Wednesday, August 04, 2010

No $hit: CA Judge Says No H8!

Prop 8 is unconstitutional? No $hit!  Some things are simple:  Dogs shouldn't poop on the sidewalks.  And states should not set up classes of citizens.  End of story.  Celebrate this victory -- and prepare for the next battle, dogged citizens.  But, please, don't poop on the sidewalks.  (Oh, that link will get you to a PDF of Judge Vaughn Walker's complete decision, by the way.)

(Photo Credit:  Moose in Bloomsbury, 8/4/10)


  1. The fucken government should not be involved in the marriage business at all. But if they are gonna entangle themselves in this shit, then they gotta obey the fucken constitution.

    And just to address another thing that is popping up all over the fucken comment threads on this ruling, it doesn't fucken matter one iota from a legal standpoint whether homosexuality is a "choice" or not. Regardless of whether it's "biological" or a "choice", it's not a fucken rational basis for distinguishing classes of citizens with different levels of access to governmentally provided/enforced rights.

  2. Finally, a judicial decision that makes sense.

  3. I've just discovered your blog, and want to thank you for giving me another pleasurable way to avoid an imminent writing deadline. And yeah, go no prop 8.

  4. Our pleasure, OWTD. We discovered you recently as well and have found your blog to be a most congenial way to avoid a wide range of dull duties and tasks. Welcome to Roxie's World!

  5. GlassPen2:20 PM EDT

    At last. I have known since studying Loving v. Virginia in law school that this would have to be the result if anyone put up a serious challenge to marriage laws. It will be fascinating to see what comes next at the appeals level.

    Meanwhile, to also keep us amused, there may be other challenges to marriage rules. The obvious ones are polygamy/polyandry (I can't image doing this, but not opposed in principle for consenting adults); age limits (much more defensible); degrees of kinship (I hope it's defensible!). Less obvious: could you marry a corporation (defined as a "person" for many purposes)? How about a pet (so far, not defined as a "person" anywhere that I know of--sorry, Roxie)?

    This goes perhaps to Comrade PhsioProf's suggestion that government get out of the marriage business altogether, though there are plenty of solid reasons for rules created and applied by government aimed at maintaining some social order. Otherwise anything and everything would have to be litigated all the time; no ability to plan or organize on any basis.

    Still, a time to celebrate. My niece and her partner married about 3 weeks ago in MA, which I'm glad they felt able to do in their 20s like so many of their straight peers. They decided that weddings were weird and didn't have one (to some consternation from families, both sides supportive of their marriage), perhaps another sign of sanity in the next generation.

  6. I still think your headline should have been "Judge Walker's Decision to Overturn Prop 8 is Not a Steaming Pile." Unwieldy, I know.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.