I may have run into a little problem. How big a problem, or if it is a problem won't be known for a few days yet.
I received a phone call from my local newspaper, the San Bernardino Sun. Back in March when we did our big flier handout, the Sun picked up the story, and even interviewed me about it. I used a fictitious last name, but he had my cell phone number. He emailed me in March and said wanted to talk to me, so I gave him my cell phone number, after I made sure that if he called, my name would not come up on his caller ID, which it didn't.
After my name appeared with the Registrar of Voters as a candidate for school board (this information is public record and there's nothing I could do about it), along with my address and phone number, the reporter doing the story ran a cross check in his paper's database to see if they had any previous information on unknown candidates such as myself. Well, guess what? My phone number popped up as the guy from Aryan Nations. When he called, I saw no point in denying it, or refusing to talk to him, as he said the story would run whether I talked to him or not. I asked for a little time to think about it. He said I have until 4:00 PM. Well, I knew I had to talk to him. I just needed a little time to think about what I was going to say. When I called him back, I answered his questions to the best of my ability, but did not volunteer any information. All I can do now is wait and see if any shit hits the fan. If not, then no harm done. If it's just one small story and no big deal, then people will forget by November. Besides, most people vote the strict Moe ticket for city and county elections like municipal court judges, county clerk, county tax collector. What's the Moe ticket? You know, Eeny, Meeny, Miney, Moe. So hopefully this won't be a problem. If I end up running unopposed, it certainly won't matter. I'll know by Tuesday on that one.
It's kind of funny. A couple of days ago, I got an email from ANP Chairman Rocky Suhayda, congratulating me on my candidacy. He also warned me to avoid the Jew media as much as possible, then this happens two days later. Although any publicity is good publicity for AN, bad press would be bad for me if I don't run unopposed. Well, it's done now. I figured if I refused to talk, it would look like I was trying to hide something. We'll know by next week if it's a problem. Like I said, it probably won't be. Let's all keep our fingers crossed that it isn't.
I just had a thought. What if a local TV station calls? I certainly don't want to be on TV, or even radio. Maybe I should just tell any other media agencies that I told the Sun everything I have to say, and let it go at that. The last thing I want or need is a Jew Media circus. I don't think I should even hand out any more literature for a while. How's this for a headline, "School Board Candidate Hands Out Nazi Literature." That would not be very good for my campaign, would it?
Friday, August 6, 2010
My Election Campaign Update
I may have run into a little problem. How big a problem, or if it is a problem won't be known for a few days yet.
I received a phone call from my local newspaper, the San Bernardino Sun. Back in March when we did our big flier handout, the Sun picked up the story, and even interviewed me about it. I used a fictitious last name, but he had my cell phone number. He emailed me in March and said wanted to talk to me, so I gave him my cell phone number, after I made sure that if he called, my name would not come up on his caller ID, which it didn't.
After my name appeared with the Registrar of Voters as a candidate for school board (this information is public record and there's nothing I could do about it), along with my address and phone number, the reporter doing the story ran a cross check in his paper's database to see if they had any previous information on unknown candidates such as myself. Well, guess what? My phone number popped up as the guy from Aryan Nations. When he called, I saw no point in denying it, or refusing to talk to him, as he said the story would run whether I talked to him or not. I asked for a little time to think about it. He said I have until 4:00 PM. Well, I knew I had to talk to him. I just needed a little time to think about what I was going to say. When I called him back, I answered his questions to the best of my ability, but did not volunteer any information. All I can do now is wait and see if any shit hits the fan. If not, then no harm done. If it's just one small story and no big deal, then people will forget by November. Besides, most people vote the strict Moe ticket for city and county elections like municipal court judges, county clerk, county tax collector. What's the Moe ticket? You know, Eeny, Meeny, Miney, Moe. So hopefully this won't be a problem. If I end up running unopposed, it certainly won't matter. I'll know by Tuesday on that one.
It's kind of funny. A couple of days ago, I got an email from ANP Chairman Rocky Suhayda, congratulating me on my candidacy. He also warned me to avoid the Jew media as much as possible, then this happens two days later. Although any publicity is good publicity for AN, bad press would be bad for me if I don't run unopposed. Well, it's done now. I figured if I refused to talk, it would look like I was trying to hide something. We'll know by next week if it's a problem. Like I said, it probably won't be. Let's all keep our fingers crossed that it isn't.
I just had a thought. What if a local TV station calls? I certainly don't want to be on TV, or even radio. Maybe I should just tell any other media agencies that I told the Sun everything I have to say, and let it go at that. The last thing I want or need is a Jew Media circus. I don't think I should even hand out any more literature for a while. How's this for a headline, "School Board Candidate Hands Out Nazi Literature." That would not be very good for my campaign, would it?
I received a phone call from my local newspaper, the San Bernardino Sun. Back in March when we did our big flier handout, the Sun picked up the story, and even interviewed me about it. I used a fictitious last name, but he had my cell phone number. He emailed me in March and said wanted to talk to me, so I gave him my cell phone number, after I made sure that if he called, my name would not come up on his caller ID, which it didn't.
After my name appeared with the Registrar of Voters as a candidate for school board (this information is public record and there's nothing I could do about it), along with my address and phone number, the reporter doing the story ran a cross check in his paper's database to see if they had any previous information on unknown candidates such as myself. Well, guess what? My phone number popped up as the guy from Aryan Nations. When he called, I saw no point in denying it, or refusing to talk to him, as he said the story would run whether I talked to him or not. I asked for a little time to think about it. He said I have until 4:00 PM. Well, I knew I had to talk to him. I just needed a little time to think about what I was going to say. When I called him back, I answered his questions to the best of my ability, but did not volunteer any information. All I can do now is wait and see if any shit hits the fan. If not, then no harm done. If it's just one small story and no big deal, then people will forget by November. Besides, most people vote the strict Moe ticket for city and county elections like municipal court judges, county clerk, county tax collector. What's the Moe ticket? You know, Eeny, Meeny, Miney, Moe. So hopefully this won't be a problem. If I end up running unopposed, it certainly won't matter. I'll know by Tuesday on that one.
It's kind of funny. A couple of days ago, I got an email from ANP Chairman Rocky Suhayda, congratulating me on my candidacy. He also warned me to avoid the Jew media as much as possible, then this happens two days later. Although any publicity is good publicity for AN, bad press would be bad for me if I don't run unopposed. Well, it's done now. I figured if I refused to talk, it would look like I was trying to hide something. We'll know by next week if it's a problem. Like I said, it probably won't be. Let's all keep our fingers crossed that it isn't.
I just had a thought. What if a local TV station calls? I certainly don't want to be on TV, or even radio. Maybe I should just tell any other media agencies that I told the Sun everything I have to say, and let it go at that. The last thing I want or need is a Jew Media circus. I don't think I should even hand out any more literature for a while. How's this for a headline, "School Board Candidate Hands Out Nazi Literature." That would not be very good for my campaign, would it?
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Federal Court Rules California's Ban On Fag Marriage Is Unconstitutional!
By Howard Mintz
hmintz@mercurynews.com
9th Circuit Appeals Court, labeled "nation's most liberal".
Reestablishing California as the nation's chief battleground over same-sex marriage , a San Francisco federal judge on Wednesday struck down the state's latest attempt to outlaw gay nuptials and triggered a tempest by boldly declaring that gay and lesbian couples should have the immediate right to start walking down the aisle.
In a ruling expected to serve as the first draft in a drawn out legal battle, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker concluded that voter-approved Proposition 8 tramples on the rights of gay and lesbian couples, has no social justification and is unconstitutional.
The judge's ruling sent same-sex couples scrambling to local city halls and county clerks around the state in hopes of securing a marriage license. But they quickly discovered that the right to marry will continue to elude them for the time being.
Walker agreed to put his ruling on hold until at least Friday to consider arguments on whether California should be barred from enforcing Proposition 8, a restriction that would allow same-sex couples to marry right away. The judge indicated he's inclined to scrap Proposition 8 immediately, but legal experts predict a federal appeals court would then intervene and put same-sex marriages on hold while the legal struggle continues for what could be years.
The judge's ruling marked another remarkable turn in California's six-year-old legal and cultural war over the right of same-sex couples to marry. Gay rights groups hailed the decision and Proposition 8 supporters blasted it for thwarting the will of the voters. The ruling, which could ultimately force the US. Supreme Court to address the gay marriage issue, was based on an historic trial in January in the first federal court test in the nation of a state's right to forbid same-sex marriage.
In the coming months, it is likely to ripple into the political arena, from the mid-term elections in Congress to California's governor's race, where.
Attorney General Jerry Brown has argued that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and Republican rival Meg Whitman has supported the law.
In the meantime, supporters of Proposition 8 vowed to appeal Walker's order to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Prop. 8 backers said in court papers that a stay of Walker's ruling is "essential to averting the harms that would flow from another purported window of same-sex marriage in California."
While legal experts say it is hard to predict whether the 9th Circuit will uphold Walker's ruling, they agree it may create too much uncertainty to void Proposition 8 until the case is fully resolved. Among other things, couples who might marry during the appeals process could see those unions dissolved if Walker is reversed. In 2004, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom married same-sex couples for a brief period, those licenses were invalidated by the state Supreme Court.
"If the 9th Circuit reverses Walker, then you have all this chaos," said Vikram Amar, a University of California-Davis law professor. "I think the prudent course would be to issue a stay."
In his 136-page ruling, Walker sided with two same-sex couples who challenged Proposition 8, which embedded a ban on gay marriage in the California constitution and wiped out a prior California Supreme Court ruling that briefly legalized same-sex nuptials across the state.
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of marriage licenses," Walker wrote.
Reaction to the ruling was swift on both sides, as demonstrations rippled across the state from West Hollywood to San Francisco, where dozens of gay marriage supporters gathered outside the federal courthouse to await the release of the decision. A cheer went up when a Facebook posting said the law had been overturned, with people crying and kissing as they learned the news.
"For our entire lives, our government and the law have treated us as unequal," said Berkeley resident Kristin Perry, one of the plaintiffs along with her partner, Sandy Stier. "This decision to ensure that our constitutional rights are as protected as everyone else's makes us incredibly proud of our country."
Same-sex marriage foes were outraged that Walker overturned the law, backed by voters in November 2008 by a 52 to 48 percent margin.
"We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, given the biased way he conducted this trial," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. "With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman."
The judge based his decision on weeks of testimony that unfolded during the January trial. The plaintiffs' team, including former Republican U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, put on weeks of evidence to prove that Prop. 8 violated the rights of same-sex couples. They presented experts to testify on issues from the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians to the scope of gay and lesbian political clout. Among other things, the plaintiffs sought to debunk the argument that California's strong domestic partnership laws provide equal status to same-sex couples -- Walker agreed that those laws relegated the couples to second-class citizenship.
Defenders of Prop. 8 put just two witnesses on the stand, saying the plaintiffs had failed to prove that voters intended to discriminate and that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. Prop. 8 defenders tried to introduce evidence to show that gay marriage would undermine the institution of marriage, and that it conflicts with marriage's central purpose of procreation.
In his ruling, Walker questioned the lack of evidence and called one witness "unreliable," making it clear that the Prop. 8 defense team did little to prove that the law can be justified. In fact, the judge said only moral disapproval appeared to motivate the law, rejecting the procreation argument. "The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval," he wrote. "As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives."
The legal challenge did not have any impact on the roughly 18,000 same-sex couples married in California before Proposition 8 went into effect.
"The decision grounds its legal conclusions in the factual findings as powerfully as it can," said Marc Spindelman, an Ohio State University law professor who has followed the issue closely. "But there's no guarantee that, even decided this way, it will hold against the winds sure to blow as the case is taken up. Far from it."
Mercury News staff writer Julie Chang contributed to this report. Contact Howard Mintz at 408-286-0236.
Comment:
If this comment is a lot more crude than my usual ones, it's because I'm ready to blow my fucking cork! Now these fucking queers can get married again, and defile the Holy state of matrimony. California is the new Sodam and Gomorrah. If Yahweh decides to bring down fire and brimstone on this entire sick and disgusting country, I wouldn't blame Him. All I ask is the few who are trying to follow His word get advanced warning. If we do, don't look back! Remember what happened to a certain wife when she looked back.
Anyway, I've fucking had enough! I'm sick and tired of the libertards using the courts to circumvent the law. When deciding an issue, the Supreme Court should not ask themselves, "Is this fair?" They should ask, "What did our Founding Fathers intend?" Washington, Jefferson, et al knew that faggots are sick, disgusting deviants. That's why they gave them no protection in the Constitution. Our FF's also gave us the ability to amend the Constitution to reflect changing times. Don't get me wrong. I'm in no way in favour of turd stabbers getting married, but the proper way to go about it is to amend the Constitution, and not allow nine men and women to decide on a law in a state nearly 3,000 miles away. The Constitution does not include protections for sexual deviants. If it did, it would say specifically that it did. Therefore California's law IS constitutional. Besides, marriage is a state's rights issue, and not in the Federal Government's jurisdiction.
hmintz@mercurynews.com
9th Circuit Appeals Court, labeled "nation's most liberal".
Reestablishing California as the nation's chief battleground over same-sex marriage , a San Francisco federal judge on Wednesday struck down the state's latest attempt to outlaw gay nuptials and triggered a tempest by boldly declaring that gay and lesbian couples should have the immediate right to start walking down the aisle.
In a ruling expected to serve as the first draft in a drawn out legal battle, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker concluded that voter-approved Proposition 8 tramples on the rights of gay and lesbian couples, has no social justification and is unconstitutional.
The judge's ruling sent same-sex couples scrambling to local city halls and county clerks around the state in hopes of securing a marriage license. But they quickly discovered that the right to marry will continue to elude them for the time being.
Walker agreed to put his ruling on hold until at least Friday to consider arguments on whether California should be barred from enforcing Proposition 8, a restriction that would allow same-sex couples to marry right away. The judge indicated he's inclined to scrap Proposition 8 immediately, but legal experts predict a federal appeals court would then intervene and put same-sex marriages on hold while the legal struggle continues for what could be years.
