Patterico's Pontifications

7/23/2014

Another Day, Another Judge Strikes Down Another Gay Marriage Ban

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:17 pm



Los Angeles Times:

A federal judge in Colorado ruled Wednesday that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

However, the ruling was stayed pending an appeal.

The Wednesday ruling marks the 25th district court ruling against a gay marriage ban since last year’s Supreme Court rulings.

This has become so commonplace it barely rates a blog post.

But it does. Barely.

51 Responses to “Another Day, Another Judge Strikes Down Another Gay Marriage Ban”

  1. fascism should always be remarked upon…

    with disapproval.

    redc1c4 (abd49e) — 7/23/2014 @ 9:20 pm

  2. The problem with this is not gay marriage. That battle is over.

    The problem is that at some point court decisions that subjugate the will of the electorate will be ignored.

    Hey, wait a second …

    Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 7/23/2014 @ 9:26 pm

  3. SSM is so yesterday.

    UAC is the new SSM.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/23/2014 @ 9:27 pm

  4. It is not a gay marriage ban. There was nothing to ban. It is a judicial amendment of the marriage law to include something that did not exist.

    nk (dbc370) — 7/23/2014 @ 9:28 pm

  5. something about the constitution just cannot abide a gay marriage ban

    i hate that so much

    but it is what it is

    *sigh*

    happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/23/2014 @ 9:29 pm

  6. Interesting that for 200+ years no one could find it in the constitution and now every federal judge can.

    Jim (145e10) — 7/23/2014 @ 9:34 pm

  7. what’s more interesting though is green tea pancakes with white chocolate ganache

    happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/23/2014 @ 9:36 pm

  8. Remember when we voted on such things instead of being told by our appointed Masters?

    machinist (313c6a) — 7/23/2014 @ 9:38 pm

  9. This merely indicates that ELECTIONS have consequences. When Leftists win elections, RINO’S play nice and observe a sort of tradition and allow RADICALS to be empaneled. The CONVERSE is not true. Going forward, and in many cases for 30 or more years, we are saddled with IDEOLOGICALLY MARXIST jurists. OUR GUYS ALLOW IT. NO FIGHT NO WIN. Obama is crapping his MOM PANTIES, hoping against all hope that he can save the SENATE, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is being pressured to retire, so as to allow another 40 year LIBTARD HAG to take her place. Does anyone here think that a Sotomayor of Conservative proclivity would have been given the same TREATMENT?? KAGEN?? Is KAGEN in any way, UNBIASED and CONSTITUTIONALLY HONEST??? Well, the REPUBLICANS allowed both of them. Do these RINO sissies even consider what the 30-40 year consequences are??? Even Milquetoast John Roberts was an attempt to be FAIR, and NON-IDEOLOGICAL. How stupid did that work out for us??? FIGHT or DIE.

    Gus (70b624) — 7/23/2014 @ 10:54 pm

  10. Interesting that for 200+ years no one could find it in the constitution and now every federal judge can.

    That’s why both the politics and culture behind such a transformation illustrate why the slippery slope can be far more slippery, far more steep, than even skeptics or cynics may assume.

    Mark (0ff296) — 7/23/2014 @ 11:20 pm

  11. wfc, this subject is so yesteryear.
    as long as nothing splashes on me i don’t care what you screw.

    mg (31009b) — 7/24/2014 @ 3:34 am

  12. It’s almost like gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. Go figure.

    carlitos (c480e4) — 7/24/2014 @ 7:14 am

  13. Crap. It’s forum shopping. They, the they, get a couple of “plaintiffs” lined up, get a suit ready, get an “inside” in the Court of the Clerk’s office, and file knowing they’ll have a “friendly” (IYKWIMAIYD) judge. It’s not a reflection of anything, not even the courts, other than the predilections of a hand-picked judge.

    Did Hickenlooper defend this, BTW? The way Roeper “defended” Evans, maybe? Or Brown “defended” Perry?

    nk (dbc370) — 7/24/2014 @ 7:32 am

  14. In this case, the district court’s hands are somewhat tied because the appropriate circuit court has already ruled on the issue, and the district court is complying with the binding precedent in its circuit.

    aphrael (bffa16) — 7/24/2014 @ 7:58 am

  15. All of a sudden precedent matters?

    JD (81a25b) — 7/24/2014 @ 8:01 am

  16. Tenth Circuit? I’ve got to get around to reading that case. 😉 JD, the Tenth Circuit would be the District Court’s boss — it’s precedent-precedent, law in that circuit not just persuasive.

    nk (dbc370) — 7/24/2014 @ 8:05 am

  17. This is a political issue raised by Dems, knowing that the Repubs would come out against it. I really don’t think most gay people gave a damn before the Dems told them they should. So far they have succeeded against the GOP electorally on this issue.

    I remember reading about the No on 8 rally in Laguna. All the gays in the audience were cheering on the rabble rousers on stage. Then the speaker called out, How many of you will marry when we win this right??

    Crickets. Not a single person raised his or her or whatever’s hand.

    Patricia (5fc097) — 7/24/2014 @ 11:07 am

  18. > I really don’t think most gay people gave a damn before the Dems told them they should

    What’s your basis for saying that? (I ask this as a married gay man).

    aphrael (bffa16) — 7/24/2014 @ 11:09 am

  19. This sort of thing should discredit judicial review as a practice and the establishment bar as well. They’re bad people and the discretion they hold is incompatible with self-government.

    Art Deco (ee8de5) — 7/24/2014 @ 11:38 am

  20. What’s your basis for saying that?

    It’s fiction. Just like the anecdote about the rally in Laguna.

    carlitos (c480e4) — 7/24/2014 @ 11:51 am

  21. equal protection some judge in utah just struck down the bigamy law so mormons can have 25 wives again like mitt romneys grand father.

    vota (2ba64b) — 7/24/2014 @ 12:23 pm

  22. Wow. Did you actually know Mitt’s grandfather, Vota?

    elissa (d14cd1) — 7/24/2014 @ 12:32 pm

  23. Buh-bye, Perry.

    JD (b70a8e) — 7/24/2014 @ 12:35 pm

  24. 6. Jim (145e10) — 7/23/2014 @ 9:34 pm

    Interesting that for 200+ years no one could find it in the constitution and now every federal judge can.

    In 2003, I think, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said this would be the result of sayinbg that homosexual relations could not be a crime. (given some other recent precedents, I suppose)

    Sammy Finkelman (51afd4) — 7/24/2014 @ 2:22 pm

  25. araphael, I do not mean to offend you.

    The article was in the paper, a local liberal paper. I am not going to search for it, because carlitos is obviously hostile, so why bother? I am now a hater who must lose her job and reputation?

    I base my opinion on news reports and anecdotes throughout the years from gay people I know. Anecdotal evidence, yes.

    I hope you are very happy!

    Patricia (5fc097) — 7/24/2014 @ 2:34 pm

  26. I think it would be interesting to actually get some numbers about how many gays think SSM is important.
    In the states where it has been legalized one way or another, how many have actually been married? If the gay population is as big as some say it is, and SSM is as important as some claim it is, then how many should we see in CA and NY and elsewhere?
    There are often news stories about those lined up at midnight to take advantage of a change in the law, it would be interesting to know if after the big show there is a relative trickle of others.

    Not that it has anything to do with the issues of the use of language, political process, natural law arguments, or religious concerns, or other moral arguments,
    but it would be interesting to know in terms of whether it is an issue than vast numbers of people cared about, or simply a political stunt by the dems to get one more special interest group behind them.

    MD in Philly (from a different computer and location) (cb7b6d) — 7/24/2014 @ 3:36 pm

  27. Uh-oh, Doc, are you in Witness Protection? (Heh)
    Or did you have to take the family on vacation and dust-off the lap-top?

    askeptic (efcf22) — 7/24/2014 @ 3:47 pm

  28. Not a heckuva lot, MD. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/26/how-many-same-sex-marriages-in-the-u-s-at-least-71165-probably-more/

    nk (dbc370) — 7/24/2014 @ 3:52 pm

  29. The way this tsunami of newly discovered rights has progressed right after the Democrats decided to make SSM a campaign issue, it’s almost as if the federal bench had become politicized.

    Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/24/2014 @ 4:02 pm

  30. This is what it’s really all about, MD. http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/26104240/true-blood-actor-nelsan-ellis-former-star-quit-because-he-didnt-want-to-play-a-gay-part

    The actor is getting “How could you”s and “How dare you”s. It’s all about the “normal”. And considering that that piece of crap show is already disgusting enough to gag a maggot ….

    nk (dbc370) — 7/24/2014 @ 4:07 pm

  31. Crap. It’s forum shopping. They, the they, get a couple of “plaintiffs” lined up, get a suit ready, get an “inside” in the Court of the Clerk’s office,

    It’s easier than that. First you get a few dozen gay couples willing to sue. Then a few of them sue. If it gets into a friendly court, fine. Otherwise you drop the suit and another few couples sue. Repeat until satisfied.

    Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/24/2014 @ 4:09 pm

  32. Yup.

    nk (dbc370) — 7/24/2014 @ 4:15 pm

  33. nk–

    Actors are refusing parts all the time. They won’t do nudity or coitus scenes, they won’t show their tits or their junk or whatever. Sarah Michelle Geller nearly quit Buffy over some scenes in Season 6, and the moment her contract was up, it was hasta la bye-bye. See “S.O.B” for a self-referencing movie almost entirely about a star (played by Julie Andrews) being unable to show a tit.

    Why does anyone expect an actor to do something that offends his beliefs? This would seem to be attacking someone for their sexual preferences. There is a difference between tolerating something and being forced to engage in it.

    Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/24/2014 @ 4:24 pm

  34. The actor is getting “How could you”s and “How dare you”s. It’s all about the “normal”. And considering that that piece of crap show [True Blood] is already disgusting enough to gag a maggot ….

    You aren’t kidding about that show, nk. It’s considered “groundbreaking” television because it has good-looking vampires and since it’s on HBO they can say the f-word and show boobs, but the few times I have watched it I have never figured out what all the fuss is about. But then again I never thought The Sopranos was the be-all end-all of television, and I’m apparently way out of step with the mainstream there.

    JVW (feb406) — 7/24/2014 @ 4:51 pm

  35. JVW,

    Shows like that have strong continuity and one episode by itself isn’t very interesting — the story doesn’t start or end there. You have to start at the beginning or not at all. I’m guessing your real problem is you don’t find the subject matter entertaining no matter how well done.

    I do watch it, and enjoy it, but I wouldn’t call it “groundbreaking.” Yes, it has a lot of sex, not all of it straight, and lots and lots of violence, but what doesn’t these days? The last show I saw I’d call “groundbreaking” was The Wire. Or maybe Breaking Bad.

    Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/24/2014 @ 5:30 pm

  36. My criticism was of the criticism directed against the actor who did not want to play a hemosexual (sic)*. I do not agree with the “Oooh, you homophobe, you’re sending a message it’s bad to be a gay vampire” BS.

    *Hemosexual — gay vampire. Get it? Get Get it? ~_^

    nk (dbc370) — 7/24/2014 @ 5:47 pm

  37. How would you ward off a gay male vampire, BTW? Would a Playboy centerfold be enough, or would you need a live woman to flash her tits?

    nk (dbc370) — 7/24/2014 @ 5:50 pm

  38. Now the humorous bit, would have been Ted Cruz or the Huntress, showing up with a super soaker, like Dennis Miller, in that Tales from the Crypt film

    narciso (ee1f88) — 7/24/2014 @ 5:52 pm

  39. I should have known I’d be put in moderation. Is this the show that invited Palin for a cameo in an episode where they use the term “Republic**t”?

    nk (dbc370) — 7/24/2014 @ 6:07 pm

  40. yes, that’s the one, it’s also the network that airs Julianne’s Bender,

    narciso (ee1f88) — 7/24/2014 @ 6:10 pm

  41. Hollywood is not a cultural desert. (Like somebody said.) It’s a festering swamp. Rot and filth.

    nk (dbc370) — 7/24/2014 @ 6:18 pm

  42. The article was in the paper, a local liberal paper. I am not going to search for it, because carlitos is obviously hostile, so why bother?

    For one, because I don’t believe your story. If you would like me to believe it, you may present evidence for it. Otherwise, it’s a just-so story that you either made up, heard somewhere without verifying, or have conflated from multiple sources that reinforce your opinion.

    I am now a hater who must lose her job and reputation?

    You just made this up, which is why I ask about the above.

    Questioning sources and asking for evidence shouldn’t be hostile to you.

