And the 2010 Tianenmen Square Tank Guy Award for [del]futility[/del] perseverance in the face of overwhelming odds goes to this guy:
Interestingly, it appears that the Freepers are right about one thing: Judge Vaughn Walker is gay.
At this point, I’m convinced that everyone who has extreme homophobic sentiments are simply trying to cover up their own personal homosexual tendencies.
Um, who do you think you’re talking about?
The Freepers?
Ah, well, yes. Though one shouldn’t underestimate the ability for religion to turn people into placid idealogues, who then become un-placid due to the magic of the internet. So while I strongly suspect that there’s a strong correlation between anti-gay railing and gayness in real life, I suspect that some of the loud freepers are probably just loud because everything’s louder in an internet echo chamber.
I haven’t read the opinion yet (it is 138 pages long, but apparently the findings of fact were rather extensive. Best article I’ve found so far:
As I understand it, those findings would not be reviewed de novo.
Determining the standard of review (and for that matter, applying that standard to a given set of facts) is a question of law, which is always subject to de novo review, no matter what level of scrutiny the court applied.
The opinion has very lengthy findings of fact, which theoretically get more deference, but this case is more about the law than the facts.
So says this real lawyer who got a B- in Con Law I and only skimmed the opinion 
Hooray! 
Prop 8 overturned and Lindsay Lohan released BOTH in the same week.
I liked this:
Lindsay is loose again?
I can’t see why, she’s been confined exclusively with women for weeks.
I has a question.
If the judge doesn’t stay the verdict pending appeal, does this mean that gay marriage is now legal in the entire jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit?
Uh, hasn’t she always been?
No. Only a decision of the appeals court applies to the entire circuit jurisdiction.
I love what he had to stay about the standard of review. He decided under rational basis, but allowed that strict scrutiny would be appropriate for all sexual orientation cases.
These people are fucking retarded. If you want to start a Civil War, go ahead. What’s stopping you? If you’re such badasses, quit talking and just do it. Oh that’s right you don’t have the balls to do anything besides act like giant poseurs.
So if this is upheld on appeal (& not stayed pending SCOTUS review) same-sex marriage suddenly becomes legal in Alaksa, Arizona, Hawai’i, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Guam as well in California? Does that mean that the Attorneys-General of those stand could be granted intervenor status at the appeal? 
Wouldn’t that mean that every single state/territory AG in the country could intervene at the Supreme Court? :eek:
It’s not necessarily true that, were Judge Walker’s decision upheld at the 9th Circuit that it would invalidate any and all gay marriage bans within the 9th Circuit. Judge Walker’s decision is VERY narrow. He does not make an attempt to place sexual orientation within the protection of either strict or mid-level scrutiny (protected classifications). He ruled on the basis of the evidence in the trial before him about the specifics of Proposition 8. Since the decision doesn’t attempt to say that any and all efforts at banning marriage between members of the same gender is unconstitutional, the decision can’t be easily used to attack other enacted bans, especially any such bans legislatively enacted.
Of course, that doesn’t mean the 9th might not change the basis of the ruling in the process, but I’m doubting they would. When you are attempting to insert a wedge, you want the thin end as narrow as you can possibly make it, intending to shove it in deeper later. Knocking the whole damn door down in one blow rarely works. :eek: