California Supreme Court: Elected State Officials Cannot Collude with Judges To Thwart the Will of Voters

[Mike Cullinan]

In a ruling that is being called a victory for gay marriage opponents
in many media outlets, the CA Supreme Court today issue its UNANIMOUS
opinion stating that whenever state officials are derelict towards the
will of the voters, the initiative's sponsors can step in and do the
job the state officials refuse to do; that is, defend an initiative
against lawsuit.

Could this be the beginning of the end for Judge Walker's ruling?


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57326877/gay-marriage-foes-get-boost-from-calif-court/

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:39:37 -0800 (PST),
Mike Cullinan <mgcu...@gmail.com> wrote:


To see that your hate-agenda against gays is inevitably
DOOMED in California, see this:

http://www.egalitarian.biz/CA-SSM-Progress--00-08.html

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:39:37 -0800 (PST), Mike Cullinan
<mgcu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Nah, Prop 8's days are numbered, one way or the other; Californians
have outgrown this kind of hate . . .



--

- ReFlex76

- <http://twitter.com/ReFlex76>

[Michael Ejercito]

On Nov 17, 8:36 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:39:37 -0800 (PST), Mike Cullinan
>

> <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >In a ruling that is being called a victory for gay marriage opponents
> >in many media outlets, the CA Supreme Court today issue its UNANIMOUS
> >opinion stating that whenever state officials are derelict towards the
> >will of the voters, the initiative's sponsors can step in and do the
> >job the state officials refuse to do; that is, defend an initiative
> >against lawsuit.
>
> >Could this be the beginning of the end for Judge Walker's ruling?
>

> >http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57326877/gay-marriage-foes-get-bo...

>
>   Nah, Prop 8's days are numbered, one way or the other; Californians
> have outgrown this kind of hate . . .
>
> --
>
>                       - ReFlex76
>
>                       - <http://twitter.com/ReFlex76>

There you go again with hate. You might have a poi tif the only
reason for defining marriage as between one man and one woman was to
oppress homosexuals. This is far from the truth.

In the BLAG brief for Pedersen v. OPM, the brief stated that it is
important to note that even
Plaintiffs’ own
expert has admitted that, “[a]lthough . . . antigay discrimination is
popularly
thought to have ancient roots, in fact it is a unique and relatively
short-lived
product of the twentieth century.” George Chauncey, Why Marriage?: The
History Shaping Today’s Debate Over Gay Equality 14 (2004). According
to Dr.Chauncey, “all of the [discrimination] was put in place between
the 1920s and
1950s, and most [was] dismantled between the 1960s and the 1990s.”
Owen
Keehnen, The Case for Gay Marriage: Talking with Why Marriage? Author
George
Chauncey (2004), GLBTQ.com,
http://www.glbtq.com/sfeatures/interviewgchauncey.html; see also id.
(“It’s really
dangerous—and it hurts us—that we are so unfamiliar with this history
because
the opponents of gay rights and certainly same-sex marriage like to
claim that
history is on their side and that discrimination and hostility against
gay people is
age old.”). Plaintiffs’ expert agrees with the Supreme Court’s
observation in
Lawrence v. Texas that the relatively short history of anti-gay
discrimination is a
consequence of the fact that homosexuality—as a distinct category or
class—
was not even recognized in the United States until the late nineteenth
century.
539 U.S. at 568-69 (relying on scholarly position that “the concept of
the
homosexual as a distinct category of person did not emerge until the
late 19th
century”); Aff. of George Chauncey, Ph.D. (July 15, 2011) (ECF No. 74)
(“Chauncey Aff.”) ¶¶ 10, 20-21; Dep. of George Chauncey, Ph.D. (July
12, 2011)
(“Chauncey Dep.”) at 48:24-51:24, attached as Ex. A to Decl. of Conor
B. Dugan
(“Dugan Decl.”).

This is very important because the concept of marriage as between
one man and one woman clearly predates the late nineteenth century.
See 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *410. " The relationship of
“husband and wife” is “founded in nature, but modified by civil
society: the one directing man to continue and multiply his species,
the other prescribing the manner in which that natural impulse must be
confined and regulated.”", John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil
Government § 78 (1690) "Marriage is “is made by a voluntary compact
between man and woman.”". Clearly, this definition can not be traced
to a purpose to discriminate against homosexuals.


Michael

[Michael Ejercito]

> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57326877/gay-marriage-foes-get-bo...
I read your comment on this blog.

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=43730

" If the California Supreme Court had found that the citizens and
interests groups who filed the Appeal did not have "standing" (the
legal right to bring the Appeal) the case would have been over. "
Actually in the opinion of David Vikram Amar of the USC laws school, a
finding that the Prop 8 supporters have no standing would not amount
to an early and easy victory for the plaintiffs, as many think. "If
the Prop 8 proponents have no standing in the appeal, then how could
they have had standing in the original trial?" he asks. Furthermore,
he states that Olson and Boies failed to certify this case as a class
action, probably because they were not expecting state officials to
throw the case. According to the Ninth Circuit's very own precedent,
then, they would have to vacate Judge Walker's ruling (since there
were no real defendants at the original trial, there was no real
trial, hence, there can be no real judicial decision). Then, the only
ones who could be granted marriage licenses would be the plaintiffs
named in the lawsuit. Again, this would be according to the Ninth
Circuit's very own precedent, so they would be hard pressed to do
otherwise. If any other gay couples wanted to get married, they would
have to pursue their own lawsuits.

ooooooooooo

Indeed, Mike.

Furthermore, other lawsuits will likely go before judges who follow
binding precedent, and we all know what binding precedent says on this
issue.


Michael

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:18:49 -0800 (PST),
Michael Ejercito <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Mike Cullinan <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:


[ ... ]

To see what is REALLY happening in California, and the way
things WILL ultimately turn out -- and probably SOON -- see:

http://www.egalitarian.biz/CA-SSM-Progress--00-08.html

[J]

On 11/18/2011 6:28 PM, (¯`·.¸Crazy Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯)

<http://www.TravelForPay.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:18:49 -0800 (PST),
> Michael Ejercito<meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Mike Cullinan<mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
> To see what is REALLY happening in California, and the way
> things WILL ultimately turn out -- and probably SOON -- see:
>

I have no doubt we'll be seeing polygamists like these three, and
probably SOON, if nut-cases like you have it your way.




http://tiny.cc/gjbdl




--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 21:47:32 -0800,
"Jon Young"/"Auric Hellman" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:


...NOTHING intelligent. Again. As usual.


Previous post follows:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:18:49 -0800 (PST),
Michael Ejercito <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Mike Cullinan <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:


[ ... ]

To see what is REALLY happening in California, and the way
things WILL ultimately turn out -- and probably SOON -- see:

http://www.egalitarian.biz/CA-SSM-Progress--00-08.html

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:18:49 -0800 (PST), Michael Ejercito
<meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Not that it matters, when the Prop 8 people did have chance to go
before a judge, their arguments were notoriously faulty, in some cases
drawing laughter. Prop 8's going down, deal with it.

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:17:26 -0800 (PST), Michael Ejercito
<meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 17, 8:36 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:39:37 -0800 (PST), Mike Cullinan
>>
>> <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >In a ruling that is being called a victory for gay marriage opponents
>> >in many media outlets, the CA Supreme Court today issue its UNANIMOUS
>> >opinion stating that whenever state officials are derelict towards the
>> >will of the voters, the initiative's sponsors can step in and do the
>> >job the state officials refuse to do; that is, defend an initiative
>> >against lawsuit.
>>
>> >Could this be the beginning of the end for Judge Walker's ruling?
>>
>> >http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57326877/gay-marriage-foes-get-bo...
>>
>>   Nah, Prop 8's days are numbered, one way or the other; Californians
>> have outgrown this kind of hate . . .
>>
>> --
>>
>>                       - ReFlex76
>>
>>                       - <http://twitter.com/ReFlex76>
> There you go again with hate. You might have a poi tif the only
>reason for defining marriage as between one man and one woman was to
>oppress homosexuals. This is far from the truth.
>

Nah, it's the exact truth.

Nice wall of text. Anyway, the concept of segregation also clearly
predates the late nineteenth century, but we moved on from that too.

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:10:17 -0800,
Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:


[ ... ]

> Not that it matters, when the Prop 8 people did have the chance

> to go before a judge, their arguments were notoriously faulty, in
> some cases drawing laughter. Prop 8's going down, deal with it.

Indeed!! See:

http://www.egalitarian.biz/CA-SSM-Progress--00-08.html

[Michael Ejercito]

And yet, just LESS than a month later, the Texas 5th Circuit Ciourt
of Appeal UPHELD Texas's Proposition 2. See In Re Marriage of J.B. and
H.B., 326 S.W.3d 654 (Tx. 5th Cir. 2010)

And then about six months later, the Hennepin County, Minnesota
district court upheld the Minnesota DOMA. See Benson v. Alverson, No.
27 CV-11697 (Hennepin Coubnty, Minn. District Court Mar. 7, 2011)

And six months after THAT, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California upheld DOMA. See Lui v. Holder, No: 2:11-
CV-01267-SVW (JCGx) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2011)

Surely these courts were presented with pretty much the same
"notoriously faulty" arguments. Why the different results?


Michael

[Mike Cullinan]

Hey, Michael. Good job over there on Volokh on the 9th Circuit
thread. The supporters of authentic marriage gave a good account of
themselves, I thought. Bob Roberts, Scattergood, and Badlaw also had
some comments worth keeping.

I've been wanting to ask you something. Reading the cases of Wilson
v. Ake and Gill et al v OPM et al, I couldn't help but notice that
Wilson v. Ake relies on Baker v. Nelson, while Judge Tauro completely
disregards it. Search for Baker in the *.pdf and you will get a not
found.

Have you had a chance to read these cases? If so, did you notice
that? What do you think that entails? These are two different
district courts with federal DOMA challenges before them. How can one
judge hold Baker as binding precedent and another judge act as if the
case never even existed?

[Michael Ejercito]

Neither of the parties before Judge Tauro cited Baker in their
briefs. At the appeals court level, the House as well as several amici
cited Baker in their briefs.


Michael

[Mike Cullinan]

Didn't this case happen when Obama's justice department was putting up
a supposed defense? It's hard for me to believe that anyone putting
up a good faith defense would overlook Baker.

When we get to Lui v Holder, Baker is mentioned once again:

"In addition to Adams, Intervenor argues that Baker v. Nelson, 409
U.S. 810 (1972) controls."

The judge went on to say that it wasn't necessary because his court
was bound by the Ninth Circuit in Adams v. Howerton.

However, mentioning Baker gives the idea that someone assigned the
case is seriously trying.

[Michael Ejercito]

Ed Whelan explains the Department of Justice's decision to abandon
the defense of DOMA.

http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.4428/pub_detail.asp

Before the administration succumbed to political pressure, it cited
Baker in a brief defending DOMA.

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html

>
> When we get to Lui v Holder, Baker is mentioned once again:
>
> "In addition to Adams, Intervenor argues that Baker v. Nelson, 409
> U.S. 810 (1972) controls."
>
> The judge went on to say that it wasn't necessary because his court
> was bound by the Ninth Circuit in Adams v. Howerton.

Not to mention the fact that Baker clearly does not command a
contrary result.

>
> However, mentioning Baker gives the idea that someone assigned the
> case is seriously trying.

Paul Clement is a great attorney in this issue.

Six years ago, W. Scott Simpson, a Department of Justice employee,
defended DOMA in a lawsuit in Oklahoma. (The lawsuit is still pending)

http://www.domawatch.org/cases/10thcircuit/Oklahoma/bishopvoklahoma/bvo_brief_iso_dismiss_20050106.pdf

In sum, there are seven cases, including consolidations, where the
definition of marriage is challenged under the U.S. Constitution, and
which are either ripe for a decision at the trial court level, or is
under review, or pending petition for review, at the court directly
below the Supreme Court.

Perry v. Brown, No. 10-16696 (9th Cir.) (facial challenge to
California's Proposition 8, consolidated with motion to vacate
judgment, No. 11-16577)

Bishop v. United States, No. 04-848 (N.D. Okla.) (challenge against
DOMA and Oklahoma's Question 711)

Lui v. Holder, No. 09-72068 (9th Cir.)

Torres-Barragan v. Holder, No. 10-55768 (9th Cir.), consolidated with
Nos. 08-73745 & 09-71226 for purposes of calendaring

Torres-Barragan v. Holder, Nos. 08-73745 & 09-71226 (9th Cir.),
consolidated with No. 10-55768 for purposes of calendaring

Gill v. OPM, Mass. v. DHHS, 10-2204, 10-2207, (1st Cir.)

Pedersen v. OPM, No. 3:10-cv-1750 (VLB) (D. Conn.)

In Re Marriage of J.B. and H.B., No. 11-0024 (as-applied challenge
against Texas's proposition 2.)

It is likely that the Supreme Court would consolidate almost all of
these cases via certiorari before judgment if it decided to hear one
of the cases. At the very least, the Perry and Bishop cases will be
consolidated, as the nature of the challenge and the remedy sought are
identical. (The Texas case can not be taken to the Supreme Court via
cert before judgment; the Texas Supreme Court would have to deny
review or decide the case on constitutional grounds before the U.S.
Supreme Court can review that case.)


Michael

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

That's Texas.

> And then about six months later, the Hennepin County, Minnesota
>district court upheld the Minnesota DOMA. See Benson v. Alverson, No.
>27 CV-11697 (Hennepin Coubnty, Minn. District Court Mar. 7, 2011)
>
> And six months after THAT, the U.S. District Court for the Central
>District of California upheld DOMA. See Lui v. Holder, No: 2:11-
>CV-01267-SVW (JCGx) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2011)
>

That's DOMA.

> Surely these courts were presented with pretty much the same
>"notoriously faulty" arguments. Why the different results?
>

Different state, and a different law. As I've said before, there's
no such thing as a coherent argument against gay marriage.

Othewise please, tell me how George Takei's marriage to Brad Altman
affects you!

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

Less "political pressure," more crisis of conscience; you can only
defend an unjust law for so long before it eats at you.

Then again, it took political pressure to get JFK to defend civil
rights.

These guys sure put on quite the front as legal scholars, though I
doubt either is an actual lawyer. They also seem very chummy, hmmm.
This would actually explain volumes! ; )

[Mike Cullinan]

On Nov 23, 11:15 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 19:10:39 -0800 (PST), Michael Ejercito
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >  http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-d...

>
>    Less "political pressure," more crisis of conscience; you can only
> defend an unjust law for so long before it eats at you.
>
>    Then again, it took political pressure to get JFK to defend civil
> rights.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> When we get to Lui v Holder, Baker is mentioned once again:
>
> >> "In addition to Adams, Intervenor argues that Baker v. Nelson, 409
> >> U.S. 810 (1972) controls."
>
> >> The judge went on to say that it wasn't necessary because his court
> >> was bound by the Ninth Circuit in Adams v. Howerton.
> >   Not to mention the fact that Baker clearly does not command a
> >contrary result.
>
> >> However, mentioning Baker gives the idea that someone assigned the
> >> case is seriously trying.
> >   Paul Clement is a great attorney in this issue.
>
> >   Six years ago, W. Scott Simpson, a Department of Justice employee,
> >defended DOMA in a lawsuit in Oklahoma. (The lawsuit is still pending)
>

> >http://www.domawatch.org/cases/10thcircuit/Oklahoma/bishopvoklahoma/b...

it's called the internet, Antonio. It's about taking the time to get
yourself informed on a particular subject. Google, Microsoft, and
other companies have products available that let you access
information, then organize it, store it, and call it back when
needed. Of course, you have to take the time to read it.

> though I
> doubt either is an actual lawyer.

No, I'm not a lawyer, and have already said so in here.

 They also seem very chummy, hmmm.
> This would actually explain volumes!  ; )
>

That's silly, childish, and lame -- typical for you.

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

Ummm, I may support gay rights, but I'm sorry to say I don't lean
that way. You'll have to look elsewhere.

It's about taking the time to get
>yourself informed on a particular subject. Google, Microsoft, and
>other companies have products available that let you access
>information, then organize it, store it, and call it back when
>needed. Of course, you have to take the time to read it.
>

The information shows there's no coherent argument against gay
marriage.

>> though I
>> doubt either is an actual lawyer.
>
>No, I'm not a lawyer, and have already said so in here.
>
> They also seem very chummy, hmmm.
>> This would actually explain volumes!  ; )
>>
>That's silly, childish, and lame -- typical for you.

Just pointing out what I see.

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 19:27:53 -0800,

Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:

> Mike Cullinan <mgcu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:

>>> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Mike Cullinan <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Cullinan <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:


>>>>>>>>    And yet, just LESS than a month later, the Texas 5th Circuit Ciourt
>>>>>>>> of Appeal UPHELD Texas's Proposition 2. See In Re Marriage of J.B. and
>>>>>>>> H.B., 326 S.W.3d 654 (Tx. 5th Cir. 2010)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    And then about six months later, the Hennepin County, Minnesota
>>>>>>>> district court upheld the Minnesota DOMA. See Benson v. Alverson, No.
>>>>>>>> 27 CV-11697 (Hennepin Coubnty, Minn. District Court Mar. 7, 2011)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    And six months after THAT, the U.S. District Court for the Central
>>>>>>>> District of California upheld DOMA. See Lui v. Holder, No: 2:11-
>>>>>>>> CV-01267-SVW (JCGx) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2011)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Surely these courts were presented with pretty much the same
>>>>>>>> "notoriously faulty" arguments. Why the different results?

>>>>>>> Hey, Michael.  Good job over there on Volokh on the 9th Circuit
>>>>>>> thread.  The supporters of authentic marriage gave a good account of
>>>>>>> themselves, I thought.  Bob Roberts, Scattergood, and Badlaw also had
>>>>>>> some comments worth keeping.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've been wanting to ask you something.  Reading the cases of Wilson
>>>>>>> v. Ake and Gill et al v OPM et al, I couldn't help but notice that
>>>>>>> Wilson v. Ake relies on Baker v. Nelson, while Judge Tauro completely
>>>>>>> disregards it.  Search for Baker in the *.pdf and you will get  a not
>>>>>>> found.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you had a chance to read these cases?  If so, did you notice
>>>>>>> that?  What do you think that entails?  These are two different
>>>>>>> district courts with federal DOMA challenges before them.  How can one
>>>>>>> judge hold Baker as binding precedent and another judge act as if the
>>>>>>> case never even existed?

>>>>>>    Neither of the parties before Judge Tauro cited Baker in their
>>>>>> briefs. At the appeals court level, the House as well as several amici
>>>>>> cited Baker in their briefs.

>>>    These guys sure put on quite the front as legal scholars, ...

>> it's called the internet, Antonio.

> Ummm, I may support gay rights, but I'm sorry to say I don't lean
> that way. You'll have to look elsewhere.

>> It's about taking the time to get yourself informed on a particular
>> subject. Google, Microsoft, and other companies have products
>> available that let you access information, then organize it, store it,
>> and call it back when needed. Of course, you have to take the time
>> to read it.

> The information shows there's no coherent argument against gay
> marriage.

>>> ...though I doubt either is an actual lawyer.

>> No, I'm not a lawyer, and have already said so in here.
>>
>>  They also seem very chummy, hmmm.

>>> This would actually explain volumes!  ; )

>> That's silly, childish, and lame -- typical for you.

> Just pointing out what I see.

(1) To the best of my knowledge, NO one has EVER been
able to present a factual argument against same-sex
marriage. Because NO such facts even EXIST! The
bigots have NOTHING!!

