Aint No God! Aint No God!
News: I don't want to belive, I want to know.
--Carl Sagan
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 04, 2009, 04:39:58 PM


Login with username, password and session length



Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: CA Supreme Court to Hear Suits Against Prop H8te, Jeebus vs Fags Goes On  (Read 493 times)
Ungodly
Ungodly One
Administrator
Ancient Ones
*****

Karma: 3
Offline Offline

Posts: 4760


Actual Atheist Logo


WWW
« on: November 19, 2008, 06:11:36 PM »

6 of 7 judges on the California Supreme Court have agreed to hear 3 lawsuits by known, practicing homosexuals against the ballot initiative Proposition H8te that was sponsored by Jesus Fucking Christ.

(I saw a picture once of Jesus Fucking Christ and I just could not decide if I wished I was Jesus or Christ, he is one hot looking Caucasian American-born savior, but I digress)

The lawsuits claim that homos are a "vulnerable minority group" (as if to suggest roaming bands of hate based Jeebustarians tend to gang up on them) and that as a result the type of Constitutional change Prop H8te would create requires a different type of Constitutional procedure involving the state legislature.

If the court were to agree, Proposition H8te would be overturned and fags and dykes would once again have exactly the same civil rights as everyone else.  Obviously this would make the Baby Jesus cry, so I hope it is overturned.

The court is also expected to rule on whether the 18,000 same sex couples who were married between June and H8te are to be considered as married or Jeebused from now on.  It is obvious that the court will not find that H8te overturns Love in the case of these 18,000 couples since this would directly violate the US Constitution.

Any reasonable examination of the facts would also conclude that Proposition Jeebus-H8te already violates the due process of law clause of the US Constitution, but the Jeebus-brand H8ters are sure hoping that box belonging to Pandora is not opened.

Some time around March we should be able to say Ha Ha to the motherfuckers in Utah.  In the meantime I'm still a married fag and they are still a bunch of fucking bastards that I do not like very much at all.  Take that, Jeebus.


Logged

Storybook
Global Moderator
Ancient Ones
*****

Karma: 136
Online Online

Posts: 2064



« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2008, 06:38:30 PM »

the ballot initiative Proposition H8te that was sponsored by Jesus Fucking Christ.

(I saw a picture once of Jesus Fucking Christ and I just could not decide if I wished I was Jesus or Christ, he is one hot looking Caucasian American-born savior, but I digress)

Oh my gawd!  That gave me a big belly-laugh!!  You are so funny. Happy
Logged
Ungodly
Ungodly One
Administrator
Ancient Ones
*****

Karma: 3
Offline Offline

Posts: 4760


Actual Atheist Logo


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2009, 03:54:42 PM »

This Thursday the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on 2 matters related to Proposition H8.

One issue is whether the marriages of persons such as yours truly are to be Jeebused into thin air by H8.  I would expect that this move by the hate mongers for Jeebus will fail, because at the time when we were married it was legal, and it is a violation of the general principles of law and the US Constitution specifically to enforce a law retroactively.

The arguably more important matter, because it would obviously trump retroactive H8, is the question of whether the change in the state constitution created by H8 is so vast and sweeping that the ballot initiative was not a legitimate way of bringing about this new, improved,  extra-Jeebus permanent sacred intolerance.

Should the court invalidate H8 on this basis it would mean that to reinstitute The Holy Homophbia of H8 a 2/3rds majority in the state legislature would be required, followed by an additional validation by the voters.  This would never happen, as our state legislature has already passed gay marriage laws twice, only to see them vetoed because the state is currently afflicted with a Party of Jesus Governator.

It is the usual practice of the court to issue a ruling within 90 days of hearing oral arguments.  Sometimes the questions asked, and the manner in which they are asked, by the Justices gives a clue as to how they are likely to vote.

Obviously I'm hoping that H8 based on vicious and utterly ridiculous ancient superstitions promoted by evil Mor[m]ons and the Altar Boy Rape Corporation will lose.  I think that equal justice under the law for all citizens is a fair system, and I have no interest in Invisible Genocidal Sky Faeries or the malicious fucking idiots that foolishly claim to represent them.

Please chip in and do your part by not praying for me because, after all:
Nothing Fails Like Prayer
Logged

Storybook
Global Moderator
Ancient Ones
*****

Karma: 136
Online Online

Posts: 2064



« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2009, 05:31:30 PM »

This is going to be a momentous event in California.  Ungodly, what is your best guess on how the Supreme Court will vote?
Logged
Ungodly
Ungodly One
Administrator
Ancient Ones
*****

Karma: 3
Offline Offline

Posts: 4760


Actual Atheist Logo


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2009, 05:39:34 PM »

I expect they will overturn H8.  If I'm wrong and they uphold H8 I feel nearly certain they will find that adding H8 to the Constitution in November does not Jeebus our marriage from 7 months earlier in June.

So either way I think I'll still be married.  But of course it remains illegal for us to file a joint Federal tax return, since the US Government is forbidden by the Jeebus-brand Defense of Bigotry act from acknowledging the existence of a homosexual couple.
Logged

Ungodly
Ungodly One
Administrator
Ancient Ones
*****

Karma: 3
Offline Offline

Posts: 4760


Actual Atheist Logo


WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2009, 05:57:47 PM »

From the Sacramento Bee:

This story is taken from Sacbee / Capitol and California

Dueling lawyers in California Prop. 8 case are a study in opposites
arojas@sacbee.com

PUBLISHED SUNDAY, MAR. 01, 2009

Kenneth Starr and Shannon Minter, lead attorneys in the California Supreme Court case that will decide the fate of same-sex marriage in the state, are as different as the competing sides they represent.