The judge's ruling marked another remarkable turn in California's six-year-old legal and cultural war over the right of same-sex couples to marry. Gay rights groups hailed the decision and Proposition 8 supporters blasted it for thwarting the will of the voters. The ruling, which could ultimately force the US. Supreme Court to address the gay marriage issue, was based on an historic trial in January in the first federal court test in the nation of a state's right to forbid same-sex marriage.
In the coming months, it is likely to ripple into the political arena, from the mid-term elections in Congress to California's governor's race, where.
Attorney General Jerry Brown has argued that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and Republican rival Meg Whitman has supported the law.
In the meantime, supporters of Proposition 8 vowed to appeal Walker's order to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Prop. 8 backers said in court papers that a stay of Walker's ruling is "essential to averting the harms that would flow from another purported window of same-sex marriage in California."
While legal experts say it is hard to predict whether the 9th Circuit will uphold Walker's ruling, they agree it may create too much uncertainty to void Proposition 8 until the case is fully resolved. Among other things, couples who might marry during the appeals process could see those unions dissolved if Walker is reversed. In 2004, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom married same-sex couples for a brief period, those licenses were invalidated by the state Supreme Court.
"If the 9th Circuit reverses Walker, then you have all this chaos," said Vikram Amar, a University of California-Davis law professor. "I think the prudent course would be to issue a stay."
In his 136-page ruling, Walker sided with two same-sex couples who challenged Proposition 8, which embedded a ban on gay marriage in the California constitution and wiped out a prior California Supreme Court ruling that briefly legalized same-sex nuptials across the state.
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of marriage licenses," Walker wrote.
Reaction to the ruling was swift on both sides, as demonstrations rippled across the state from West Hollywood to San Francisco, where dozens of gay marriage supporters gathered outside the federal courthouse to await the release of the decision. A cheer went up when a Facebook posting said the law had been overturned, with people crying and kissing as they learned the news.
"For our entire lives, our government and the law have treated us as unequal," said Berkeley resident Kristin Perry, one of the plaintiffs along with her partner, Sandy Stier. "This decision to ensure that our constitutional rights are as protected as everyone else's makes us incredibly proud of our country."
Same-sex marriage foes were outraged that Walker overturned the law, backed by voters in November 2008 by a 52 to 48 percent margin.
"We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, given the biased way he conducted this trial," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. "With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman."
The judge based his decision on weeks of testimony that unfolded during the January trial. The plaintiffs' team, including former Republican U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, put on weeks of evidence to prove that Prop. 8 violated the rights of same-sex couples. They presented experts to testify on issues from the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians to the scope of gay and lesbian political clout. Among other things, the plaintiffs sought to debunk the argument that California's strong domestic partnership laws provide equal status to same-sex couples -- Walker agreed that those laws relegated the couples to second-class citizenship.
Defenders of Prop. 8 put just two witnesses on the stand, saying the plaintiffs had failed to prove that voters intended to discriminate and that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. Prop. 8 defenders tried to introduce evidence to show that gay marriage would undermine the institution of marriage, and that it conflicts with marriage's central purpose of procreation.
In his ruling, Walker questioned the lack of evidence and called one witness "unreliable," making it clear that the Prop. 8 defense team did little to prove that the law can be justified. In fact, the judge said only moral disapproval appeared to motivate the law, rejecting the procreation argument. "The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval," he wrote. "As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives."
The legal challenge did not have any impact on the roughly 18,000 same-sex couples married in California before Proposition 8 went into effect.
"The decision grounds its legal conclusions in the factual findings as powerfully as it can," said Marc Spindelman, an Ohio State University law professor who has followed the issue closely. "But there's no guarantee that, even decided this way, it will hold against the winds sure to blow as the case is taken up. Far from it."
Mercury News staff writer Julie Chang contributed to this report. Contact Howard Mintz at 408-286-0236.
Comment:
If this comment is a lot more crude than my usual ones, it's because I'm ready to blow my fucking cork! Now these fucking queers can get married again, and defile the Holy state of matrimony. California is the new Sodam and Gomorrah. If Yahweh decides to bring down fire and brimstone on this entire sick and disgusting country, I wouldn't blame Him. All I ask is the few who are trying to follow His word get advanced warning. If we do, don't look back! Remember what happened to a certain wife when she looked back.
Anyway, I've fucking had enough! I'm sick and tired of the libertards using the courts to circumvent the law. When deciding an issue, the Supreme Court should not ask themselves, "Is this fair?" They should ask, "What did our Founding Fathers intend?" Washington, Jefferson, et al knew that faggots are sick, disgusting deviants. That's why they gave them no protection in the Constitution. Our FF's also gave us the ability to amend the Constitution to reflect changing times. Don't get me wrong. I'm in no way in favour of turd stabbers getting married, but the proper way to go about it is to amend the Constitution, and not allow nine men and women to decide on a law in a state nearly 3,000 miles away. The Constitution does not include protections for sexual deviants. If it did, it would say specifically that it did. Therefore California's law IS constitutional. Besides, marriage is a state's rights issue, and not in the Federal Government's jurisdiction.
