Comments on: Judge in Golinski asks uncomfortable questions for those who favor discrimination

By: Donny D.

Donny D. — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:09:10 +0000

#5 is just vicious, questioning the validity of BLAG’s very existence and its moral authority to take on this case, and even its funding.

I will LOVE to see how the pieces of crap speaking for BLAG answer this one. I’m wondering if the court isn’t intending with this one to deny BLAG standing. Or are we past that part of the proceedings?

By: mike

mike — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 19:37:51 +0000

simply awesome, i looked at awe at the list even though i don’t fully speak/read legalese i have to say the judge hit the nail on the head with these questions. I particularly like, how does sharing the rights effect str8 married couples, just because it was once defined as man and woman that doesn’t protect it from scrutiny so why continue it, and what non-religious partisan-free modern scientific evidence do you have to offer that proves that homosexual families are harmful to society or their children. WOOT can’t wait to see what the idiot drum up and when they start spewing their rhetoric i hope the judge shoots down their religious, republican, and 1970/80′s crap!

By: WMDKitty

WMDKitty — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 01:42:08 +0000

Number 7 made me smile.

By: Darina

Darina — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 01:29:11 +0000

I love 7d.

By: Eric in Oakland

Eric in Oakland — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:12:56 +0000

I found the four questions under number seven to be the most interesting part of that document. Even under the rational basis test, there are no answers to those questions that can stand up. Anything they say will just prove that the true motive is blatant bigotry and nothing more.

By: Regan DuCasse

Regan DuCasse — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 18:45:20 +0000

I think the precedent here had to cite issues between men and women and the WOMAN’S role in marriage as the submissive, non autonomous half. The opposition to ssm is relying on archaic standards when one role in the marriage was SEVERELY limited BASED on gender.

And as I knew would happen in Walker’s decision, and stated myself, the government cannot and will not determine what individuals can or cannot do ACCORDING to their gender. Gender doesn’t especially make up those rules all by itself, even among individuals. At least where it matters the most, it’s exceptionally private.

The other factor, the miscegenist one is that it’s a precedent regarding DIFFERING or OPPOSING COLORS or ethnic definitions.
The definition of sexual orientation assumes that heterosexuals will marry someone of their same orientation and that by that precedent, a homosexual should marry someone who shares their same orientation.

There may not be as many legal precedents when it comes to sexual orientation, but it would be REASONABLE and PREFERABLE that those of the same sexual aspects, would be attracted to each other and most compatible.

I remember one of the miscegenist arguments was that the mixing of racial groups would contaminate the species. As if blacks were an inferior type, or that their genetic factors would retard or lessen the abilities of their progeny if raised in a mixed (i.e. “confused”) setting.
In other words, it was a CONTRA procreative argument.

Whereas the argument against ssm is that ss couples CAN’T spontaneously procreate.
Or that whatever children they have by other means will be retarded or lessened (i.e. “confused”) in their social adjustment in comparison to children raised by hetero couples.

Since neither dire outcomes have been borne out, because whaddya know, all persons are essentially EQUAL in these precedents, there IS no case against ssm. No matter WHAT previous discrimination there has been, there is no rational, nor reasonable basis to continue it.

To say nothing of the obvious fact that a thrice divorced Senator wrote and sponsored DOMA and an adulterer signed it.
Effectively rendering DOMA incapable of protecting the integrity of marriages, or the example that marriage is supposed to represent.

8 and DOMA supporters are now arguing more in favor of TECHNICALITIES, than the substance of why we’re all in court in the first place.

By: Tony P

Tony P — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 13:13:03 +0000

Support for bigoted measures withers in the courtroom.

Because in the courts, facts matter. If one cannot support a fact, then the court is not bound to take it into consideration.

By: Hunter

Hunter — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 10:13:37 +0000

Reading those questions, it looks as though BLAG has an uphill road — a very steep one.

But then, they always did.

By: a mcewen

a mcewen — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 03:45:33 +0000

Clement was pushing a brief which cited rekers and cited cameron via another “researcher.”

By: Tony

Tony — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 02:56:24 +0000

So, are you saying that the Justice Dept is not only not defending the law, but they are helping in the argument to overturn it? I haven’t heard this from anywhere before.