Comments on: BREAKING: 9th Circuit DENIES request to re-hear Prop 8 case

By: Same-sex couples & the Supreme Court: What to expect in coming weeks | Egypt

Fri, 16 Nov 2012 01:41:55 +0000

[...] Schwarzenegger). Two federal courts—a U.S. district court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals—determined that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution. While Supreme Court experts generally agree that the Court will likely rule on the [...]

By: What to expect in the coming weeks | Egypt

What to expect in the coming weeks | Egypt — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:11:16 +0000

By: Critical Mass Progress | Part 1: What’s Next for DOMA and Marriage Equality on Trial?

Tue, 07 Aug 2012 15:21:47 +0000

[...] Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to rehear the case en banc on June 5 after it struck down Proposition 8 and that set the case up for review by the [...]

By: UPDATED: Prop 8 Case Will Not Be Re-Heard By The Ninth Circuit — What’s Next | The New Civil Rights Movement

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:54:54 +0000

[...] Thomaston, writing at Courage Campaign’s Prop 8 Trial Tracker, notes: It’s likely that Justices at the Supreme Court would have their conference to take up the [...]

By: grayson

grayson — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:51:38 +0000

“It is a political statement and reads very much like a NOM press release.” – Nice to know that only politically correct lemmings are allowed to have an opinion on this matter that would silence the voice of the voting public. If you don’t get what you want after a vote then that usually means the state doesn’t want what’s being shoved at it. I guess being gay in 2012 means you only get Your way. To bad this tactic doesn’t work on ineffective democratic presidents that know how to spend other people’s money and nothing more.

By: Fluffyskunk

Fluffyskunk — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:53:09 +0000

Your honor, you don't need evidence!

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:26:07 +0000

And how did I say she HAS to be there?

My words were "all the more reason for her to be there."

And that is a requirement that she is, or is not, there?

By: MightyAcorn

MightyAcorn — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:46:37 +0000

Yeah, that claim is a very bad rhetorical attempt to run around the definitions of these words, perhaps made by people who are ignorant of what the word "monogamy" means.

The wives in a polygynous marriage might not have a marital or sexual relationship with each other, but the husband has more than one marriage and is therefore NOT monogamous in any way. "Concurrent running serial monogamy" is a very clumsy and self-contradictory attempt (how can it be "concurrent" *and* "serial," pray tell?) to avoid the stigma of the word "bigamy." Not even an admirable try.

By: MightyAcorn

MightyAcorn — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:38:53 +0000

Except for the Citizen's United decision, of course.

By: MightyAcorn

MightyAcorn — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:37:02 +0000

Matt, you're more optimistic than I am about the Supremes making a rational choice not to bollocks protections for LGBTs. Ideologues will vote their regressive party line because they *know* they are right, no matter what anyone says (and because they also know they will throw a wrench in social progress.) Look what happened yesterday with the paycheck equality for women vote….you think public opinion doesn't support equal pay for equal work? They didn't care.

Scalia and his cohorts will vote to oppress gays until the day he croaks and his slimy black corrupt soul burns a smoldering pit in the earth's crust as it rockets down to Hell. And you can quote me, please.