(2) We who are egalitarian ALLIES of the gays in Civil
Rights movement II **OUTNUMBER** the gays,
themselves, by a ratio of 10-1. The specious hate-
agendas of the RRR & LDS Cult homophobes are
DOOMED to EXTINCTION.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

The Inevitable Fate of Movements
of Intolerance in America

Society ALWAYS outgrows intolerant and hateful movements
that are mired in stupidity, and are supported by NO relevant
facts. ALWAYS. No exceptions! And our own history, here
in the USA, makes that very clear. Since 1865 ---

-- Slavery -- EXTINCT
-- Opposition to Women's Suffrage -- EXTINCT
-- Prohibition -- EXTINCT
-- Opposition to Birth-Control Pill -- EXTINCT
-- Segregation -- EXTINCT
-- Anti-Semitism -- ENDANGERED (Thankfully)
-- Anti-Choice (abortion) -- LAUGHINGSTOCK STATUS
-- Opposition to EQUAL Rights for Gays -- FADING *FAST*
-- Islamophobia -- Subscribed-to mostly by DOLTS,
and will surely be SHORT-lived.

Segregationists were a JOKE (i.e., "laughingstock status")
during the last few years before it became extinct. As opposition
to EQUAL rights for gays (with respect to housing, being parents,
marriage, and employment) continues to fade, the remaining op-
ponents first will become laughingstocks, and then that hateful-
ness will end in extinction. constant consciousness-raising, as is
being assisted by the media in its sitcoms, talk shows, etc., is
very helpful.

The ludicrous and hateful actions and defense of sociopathic
agendas against individual liberties on the part of the adherents/
lemmings of the RRR Cult will soon lead to American society's
becoming EMBARRASSED to have those louts in their midst,
making our country a laughingstock in front of the entire world.
Even now, the process of their becoming FED UP with that is
building toward the critical mass that will trigger the *rejection*
of the RRR's **shameful** and worthless agendas. Before much
longer, society will reject those movements with all the force that
it brought to bear against segregation.

Something NEW on this scene and growing alarmingly in 2010
is the rise of Islamophobia in America. 20% of Americans even
are so abjectly IGNORANT as to use this as an *excuse* for
whining about President Obama -- claiming that HE is a Muslim.
(He's a Christian, as the 80% who have working brains, know.
But if he WERE a Muslim, there would be NOTHING wrong with
that. And it is a sad commentary on America's educational
system when kids grow up steeped in such STUPIDITY as to
care what OTHER people's religious beliefs -- or lack thereof --
happen to be.) That said, even though this new manifestation
of ignorant bigotry has raised its ugly head... it, too, WILL ulti-
mately become extinct. And probably will be very short-lived,
in the meantime. For that is *extremely* ignorant!

Historical precedents have CONSISTENTLY proven that
Americans **outgrow* movements of intolerance (such as ALL
of the above), and then REJECT them -- leaving them behind
FOREVER.

And *that* is EXTINCTION.

Very WELCOME extinction. As in, "Good riddance forever!"

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

••• Rest in Peace •••
••• George Richard Tiller, MD •••
••• A True American HERO! •••
••• August 8, 1941 – May 31, 2009 •••
••• Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com •••

"He saved the lives of thousands of women who would've
died otherwise, thousands who would've been made sterile
or gravely injured by childbirth. He knew his life was at grave
risk. Dr. Tiller was a true Saint."

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

-- Craig Chilton (E-Mail me if you wish, from top 5 websites below.)

http://www.TravelForPay.org -- Unemployment Solution!
http://www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the hateful RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Cult Bigotry
http://www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481 -- Excellent article!
And ONE MORE: Read this, and then take future action accordingly:

Regarding: http://base8.lavenderliberal.com/index.html

The above normally is a very USEFUL Searchable Database of
the Proposition Hate (8) ENEMIES of Human Rights! KNOW the
enemies... and then HARASS and BOYCOTT the enemies, as much
as it is legally possible to do so! NOTE!! -- If you're reading this
in a post made by me on or after 11-24-11, you may find that the
link doesn't work. Hopefully, that situation will only be temporary.
Please save it in your Bookmarks/Favorites and keep trying it as
you get the chance. It is a HIGHLY useful resource when it can be
accessed!