Federal Court Rules California's Ban On Fag Marriage Is Unconstitutional!
By Howard Mintz
hmintz@mercurynews.com
9th Circuit Appeals Court, labeled "nation's most liberal".
Reestablishing California as the nation's chief battleground over same-sex marriage , a San Francisco federal judge on Wednesday struck down the state's latest attempt to outlaw gay nuptials and triggered a tempest by boldly declaring that gay and lesbian couples should have the immediate right to start walking down the aisle.
In a ruling expected to serve as the first draft in a drawn out legal battle, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker concluded that voter-approved Proposition 8 tramples on the rights of gay and lesbian couples, has no social justification and is unconstitutional.
The judge's ruling sent same-sex couples scrambling to local city halls and county clerks around the state in hopes of securing a marriage license. But they quickly discovered that the right to marry will continue to elude them for the time being.
Walker agreed to put his ruling on hold until at least Friday to consider arguments on whether California should be barred from enforcing Proposition 8, a restriction that would allow same-sex couples to marry right away. The judge indicated he's inclined to scrap Proposition 8 immediately, but legal experts predict a federal appeals court would then intervene and put same-sex marriages on hold while the legal struggle continues for what could be years.
The judge's ruling marked another remarkable turn in California's six-year-old legal and cultural war over the right of same-sex couples to marry. Gay rights groups hailed the decision and Proposition 8 supporters blasted it for thwarting the will of the voters. The ruling, which could ultimately force the US. Supreme Court to address the gay marriage issue, was based on an historic trial in January in the first federal court test in the nation of a state's right to forbid same-sex marriage.
In the coming months, it is likely to ripple into the political arena, from the mid-term elections in Congress to California's governor's race, where.
Attorney General Jerry Brown has argued that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and Republican rival Meg Whitman has supported the law.
In the meantime, supporters of Proposition 8 vowed to appeal Walker's order to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Prop. 8 backers said in court papers that a stay of Walker's ruling is "essential to averting the harms that would flow from another purported window of same-sex marriage in California."
While legal experts say it is hard to predict whether the 9th Circuit will uphold Walker's ruling, they agree it may create too much uncertainty to void Proposition 8 until the case is fully resolved. Among other things, couples who might marry during the appeals process could see those unions dissolved if Walker is reversed. In 2004, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom married same-sex couples for a brief period, those licenses were invalidated by the state Supreme Court.
"If the 9th Circuit reverses Walker, then you have all this chaos," said Vikram Amar, a University of California-Davis law professor. "I think the prudent course would be to issue a stay."
In his 136-page ruling, Walker sided with two same-sex couples who challenged Proposition 8, which embedded a ban on gay marriage in the California constitution and wiped out a prior California Supreme Court ruling that briefly legalized same-sex nuptials across the state.
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of marriage licenses," Walker wrote.
Reaction to the ruling was swift on both sides, as demonstrations rippled across the state from West Hollywood to San Francisco, where dozens of gay marriage supporters gathered outside the federal courthouse to await the release of the decision. A cheer went up when a Facebook posting said the law had been overturned, with people crying and kissing as they learned the news.
"For our entire lives, our government and the law have treated us as unequal," said Berkeley resident Kristin Perry, one of the plaintiffs along with her partner, Sandy Stier. "This decision to ensure that our constitutional rights are as protected as everyone else's makes us incredibly proud of our country."
Same-sex marriage foes were outraged that Walker overturned the law, backed by voters in November 2008 by a 52 to 48 percent margin.
"We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, given the biased way he conducted this trial," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. "With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman."
The judge based his decision on weeks of testimony that unfolded during the January trial. The plaintiffs' team, including former Republican U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, put on weeks of evidence to prove that Prop. 8 violated the rights of same-sex couples. They presented experts to testify on issues from the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians to the scope of gay and lesbian political clout. Among other things, the plaintiffs sought to debunk the argument that California's strong domestic partnership laws provide equal status to same-sex couples -- Walker agreed that those laws relegated the couples to second-class citizenship.
Defenders of Prop. 8 put just two witnesses on the stand, saying the plaintiffs had failed to prove that voters intended to discriminate and that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. Prop. 8 defenders tried to introduce evidence to show that gay marriage would undermine the institution of marriage, and that it conflicts with marriage's central purpose of procreation.
In his ruling, Walker questioned the lack of evidence and called one witness "unreliable," making it clear that the Prop. 8 defense team did little to prove that the law can be justified. In fact, the judge said only moral disapproval appeared to motivate the law, rejecting the procreation argument. "The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval," he wrote. "As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives."