Starr, dean of Pepperdine University School of Law, is best known for leading the inquiry into President Bill Clinton's affair with a White House intern.

Since then, the former federal judge and U.S. solicitor general has dedicated himself to conservative causes, including writing briefs for the Mormon church in a previous gay marriage case in California.

Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco, is a transsexual who spent his first 35 years as a female. He was a lead counsel in the state Supreme Court case decided last May that allowed same-sex couples to marry, a ruling that was reversed in November when voters approved Proposition 8.

Starr and Minter will square off Thursday in the most closely watched California Supreme Court hearing in a generation. They're set to deliver oral arguments in three suits in which supporters of gay marriage contend that Proposition 8, which limits marriage to a man and a woman, is unconstitutional.

Minter, representing gay rights groups, will be the first attorney to address the court in San Francisco. Starr will deliver the final arguments on behalf of the Yes on 8 campaign.

Gay rights groups, the city of San Francisco and other local governments contend that Proposition 8 is not an amendment to the state constitution, but an illegal revision that should not have been placed on the ballot without the Legislature's approval.

Minter calls Thursday's proceedings "much bigger" than the case last May that invalidated Proposition 22; approved in 2000, it also limited marriage to a man and a woman.

"This is now about whether a majority can take away an inalienable right from one group of Californians," Minter said. "If the court were to say it's OK … then no one's rights would mean very much."

Starr did not respond to interview requests. But his co-counsel, Folsom attorney Andrew Pugno, disagreed with Minter's contention that Proposition 8 should never have been on the ballot.

"Minority rights exist only because the majority decided to protect them by adopting a constitution," Pugno said. "If the court misinterprets those rights, it's the people's job to correct that by clarifying the constitution."

In court papers, Starr contends that voters have the power to define marriage under the state constitution and that the court must accept their decision.

"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity," he wrote. "There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions."

State Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office will represented in court by attorney Christopher Krueger, is challenging Proposition 8 – but on different legal grounds from Minter.

Brown contends that the California Constitution declares certain rights to be fundamental, such as liberty and equality, and that the court held in last year's case that marriage was one of those rights.

The attorney general maintains that legal protections given to minorities and others can be taken away only if the state can show there is a "compelling interest." Proposition 8, Brown said, lacks that compelling interest.

In his court papers, Starr accuses Brown of overreaching with his legal argument.

"We will not mince words," he wrote. "The attorney general is inviting this court to declare a constitutional revolution."

As solicitor general, Starr argued several cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Frank Schubert, who managed the Yes on 8 campaign, calls him "one of the nation's top jurists."

"He brings an extraordinary degree of credibility on constitutional law, which is ultimately what this case hinges on – whether or not people have the right to amend our constitution," Schubert said.

Like Starr, Minter was born in a small Texas town. But Jenny Pizer, Minter's co-counsel, quipped, "One would hardly say these two are cut from the same cloth."

Starr, 62, was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan and served as solicitor general under President George H.W. Bush.

He became a national figure as an independent counsel appointed by a three-judge panel to investigate the Clinton White House.

Given broad investigative powers, Starr began by looking into the real estate dealings of Bill and Hillary Clinton in a failed Arkansas business venture. He wound up uncovering the president's sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky.

Clinton supporters accused Starr of engaging in a "right-wing conspiracy" in an attempt to bring down the president. Clinton initially denied the affair, then admitted his involvement. After the House impeached him, the Senate acquitted him of perjury.

Minter, 48, arrived in San Francisco in 1992 as a law student for an internship at the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Since then, he has been lead counsel in dozens of groundbreaking legal victories, including a successful wrongful death lawsuit filed by the partner of a lesbian who was mauled to death by a neighbor's dog in San Francisco.

As a child searching for his sexual identity in a conservative town, Minter said, he often feared for his physical safety and "experienced a lot of rejection."

"I see Shannon as someone who has committed his life to tackling injustice," said Pizer, an attorney for the gay rights group Lambda Legal. "He's chosen to take on deeply painful social injustice problems through the law."

Minter said he's passionate about marriage because he was not accepted by some members of his family until he got married eight years ago to a woman with whom he is raising a daughter.

Unlike gay and lesbian marriages, California recognizes marriages involving transsexuals. Minter said he was pained "by the injustice."

As he prepares for Thursday's hearing, he admits the importance of the case is giving him butterflies.

"This is a huge case," Minter said. "If we were to lose, I'm very fearful about what that would mean for us."

ShareThis
Call Aurelio Rojas, Bee Capitol Bureau, (916) 326-5545.
Logged

Storybook
Global Moderator
Ancient Ones
*****

Karma: 136
Online Online

Posts: 2064



« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2009, 07:17:06 PM »

Ungodly thanks for posting the article from the Sacramento Bee. 

I really hope Shannon Minter is a top-notch lawyer!!!
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

glutenfree.com Online source for gluten-free food Videos about Celiac Disease we filter YouTube for you Atheist Fag the blog of a militant atheist fag Jeebus Clothing for Men wear your ridicule with pride
Ads By Steve: designed and produced by Steve's Web Hosting. Helping you live a Theism Free life
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC

site design © 2006 Steve's Web Hosting
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM
Page created in 0.167 seconds with 22 queries.