If the link changes in the future, I'll include the NEW one in forth-
coming posts as soon as I learn about it.

[Michael Ejercito]

On Nov 25, 8:39 pm, "(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <http://

Forty-one years of case law contradict that.

See http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/pedersen-v-opm/2011-08-15-pedersen-house-motion-to-dismiss.pdf

>
>   (2)  We who are egalitarian ALLIES of the gays in Civil
>          Rights movement II **OUTNUMBER** the gays,
>          themselves, by a ratio of 10-1.  The specious hate-
>          agendas of the RRR & LDS Cult homophobes are
>          DOOMED to EXTINCTION.

How well will "Civil Rights Movement II" fare in Eurabia?


Michael

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

That's the past, unjust precedent was made to be overturned (Plessy
v. Ferguson).

> See http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/pedersen-v-opm/2011-08-15-pedersen-house-motion-to-dismiss.pdf
>>
>>   (2)  We who are egalitarian ALLIES of the gays in Civil
>>          Rights movement II **OUTNUMBER** the gays,
>>          themselves, by a ratio of 10-1.  The specious hate-
>>          agendas of the RRR & LDS Cult homophobes are
>>          DOOMED to EXTINCTION.
> How well will "Civil Rights Movement II" fare in Eurabia?
>

Dunno, don't care (thuogh I hear Europe's way ahead of us), their
problem.

[Mike Cullinan]

And just precedent is made to stand, and be cited in subsequent cases
for decades in knocking down attacks and thwarting litigious mischief
(Baker v. Nelson).
>
> >   Seehttp://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/pedersen-v-opm/2011-08-15-pede...

>
> >> (2) We who are egalitarian ALLIES of the gays in Civil
> >> Rights movement II **OUTNUMBER** the gays,
> >> themselves, by a ratio of 10-1. The specious hate-
> >> agendas of the RRR & LDS Cult homophobes are
> >> DOOMED to EXTINCTION.
> >   How well will "Civil Rights Movement II" fare in Eurabia?
>
>    Dunno, don't care

Doh de doh de doh . . .

(thuogh I hear Europe's way ahead of us), their
> problem.

Yes, Europe's ahead of us -- in decline.

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

Done!

>> >   Seehttp://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/pedersen-v-opm/2011-08-15-pede...
>>
>> >> (2) We who are egalitarian ALLIES of the gays in Civil
>> >> Rights movement II **OUTNUMBER** the gays,
>> >> themselves, by a ratio of 10-1. The specious hate-
>> >> agendas of the RRR & LDS Cult homophobes are
>> >> DOOMED to EXTINCTION.
>> >   How well will "Civil Rights Movement II" fare in Eurabia?
>>
>>    Dunno, don't care
>
>Doh de doh de doh . . .
>

???

>(thuogh I hear Europe's way ahead of us), their
>> problem.
>
>Yes, Europe's ahead of us -- in decline.
>

"Decline" meaning common sense, of course!

Seriously, I want to hear how George Takei's marriage to Brad
Altman affects anyone other than themselves!

[Michael Ejercito]

On Dec 2, 7:22 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 23:32:32 -0800 (PST),Michael Ejercito
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 25, 8:39 pm, "(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton¸.·´¯)  <http://
> >www.TravelForPay.org>" <a...@h.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 19:27:53 -0800,
> >> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >  Just pointing out what I see.
>
> >>   (1)  To the best of my knowledge, NO one has EVER been
> >>         able to present a factual argument against same-sex
> >>         marriage.  Because NO such facts even EXIST!  The
> >>         bigots have NOTHING!!
> >   Forty-one years of case law contradict that.
>
>   That's the past, unjust precedent was made to be overturned (Plessy
> v. Ferguson).

Wrong, those forty years of case law were meant to be upheld. There
is absolutely NO indication that the equal protection or due process
clauses were understood to conflict with the definition of marriage.


Michael