    Those of you who think that gays only wanted marriage equality because the Democrats told them so have your correlation/causality reversed, I think.

    carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/25/2014 @ 6:48 am

  43. askeptic (efcf22) — 7/24/2014 @ 3:47 pm

    Trying to outwit the NSA and stay in communication at the same time…
    The only one who can find me is Chloe O’Brian.
    (Actually just visiting family.)

    nk (dbc370) — 7/24/2014 @ 3:52 pm
    Nice reference, nk. According to them, more are interested in SSM than I thought,
    of course, the usual issues with polls apply.

    MD in Philly (from a different computer and location) (cb7b6d) — 7/25/2014 @ 7:13 am

  44. Nice reference, nk. According to them, more are interested in SSM than I thought

    So what?

    Art Deco (ee8de5) — 7/25/2014 @ 7:39 am

  45. Something things become shibboleth, ask Tony Dungy or David Tyree, how much tolerance there is for their view,

    Doesn’t matter what the rank and file think, the money men, the organizers, have goals that are unstated,

    narciso (ee1f88) — 7/25/2014 @ 7:47 am

  46. All the gays in the audience were cheering on the rabble rousers on stage. Then the speaker called out, How many of you will marry when we win this right??

    Crickets. Not a single person raised his or her or whatever’s hand.

    The number of even self-described homosexuals who’ve had legitimate, sincere relationships with the opposite sex on at least a few occasions during their life — in some cases resulting in traditional marriage and children — lead me to believe there’s a lot of “closeted straight” emotions throughout the GLBT crowd. That may be one reason why many of them have ambivalent reactions towards SSM for themselves (eg, SSM have higher divorce rates than heterosexuals in Scandinavian countries where the existence of SSM has existed the longest).

    I recall Patterico saying a few years ago that one reason why he deemed SSM as understandable, or why he supported it, was because he, as a heterosexual, couldn’t envision himself being emotionally and physically attracted to members of the same sex. At the time, I thought that was a somewhat good argument. But that was before having a better grasp of human nature and realizing there are a lot of polymorphous characteristics among the GLBT group. I now feel very naive to not have realized that previously and kind of laugh when in the past I’d read about some celebrity or well-known public figure, rumored to be gay, who was in a traditional straight relationship and think the rumors therefore were wrong, one way or the other.

    Mark (e0cf5e) — 7/25/2014 @ 7:52 am

  47. I really don’t think most gay people gave a damn before the Dems told them they should.

    Patricia, I have trouble with that theory because it discounts or underestimates the liberalism or leftism that undergirds most Democrats. So ideological preferences far more than party politics or even sexuality itself (ie, a high percentage of GLBT are of the left) are the reason many people, regardless of their party registration (but not their ideology) or whether they’re gay, bi or straight, support non-traditional or amoral type of situations and people.

    Mark (e0cf5e) — 7/25/2014 @ 8:02 am

  48. > I recall Patterico saying a few years ago that one reason why he deemed SSM as understandable, or why he supported it, was because he, as a heterosexual, couldn’t envision himself being emotionally and physically attracted to members of the same sex. At the time, I thought that was a somewhat good argument. But that was before having a better grasp of human nature and realizing there are a lot of polymorphous characteristics among the GLBT group.

    And I can say that I’m a gay man that has not been emotionally or physically attracted to a member of the opposite sex, ever. I am attracted exclusively to men, as are most of the self-described ‘gay’ men I know.

    aphrael (98d2d0) — 7/25/2014 @ 8:17 am

  49. ==The number of even self-described homosexuals who’ve had legitimate, sincere relationships with the opposite sex on at least a few occasions during their life — in some cases resulting in traditional marriage and children ==

    I think the “legitimate and sincere” part must be viewed in the context that many of these relationships occurred at a time when societal and career and family expectations and pressures were powerful motivators for closeted gay men and women to “try” traditional marriage and hope for the best–especially if they wanted to have kids. From what I’ve read, this type of marriage while it may have looked good from the outside, frequently caused confusion and great anguish on the part of the purely heterosexual partner, who went into the marriage in good faith and could not understand what was going on or why their partner frequently seemed disinterested and unloving.

    elissa (ddfa15) — 7/25/2014 @ 8:41 am

  50. You did not ask for evidence, carlitos, you called me a liar. You did not act as an honorable person so I will not respond.

    Patricia (5fc097) — 7/25/2014 @ 8:44 am

  51. Actually I said that you wrote a “fiction,” and provided several possible examples. Lying is my least likely guess.

    carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/25/2014 @ 9:27 am


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1002 secs.