Q. How do zombies differ from Republicans?
A. Zombies follow political candidates for their braaaaaiiins.
suck it you hateful bigoted degenerate whore-mothered goat-fucking trash(gay marriage ban overturned
No, I’m pretty sure he just doesn’t like it because it’s the de facto conservative position to dislike it. More specifically, liberals want it, so he’s agin it.
If you’re talking about Loving vs Virgina, then yea. However the second quote in the OP shows the judge was basing his opinion on a perceived inherent equality. Even outside protected classes. Which seems to show to me a right to equal treatment under the law.
To put this in perspective, imagine a law saying natural blonds couldn’t marry other natural blonds, because they’re icky. Blond isn’t a race, but I’d hope a law would run into some “wtf people, that’s some god damn bullshit. blonds are people too” type problems in the court.
Anti-SSM laws are no different than the blond law.
“An activist judge is a judge whose rulings I disagree with” - an ever more utile definition.
Fantastic ruling. Fuck Prop 8.
Good. It’s about fucking time that piece of shit law was struck down.
More true than you know.
Not to get law-geeky here, but I say that because it’s a perfect example: blonds are not a protected class (ignoring the correlation between hair color and race for illustrative purposes). So a law burdening only blonds would be reviewed under the rational basis test, NOT the strict scrutiny test. In other words, in analyzing the blond law, the court would NOT ask, “Is there a compelling government interest?” That’s not a part of rational basis analysis.
In my view, the correct answer here is to conclude that sexual orientation is like gender, and thus deserves intermediate scrutiny.
Dragged kicking and screaming the entire way 
Kicking and screaming into, and then out of, the Century of the Fruitbat.
(Has Pratchett named the new century yet?)
ETA - answering my own question, Discworld is now evidently in the Century of the Anchovy.
Does anyone have a link to the decision itself. I’d like to read it. I like the result, but ultimately fear that the Supreme Court will overturn it.
They need to overturn this specific decision, because it claims to use rational basis.
What I hope happens is that they reach the same result by finding sexual orientation deserves intermediate scrutiny.
Am I the only one who thinks this is an instance of “read again for comprehension”?
Doesn’t the title say (if it applies to you) your mother is a whore & you fuck goats?
This is one of the parts of constitutional jurisprudence that I hate the most–in my view, the entire concept of levels of scrutiny was invented out of whole cloth to turn “equal protection” into “no, no, we still hate and fear YOU, so equal protection magically doesn’t apply”.
I lol’ed.
Isn’t that sort of like **Der Trihs **saying … “I don’t want to get to anti-religiony here …”
You’re damned skippy it’s hard.
From this story:
Well…yeah, when it comes to civil rights, he kind of is. This is something that should never have been voted on in the first place.
That’s what SHE said. Or he, depending.
The really sad part is that a lawyer said that.
Heard about the ruling last night and was filed with glee. Proving yet again that it’s our judicial system, not the military, that’s hard at work defending our freedom.
Sometimes, I get really proud of my country. Even when it’s just 'cause the system worked right to start undoing something we fucked up.
Thank a judge today. 