The legal challenge did not have any impact on the roughly 18,000 same-sex couples married in California before Proposition 8 went into effect.
"The decision grounds its legal conclusions in the factual findings as powerfully as it can," said Marc Spindelman, an Ohio State University law professor who has followed the issue closely. "But there's no guarantee that, even decided this way, it will hold against the winds sure to blow as the case is taken up. Far from it."
Mercury News staff writer Julie Chang contributed to this report. Contact Howard Mintz at 408-286-0236.
Comment:
If this comment is a lot more crude than my usual ones, it's because I'm ready to blow my fucking cork! Now these fucking queers can get married again, and defile the Holy state of matrimony. California is the new Sodam and Gomorrah. If Yahweh decides to bring down fire and brimstone on this entire sick and disgusting country, I wouldn't blame Him. All I ask is the few who are trying to follow His word get advanced warning. If we do, don't look back! Remember what happened to a certain wife when she looked back.
Anyway, I've fucking had enough! I'm sick and tired of the libertards using the courts to circumvent the law. When deciding an issue, the Supreme Court should not ask themselves, "Is this fair?" They should ask, "What did our Founding Fathers intend?" Washington, Jefferson, et al knew that faggots are sick, disgusting deviants. That's why they gave them no protection in the Constitution. Our FF's also gave us the ability to amend the Constitution to reflect changing times. Don't get me wrong. I'm in no way in favour of turd stabbers getting married, but the proper way to go about it is to amend the Constitution, and not allow nine men and women to decide on a law in a state nearly 3,000 miles away. The Constitution does not include protections for sexual deviants. If it did, it would say specifically that it did. Therefore California's law IS constitutional. Besides, marriage is a state's rights issue, and not in the Federal Government's jurisdiction.
hmintz@mercurynews.com
9th Circuit Appeals Court, labeled "nation's most liberal".
Reestablishing California as the nation's chief battleground over same-sex marriage , a San Francisco federal judge on Wednesday struck down the state's latest attempt to outlaw gay nuptials and triggered a tempest by boldly declaring that gay and lesbian couples should have the immediate right to start walking down the aisle.
In a ruling expected to serve as the first draft in a drawn out legal battle, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker concluded that voter-approved Proposition 8 tramples on the rights of gay and lesbian couples, has no social justification and is unconstitutional.
The judge's ruling sent same-sex couples scrambling to local city halls and county clerks around the state in hopes of securing a marriage license. But they quickly discovered that the right to marry will continue to elude them for the time being.
Walker agreed to put his ruling on hold until at least Friday to consider arguments on whether California should be barred from enforcing Proposition 8, a restriction that would allow same-sex couples to marry right away. The judge indicated he's inclined to scrap Proposition 8 immediately, but legal experts predict a federal appeals court would then intervene and put same-sex marriages on hold while the legal struggle continues for what could be years.
The judge's ruling marked another remarkable turn in California's six-year-old legal and cultural war over the right of same-sex couples to marry. Gay rights groups hailed the decision and Proposition 8 supporters blasted it for thwarting the will of the voters. The ruling, which could ultimately force the US. Supreme Court to address the gay marriage issue, was based on an historic trial in January in the first federal court test in the nation of a state's right to forbid same-sex marriage.
In the coming months, it is likely to ripple into the political arena, from the mid-term elections in Congress to California's governor's race, where.
Attorney General Jerry Brown has argued that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and Republican rival Meg Whitman has supported the law.
In the meantime, supporters of Proposition 8 vowed to appeal Walker's order to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Prop. 8 backers said in court papers that a stay of Walker's ruling is "essential to averting the harms that would flow from another purported window of same-sex marriage in California."
While legal experts say it is hard to predict whether the 9th Circuit will uphold Walker's ruling, they agree it may create too much uncertainty to void Proposition 8 until the case is fully resolved. Among other things, couples who might marry during the appeals process could see those unions dissolved if Walker is reversed. In 2004, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom married same-sex couples for a brief period, those licenses were invalidated by the state Supreme Court.
"If the 9th Circuit reverses Walker, then you have all this chaos," said Vikram Amar, a University of California-Davis law professor. "I think the prudent course would be to issue a stay."
In his 136-page ruling, Walker sided with two same-sex couples who challenged Proposition 8, which embedded a ban on gay marriage in the California constitution and wiped out a prior California Supreme Court ruling that briefly legalized same-sex nuptials across the state.
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of marriage licenses," Walker wrote.
Reaction to the ruling was swift on both sides, as demonstrations rippled across the state from West Hollywood to San Francisco, where dozens of gay marriage supporters gathered outside the federal courthouse to await the release of the decision. A cheer went up when a Facebook posting said the law had been overturned, with people crying and kissing as they learned the news.
