President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 05, 2010 01:46 AM UTC

IT IS SO ORDERED: California's Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

  • 44 Comments
  • by: Aristotle

(Go figure.   – promoted by ClubTwitty)

I know there’s another diary, but I have a PDF of the ruling as well as pics of the pertinent parts of the ruling.

Big H/T to SLOG for all this.

Unconst.png

And….

stitutional.png

Comments

44 thoughts on “IT IS SO ORDERED: California’s Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

      1. The day the Colorado Dems use their majorities to actually pass gay marriage, then you can condescend

        At this time you face the same conundrum that I do, which is voting for the best character, as the Colorado Democratic Party does not support gay marriage

        Lastly, why don’t you run for office if it concerns you so much, Arv? I ran twice, both times as a pro-gay Republican – didn’t win, but I made my contribution – have you made yours? (and I can’t wait for your answer)

        Until then, shut up and save your drama for the Colorado Dems  

          1. when you don’t have a dog in the hunt.

            I’m sick to death of him (and other Republicans) who voice their support for equality, but continue to nominate and support candidates (for instance, every single Republican candidate for US Senate, US House and Governor in Colorado) support the passage of the FMA.

            1. But it happens on both sides. And the politicians have to work in the system as they push. My mom has been superb in her efforts for equal rights, but come election time she has to be supportive of everyone on the Republican ticket.

              And if she refused to provide any support for the Republicans that oppose gay marriage, then she’d be out of the legislature and of no help on this issue.

              Ali’s a good guy on this issue. And he’s vocal about his support. I think that counts for a lot.

              1. again, you don’t have a dog in the hunt (and neither does you Mom).

                He might look at me a bit differently if I said that I think Muslims should have full equal rights but supported a candidate who said that we should “bomb Mecca” because he was a member of my party.  Frankly, talk is cheap, especially if you are willing to sell out those you claim to support when the rubber hits the road.

                1. And if I was gay or one of my daughters was I might have a very different perspective. But keep in mind that the people in office do face constraints – like LBJ who accomplished great things in civil rights, but to do so had to help racist dixiecrats get re-elected.

                  1. but there is right and there is wrong, and I would just ask you (and your mother and Ali) when is it okay to side with bigotry?

                    I would argue that it is never okay….  

                    Any candidate who runs on a platform of amending the constitution to restrict rights of citizens is not worthy of the support of anyone who claims to support equality.  

                    To borrow Ali’s words from earlier this week: if via your vote and your campaign contributions, you are going to support a candidate who wants to amend the constitution to prohibit a segment of society from achieving full equality, please quit lying, then call yourself a bigot and give us the gift of an honest dialogue.

                    1. If LBJ had not supported every elected Democrat in the South, we might still have Jim Crow laws. I think we should have some understanding for those that do have to make yucky compromises to work for change from within.

                      At a minimum, focus your opprobrium for those that are working to withhold civil rights rather than those supporting you.

                    2. need to compromise when you have a clear cut difference between two candidates who have divergent positions on the civil rights issue in question.

                      I would simply ask Ali to name the last candidate for federal office in a contested race that opposed the FMA he voted for….or better yet, to name one candidate for federal office in a contested race that opposes the FMA he will be voting for this year.

        1. Ali.  I will continue pointing out that it was my party that blocked the Federal Marriage Amendment that was proposed by, and would have been passed by the very people you supported had they been elected.

          I will also continue to point out your hypocricy is stating your supposed support for my eqaulity while campaigning for, contributing to and voting for candidates who would enshrine discrimination against me and my family in our constitution.  Further, I would never, ever vote for any candidate who would seek to discriminate against you as a member of a minority group, so my commitment to your equality extends significantly further than the lip service you offer in support of my equality.  I’m not willing to sell out your rights for a tax cut.

          As far as running for political office myself, I have do desire to do so.  Furthermore, if you are attempting to suggest that unless one runs for political office they have no right to criticize those who do, I would maintain that you are far, far off base.

          Finally, I’ve voiced my strong objections to my Democratic representatives when they have fallen short and sided with inequality(I’m not supporting Michael Bennet based on his opposition to marriage equality and have let his campaign know exactly why by ballot was cast for Andrew Romanoff).  

          In short, don’t attempt to present yourself as an open-minded, new-age equality-seeking individual when you are running around supporting candidates who seek to enshrine discrimination in our constitution.  I’m not buying it and anyone who follows politics isn’t buying it either.

          1. …because David is buying it – so are many others – you are the only one bitching (seriously – look at the posts above)

            Running for office in no way proves your engagement – but it does prove ones sincerity – I’ve been one of few Republicans in these times to run on a pro-gay message and nothing can ever take that away

            This is the last time I’m gonna give a damn about anything you say, Arv

            Love and peace – Ali

    1. Anthony Kennedy will come down on our side.  I mean, the man WROTE Lawrence v. Texas AND Romer v. Evans.  He hasn’t done the gays wrong yet.

        1. In the end, this winds up before the SCOTUS and Kennedy.  Dropping a few favored lines from his decisions is not going to hurt.

          That said, when it gets to the Supreme Court, while no one knows for certain what will happen, we might be pleasantly surprised.  Or the Court may narrow the decision significantly, or simply refuse to hear it because by the time it reaches the Court only the 9th Circuit will have ruled on the issue and the Court likes to have multiple circuits weighing in.

            1. Not so much. Maybe Alito, but no way in hell does Scalia ever vote to affirm the ruling.

              Kennedy is really the key vote. Roberts would be gravy. Alito is a long shot. Thomas and Scalia when hell freezes over.

            2. Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas was pretty harsh.  He’s pretty much admitted that the majority ruling in that case would lead up to today’s decision, but I don’t see him voting to uphold it.  I also don’t see Thomas or Alito voting in favor no matter how stark the case.

              Roberts, more likely.  He was part of the team that won Romer v. Evans (striking down CO Amdt. 2).  And Kennedy wrote the opinions in both Lawrence and Romer, and hinted obliquely in each case along the lines of “the day is coming, and I might vote in favor of full gay rights then”.

          1. Roberts court has shown a huge interest in overturning corporate legislation.  The only corporate interest in same sex marriage is about benefits.  Some will no doubt fight that, however, almost all of the top 500 companies already offer benefits.

            Because the main opponents to same gender marriage are Mormon, Catholic, and certain Baptist sects,western European religious hard liners so to speak, and Roberts court has not shown a predilection for those cases, I think it is possible there are not four votes to hear the case. It may be the first of the more visible “Gay Marriage” cases coming up, the Court may let the ruling stand.  

  1. Is he went through how different items(?) have come to be covered under the equal protection over time. Using examples like women used to have a very defined role in society and as that went away, gender came under the clause.

    It covers the evolution of how the constitution actually does work and applied it to sexual identity.

    1. I found his point about gender roles, in and out of marriages, having changed over time especially interesting as it pertains to the case.

      I haven’t read every page of the ruling yet but I do plan on it. I hear the judge rips the proponents “evidence” apart.

      1. Cuz there certainly isn’t any real evidence for the proponents.  There is a bit of Bronze Age Biblical admonition, but that would be state supported religion if accepted as evidence.

        The rest, in typical arguments, is just historical social custom reframed ad nauseum.

        Prop 8 proponents must be popping blood vessels today.

        1. and I hate that.

          It’s so interesting to me to read rulings on social issues. There is usually no slams against either side. It just states the issue in question, the current laws that affect the issue and the past rulings that have an affect on the issue. I haven’t read this one yet, but since it’s somewhere around 163 pages, it sounds like the judge really took the time to spell out his ruling.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

175 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!