New haircut. New glasses. Same shitty call-dropping phone.
—
Michelangelo Signorile: Judge Vaughn Walker Gets Smeared By the Media
The first time I heard Walker’s name was as a “Reagan-nominated” judge. Then I heard he was “possibly gay”. Next thing I knew, it was just “gay”.
Walker has never confirmed his sexuality. And it doesn’t matter. As Signorile says:
What will they say next? That Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg can’t rule on abortion because they have uteruses?
(via incorrigiblerobot)
Using the right wing’s logic on this one, even a hetero judge couldn’t make a ruling because his heteroness would interfere with his ruling. So we would need a unsexed jude. And then they’d say “how could anybody who doesn’t want to stick his wiener in anything be able to rule on this?” and we’d say back “YOU FUCKING LOST GET OVER IT” as we dramatically drop the printout of the 100some page ruling on the table and walk away.
There is nothing I can say that would make this movie’s tagline, in conjunction with this poster, any less appropriate. And I just have to accept that.
viaI don’t get it.
And this is a kid’s movie?
On August 4, 2010, Federal Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that California’s Proposition 8, which prohibits California from recognizing same-sex marriage, is unconstitutional. The ruling was stayed pending appeal—which means that nothing will happen until a Federal Appeals court reviews it. As you might imagine, it will be appealed. The ruling itself is 138 pages long. I’ll summarize.
The previous lawsuit challenged Proposition 8 on procedural grounds. My post on that case is here. The California Supreme Court disagreed with me. Since the California Supreme Court gets the final say on the California Constitution, it got the last word.
The new suit was brought by two same-sex couples on different grounds. And, since it was brought in Federal court, the California Supreme Court doesn’t get a say at all. Something strange happened. California’s government was sued. The Attorney General said, essentially, “I agree that this thing is unconstitutional.” The other government groups said, “I’m not going to bother defending this.” So did a number of other people, including “ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8.”
The people who brought the lawsuit (“the Plaintiffs”) claimed two things. First, they claimed that marriage is a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (There is some decent precedent on this—the only question is whether the protected marriage is the one man/one woman kind of marriage). If the 14th Amendment protects same-sex marriage, the court reviews the case using “strict scrutiny” which I’ll discuss below.
Marceaux said.. “Also I’m going to remove all gold-fringe flags.”
—-
Umm…like the one you’re wearing?
ladies and gentleman, the next president of the united states: basil marceaux.
There’s more…