"For our entire lives, our government and the law have treated us as unequal," said Berkeley resident Kristin Perry, one of the plaintiffs along with her partner, Sandy Stier. "This decision to ensure that our constitutional rights are as protected as everyone else's makes us incredibly proud of our country."
Same-sex marriage foes were outraged that Walker overturned the law, backed by voters in November 2008 by a 52 to 48 percent margin.
"We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, given the biased way he conducted this trial," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. "With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman."
The judge based his decision on weeks of testimony that unfolded during the January trial. The plaintiffs' team, including former Republican U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, put on weeks of evidence to prove that Prop. 8 violated the rights of same-sex couples. They presented experts to testify on issues from the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians to the scope of gay and lesbian political clout. Among other things, the plaintiffs sought to debunk the argument that California's strong domestic partnership laws provide equal status to same-sex couples -- Walker agreed that those laws relegated the couples to second-class citizenship.
Defenders of Prop. 8 put just two witnesses on the stand, saying the plaintiffs had failed to prove that voters intended to discriminate and that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. Prop. 8 defenders tried to introduce evidence to show that gay marriage would undermine the institution of marriage, and that it conflicts with marriage's central purpose of procreation.
In his ruling, Walker questioned the lack of evidence and called one witness "unreliable," making it clear that the Prop. 8 defense team did little to prove that the law can be justified. In fact, the judge said only moral disapproval appeared to motivate the law, rejecting the procreation argument. "The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval," he wrote. "As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives."
The legal challenge did not have any impact on the roughly 18,000 same-sex couples married in California before Proposition 8 went into effect.
"The decision grounds its legal conclusions in the factual findings as powerfully as it can," said Marc Spindelman, an Ohio State University law professor who has followed the issue closely. "But there's no guarantee that, even decided this way, it will hold against the winds sure to blow as the case is taken up. Far from it."
Mercury News staff writer Julie Chang contributed to this report. Contact Howard Mintz at 408-286-0236.
Comment:
If this comment is a lot more crude than my usual ones, it's because I'm ready to blow my fucking cork! Now these fucking queers can get married again, and defile the Holy state of matrimony. California is the new Sodam and Gomorrah. If Yahweh decides to bring down fire and brimstone on this entire sick and disgusting country, I wouldn't blame Him. All I ask is the few who are trying to follow His word get advanced warning. If we do, don't look back! Remember what happened to a certain wife when she looked back.
Anyway, I've fucking had enough! I'm sick and tired of the libertards using the courts to circumvent the law. When deciding an issue, the Supreme Court should not ask themselves, "Is this fair?" They should ask, "What did our Founding Fathers intend?" Washington, Jefferson, et al knew that faggots are sick, disgusting deviants. That's why they gave them no protection in the Constitution. Our FF's also gave us the ability to amend the Constitution to reflect changing times. Don't get me wrong. I'm in no way in favour of turd stabbers getting married, but the proper way to go about it is to amend the Constitution, and not allow nine men and women to decide on a law in a state nearly 3,000 miles away. The Constitution does not include protections for sexual deviants. If it did, it would say specifically that it did. Therefore California's law IS constitutional. Besides, marriage is a state's rights issue, and not in the Federal Government's jurisdiction.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Mexi-shit Drug Cartel Puts a Price on Arizona Sheriff's Head
PHOENIX - He's been at the center of the discussions and controversies surrounding illegal immigration enforcement in Arizona for quite a while.
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news...rpaio-07292010
$1M offered for Arpaio, $1K to join cartel
On the day parts of Arizona's immigration law, SB 1070, went into effect, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is in the news for another reason: there's a price on his head - allegedly offered by a Mexican drug cartel.
The audio message in Spanish is a bit garbled, but the text is clear.
"It's offering a million dollars for Sheriff Joe Arpaio's head and offering a thousand dollars for anyone who wants to join the Mexican cartel."
A man who wants to remain anonymous says his wife received the text message Tuesday evening. It also included an international phone number and instructions to pass the message along.
"She showed it to me..I was kind of disgusted..I reported it to the Sheriff's department yesterday..they said they were going to direct the threat squad on it."
Lisa Allen of the Sheriff's office says they believe the message originated in Mexico.
Although the Sheriff has received numerous death threats in the past, they believe this threat is credible because of its timing.
"Arpaio gets threats pretty routinely, but obviously with this heightened awareness of his role in the immigration issue we've got to take this one a little bit more seriously with a million dollar contract out on him," said Allen.
But she says what really concerns investigators is how quickly the message may have been spread. "It's going so many different places that our folks are looking at it and thinking well at any given point in time it could land in front of some crazy person who thinks I can do that."
As for Arpaio's reaction to the threat, "It's a little bit like water off a duck's back for him, but you never know if it's that sense of false bravado with him..you just can't read it, I'm sure he's concerned, I'm sure he's concerned for his family more than anything else," said Allen.
