was cited
as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on
same-sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional.

Have a nice day, Speaker Howell.)


I think the AG is totally wrong. Should be recalled or fired. Wither you
are for or against same sex marriage, the AG's job is to represent the
peoples wishes. Would be like you hired an attorney in a tort case, and
they decided you should not win, and did everything to cause you to lose.
Same thing happened in California. AG decide not to defend a law passed by
a majority of the people. Supremes could still rule the same way, but the
people of the state deserve decent representation.



The AG's position on this issue was well-known before the recent Virginia
election that put him in office. His opponent, a right-wing zealot, lost
the election, along with the other Republican right-wing zealots. I think
the same sort of "sweep defeat" is looming for the GOP statewide
candidates in Kansas...perhaps the public is just tiring of state
governments run by right-wing, overly religious zealots.


Then she should of recused herself. She is paid to do a job.

I believe the Republicans should keep their nose out of the issue.

"It's not a baby kicking, dear bride, it's just a fetus."
Harry Krause

If you do not agree with a democrat, just recuse yourself? The AG has a
job to do. do it!

On 10/6/14 8:19 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:57:25 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

..sad about The Supreme's ruling to let gay marriages in five states stand

The Supreme Court didn't "rule" on anything. They dodged the case.

If they had actually ruled, it would be legal in 51 states.

Perhaps when a more conservative circuit court rules the other way
they will step up.



Step up? You mean step backwards? The four rightwing clowns on the court
decided not to hear the case. You may not think so, but that is a ruling.

--
“My heart goes out to the people of Ebola.”
Sarah Palin

On 10/8/14 12:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:57:25 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

...sad about The Supreme's ruling to let gay marriages in five states stand.


If you are paying attention, you will know the difference between
"ruling" on and rejecting a case

Some people in Idaho are not all that happy today.



By refusing to cert, the Supremes have now made it possible for gays to
marry in 30 states. The door against gay marriage, if not slammed shut,
is pretty close to it.

--
“My heart goes out to the people of Ebola.”
Sarah Palin

On 10/8/2014 12:55 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/8/14 12:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:57:25 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

...sad about The Supreme's ruling to let gay marriages in five states
stand.


If you are paying attention, you will know the difference between
"ruling" on and rejecting a case

Some people in Idaho are not all that happy today.



By refusing to cert, the Supremes have now made it possible for gays to
marry in 30 states. The door against gay marriage, if not slammed shut,
is pretty close to it.


That's one interpretation. The other is that it was a calculated way to
keep options open for another day.

On 10/8/14 1:17 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/8/2014 12:55 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/8/14 12:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:57:25 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

...sad about The Supreme's ruling to let gay marriages in five states
stand.


If you are paying attention, you will know the difference between
"ruling" on and rejecting a case

Some people in Idaho are not all that happy today.



By refusing to cert, the Supremes have now made it possible for gays to
marry in 30 states. The door against gay marriage, if not slammed shut,
is pretty close to it.


That's one interpretation. The other is that it was a calculated way to
keep options open for another day.




Anything that really ****es off right-wing lunatics is worth doing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmicU9uxYsM



--
“My heart goes out to the people of Ebola.”
Sarah Palin

On 10/8/2014 12:55 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/8/14 12:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:57:25 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

...sad about The Supreme's ruling to let gay marriages in five states
stand.


If you are paying attention, you will know the difference between
"ruling" on and rejecting a case

Some people in Idaho are not all that happy today.



By refusing to cert, the Supremes have now made it possible for gays to
marry in 30 states. The door against gay marriage, if not slammed shut,
is pretty close to it.


They're going to cornhole each other whether its legal or not.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 12:55:40 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/8/14 12:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:57:25 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

...sad about The Supreme's ruling to let gay marriages in five states stand.


If you are paying attention, you will know the difference between
"ruling" on and rejecting a case

Some people in Idaho are not all that happy today.



By refusing to cert, the Supremes have now made it possible for gays to
marry in 30 states. The door against gay marriage, if not slammed shut,
is pretty close to it.

The point is that you said they ruled and they did exactly the
opposite. In fact Kennedy (not one of the conservatives) wrote a brief
today informing Idaho that they could not avail themselves of the
Virginia court decision.
It is now up to the 9th circuit to decide.
They will probably knock down the Idaho ban but you never can tell.
It is clear that the SC really wants this to be decided in the lower
courts so they won't have to take a stand on it.
Maybe the liberals are afraid that it might go 5-4 the wrong way if
the case is not made in a way 5 can agree on.

I doubt the SCOTUS will take a case until one of the conservative
courts actually upholds a ban. It would force them to take the case.
A ruling on that would be significant.

Do you see the difference yet?

Only technically. The court can't decide against gay marriage.
Given the widespread acceptance of its "morality," they'd cause no end
of unrest. They've made other bad decisions, but they probably won't
make this mistake.
I don't understand "gayness," but I see the gay point in this matter.
Hell, I don't know any gay people. Of course you don't know what you
don't know.
But I think this is a done deal.