SCOTUS/Prop 8 predictions?

I'm lying right now.

Also, I still have Visionrazor on ignore, so I'm just imagining his posts are this every time I see he's posted 3-4 things in a row:

Don't stress EP, once the laws pass you'll have the right to get gay married too.

I don't give two craps about gay marriage but I am aggravated by the sheeple chaning the profile pix on Facbeook to that queer plus sign. I can't tell who is talking to who now.

Incapable of reading the names, are you?

I'm having a hard time distinguishing everyone's passive aggressive ranting about life from each other. Hard to tell who's complaining about who on there.

If that's all your "friends" do, you need a new set of friends. Or are you worried they'd be more expensive than the first set you paid for?

ummm....hate to break it to you, but most of us don't follow your blog or facebook. you've always came off as being against gay rights in general here on wordforge. same tedious arguments that we've heard from volpone for years, too. TRY HARDER!

Yeah, not so much, lady. Do an advanced search here on the board for the word marriage coupled with the username John Castle. You'll discover that I'm for marriage equality, even here, and have been for a long damn time, on the basis that marriage shouldn't be government's business.

The only reason you could possibly have for thinking otherwise is that you pay more attention to LeftForge's idea-monster of what I stand for than you do to what the real me actually does stand for. Stop being informed by the crowd and get some information.

Or don't, up to you. But if you opt for the latter, you're gonna look mighty stupid when you prepare yourself for the illusion and then try to bring your game to the real thing.

Ah, yes, the old "if you don't like bigotry, that means you're a bigot!" canard.

Otherwise known as kindergarten logic, about two steps more sophisticated than "I know you are but what am I?"

He's an admitted liar. Even if any of us bothered with him off-Wordforge, there is no guarantees about any words he committs to the keyboard. If Castle wants credibility with us, he needs to start here.

that's not really true. He just holds out on the troll until everyone gives up on talking sense to him and then he says "I pwned you all! I really ain't against it at all!"

He's played both sides in countless threads on the subject.

(and no, I don't follow his stuff anywhere but here either)

The offensive thing here is not that he is anti-gay, it's that he keeps repeating the same fucking gambit over and over. the shit's played out long ago and he keeps doing it because people keep taking it seriously.

Now, he may of course been lying on those previous occasions when he said "Psych! ! was just trollin!"

but he HAS in fact expressed support for equality before.

Well, see, now you've gone and ruined it. Ruiner.

The day I give a damn about, much less want, credibility with you is the day I hang up my spurs. The approbation of a gaggle of goons I've never even met is just not high on my list of priorities -- and if it's high on yours, I feel bad for you, bro.

Yep. It's annoying just looking at the tags in the rep comment boxes as I'm skimming through threads. You cruisin' for a warning, Ten?

One of the farmers I follow on twitter, hard red, Obama hatin panhandle trash just.gave his thoughts on the issue. Basically, who has the time to tell others how to live, and if ya told him how to live, he'd tell ya to fuck off too.

In short, this issue is dead, regardless of what the courts say.

Also too, if we reverse the logic, and they vote against Prop 8 and DOMA, HELLO can of worms! The Loving v. Virginia judgment might as well have just fell down a flight of stairs too, as far as Constitutionality goes. Mississippi and Alabama can ban interracial marriages again and in their argument before the Court, they can cite sexual discrimination, so why can't they racially discriminate when it comes to marriage? That's why I think these decisions are going to get, at most "probably" 3 dissensions, but unless they want to undo history with hypocrisy, they're in a tight corner. We're not talking polyamourous marriages here. We're still dealing with two adults, two minds, sound- sane enough to make their own decisions to partake in the misery of "most" marriages.

Race is a protected class and requires the states to have a narrowly tailored and compelling reason to discriminate.

Gays have never been given that status and to discriminate the state need only provide some rational basis.

As we are seeing now, you can narrowly tailor marriage. That 14th amendment means nothing if you're a hayseed hick- Supreme Court judge or no Supreme Court judge. I can see Scalia for instance voting to overturn his buddy Thomas's marriage if a case were brought (and heard) based on some skewed interpretation of it. He could use separate but equal...just call it something else. As you know, there is very, very little the Supreme Council of the Nine can't change, especially in the post-Andrew Jackson days.

It would be funny if that actually came up in the discussion.

I was cruising through some of the Traditionalist's sites last night to see what kind of reaction they were publishing and I thought - given the territory I was walking in - that Richard Land had a pretty reasonable take.

He argued that, while it was a mugs game to predict what the court would do about anything, that the reasonable guess was that the court would effectively uphold Prop 8 and strike the portion of DOMA under review leaving an effective "states rights"model in place.

Personally, I still think it's more likely that they punt on Prop 8 by denying standing to the supporters and lettingthe lower court decision stand...

Meaning that they manage to duck any official assertion that same-sex marriage equality is a constitutional civil right (for now)

The reason I'm bringing this up is to note with interest that the SBC's point man in Washington is willing to concede that they lose on DOMA and not express any particular outrage about it.

Ultimately, the theory goes, Roberts (and possibly Kennedy) aregoing to be overly cautious about repeating the perceived mistakes of Roe by having the court get ahead of the issue and becoming the issue themselves. The inclination will be to punt and let the public mood shift for several more years until such a ruling would be a "No duh" decision instead of a game changer.

Seems a reasonable assumption.

Always bet on cowardice when humans are the decision makers.

I think they will strike down Prop 8 and legalize gay marriage. It's inevitable, so they might as well do it now. That way in a year from now it will be just another non-issue that some people got their panties in a knot over.

If we can bet on them being rational, and not playing coward-chess as Nova describes.

On the bright side it will take the place of Roe V Wade for Ultra Conservative Drum Sessions for the next 40 years.

I never said "rational", I said inevitable. Just like mixed marriage or abortion, sooner or later it's going to happen. I just think it will be now rather than ten years from now.

You're underestimating how old-fuckey some of these people are.
I hear tell half of them don't know how to work the internet, much less an I-pad.
People that far behind the times aren't necessarily going to have the same view of "inevitable", as you or I.

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand your logic. But I have to go with my gut on this one that, for a change, they will make the right decision.

Yeah, there's a buried down little spark of that in me too, but you learn to hate hope after awhile.