The Sheriff's office says investigators are trying to trace exactly where the text message came from, but because it did originate from an international number, that will be difficult too.
Comment:
If Sheriff Joe is assassinated, then the government has failed to act, and the time has come for US to act. I know that's a little like closing the barn door AFTER the cows have escaped, but his death could be the catalyst that's needed to set the people off - at least in Maricopa County. If that happens, some of us need to be there.
Mexi-shit Drug Cartel Puts a Price on Arizona Sheriff's Head
PHOENIX - He's been at the center of the discussions and controversies surrounding illegal immigration enforcement in Arizona for quite a while.
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news...rpaio-07292010
$1M offered for Arpaio, $1K to join cartel
On the day parts of Arizona's immigration law, SB 1070, went into effect, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is in the news for another reason: there's a price on his head - allegedly offered by a Mexican drug cartel.
The audio message in Spanish is a bit garbled, but the text is clear.
"It's offering a million dollars for Sheriff Joe Arpaio's head and offering a thousand dollars for anyone who wants to join the Mexican cartel."
A man who wants to remain anonymous says his wife received the text message Tuesday evening. It also included an international phone number and instructions to pass the message along.
"She showed it to me..I was kind of disgusted..I reported it to the Sheriff's department yesterday..they said they were going to direct the threat squad on it."
Lisa Allen of the Sheriff's office says they believe the message originated in Mexico.
Although the Sheriff has received numerous death threats in the past, they believe this threat is credible because of its timing.
"Arpaio gets threats pretty routinely, but obviously with this heightened awareness of his role in the immigration issue we've got to take this one a little bit more seriously with a million dollar contract out on him," said Allen.
But she says what really concerns investigators is how quickly the message may have been spread. "It's going so many different places that our folks are looking at it and thinking well at any given point in time it could land in front of some crazy person who thinks I can do that."
As for Arpaio's reaction to the threat, "It's a little bit like water off a duck's back for him, but you never know if it's that sense of false bravado with him..you just can't read it, I'm sure he's concerned, I'm sure he's concerned for his family more than anything else," said Allen.
The Sheriff's office says investigators are trying to trace exactly where the text message came from, but because it did originate from an international number, that will be difficult too.
Comment:
If Sheriff Joe is assassinated, then the government has failed to act, and the time has come for US to act. I know that's a little like closing the barn door AFTER the cows have escaped, but his death could be the catalyst that's needed to set the people off - at least in Maricopa County. If that happens, some of us need to be there.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
I'm Running For Office!
Today, August 2, 2010, the Aryan Nations has moved from talking about running for political office to actually doing it. Many of you read a previous post on the forum, and an article in the last issue of the Quarterly where I said I was considering it. I decided to put my money where my mouth is, so to speak.
I went down to my County's Registrar Of Voters Office (they were very helpful), and filed for the office of school board member. It's not the presidency by any means. But it is realistic. I'm certainly qualified. I have college degrees in education, and a teaching credential.
Here's the really hopeful part. There are two seats up for election. As of today, only myself and one other have filed. The deadline is this Friday. If no one else files, then I'm in!
It's only a local office, but we have to start somewhere, and we can't start at the top. JT Bowle's attempt at the presidency is proof of that. I'm not taking a shot at JT for his attempt by any means. He just shot for the moon with only a one stage rocket. Next time, if he sets his sights a little lower, like local elections, he'll have a chance, especially in a White friendly area like Laurens, SC. We must set realistic goals and go for them. That's what I've done, and I sincerely hope JT does too. I can see him as a city councilman. I know that ANP Chairman Suhayda agrees with me on this issue. Realistic goals, like local elections, and then we, and our respective organisations can start to work our way up to the higher levels. Success comes one step at a time.
Wish me luck!
I went down to my County's Registrar Of Voters Office (they were very helpful), and filed for the office of school board member. It's not the presidency by any means. But it is realistic. I'm certainly qualified. I have college degrees in education, and a teaching credential.
Here's the really hopeful part. There are two seats up for election. As of today, only myself and one other have filed. The deadline is this Friday. If no one else files, then I'm in!
It's only a local office, but we have to start somewhere, and we can't start at the top. JT Bowle's attempt at the presidency is proof of that. I'm not taking a shot at JT for his attempt by any means. He just shot for the moon with only a one stage rocket. Next time, if he sets his sights a little lower, like local elections, he'll have a chance, especially in a White friendly area like Laurens, SC. We must set realistic goals and go for them. That's what I've done, and I sincerely hope JT does too. I can see him as a city councilman. I know that ANP Chairman Suhayda agrees with me on this issue. Realistic goals, like local elections, and then we, and our respective organisations can start to work our way up to the higher levels. Success comes one step at a time.
Wish me luck!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)