Told Ya!

[Coach is Back!]

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court put same-sex weddings in California on hold indefinitely Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban.

The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumps a lower court judge's order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.

Lawyers for the two gay couples that challenged the ban said Monday they would not appeal the panel's decision on the stay to the Supreme Court.

In its two-page order granting the stay, the 9th Circuit agreed to expedite its consideration of the Proposition 8 case. The court plans to hear the case during the week of Dec. 6 after moving up deadlines for both sides to file their written arguments by Nov. 1.

"We are very gratified that the 9th Circuit has recognized the importance and the pressing nature of this case by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule," said Ted Boutrous, a member of the plaintiffs' legal team.

A different three-judge panel than the one that issued Monday's decision will be assigned to decide the constitutional question.

Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker decided last week to allow gay marriages to go forward after ruling the ban violated equal protection and due process rights of gays and lesbians guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

The Proposition 8 legal team quickly appealed Walker's ruling in the case many believe will end up before the Supreme Court.

Lawyers for two same-sex couples had joined with California Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the appeals court to allow the weddings, arguing that keeping the ban in place any longer would harm the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

Walker presided over a 13-day trial earlier this year that was the first in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the constitutional guarantee of equality.

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

Opponents said that tradition or fears of harm to heterosexual unions were legally insufficient grounds to discriminate against gay couples.

Currently, same-sex couples can legally wed only in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.

[Coach is Back!]

the coach = republican closet fag who goes an anti-gay crusades in order to cover up his own homosexual activity/desire ala mark foley, tim haggard , larry craig, bob allen , glen murphy , etc

See you're still the biggest pussy on here talking shit behind that keyboard...hahahahahhaha ha!

[SF1900]

the coach = republican closet fag who goes an anti-gay crusades in order to cover up his own homosexual activity/desire ala mark foley, tim haggard , larry craig, bob allen , glen murphy , etc

[Coach is Back!]

[~UN_$ung~]

people on each side of this issue are stupid and irrational....



these closet fags, making it their life's endeavor to prevent homosexuals from marrying need to reconsider their priorities....

but just as well, i dont know why gays need the vindication of "marriage" if the courts are willing to give them all the benefits of marriage under a different name.............they constantly pride themselves on their "ALTERNATIVE" lifestyle.............so why then are they fighting tooth and nail for one of the oldest, most traditional and stodgy of all humanities institutions.

[SF1900]

Cant forget the most holiest man who covers up child abuse

[Coach is Back!]

LOL..nice try libs, pathetic attempt at justifying yourselves...hahahaha!

[ThaRealist]

I think the fags and dikes should be allowed to marry as long as they re-right the law to say any two people... Who cares if the gays and dikes marry, if they do it in front of the christian god it isn't accepted anyways right???

[SF1900]

I think the fags and dikes should be allowed to marry as long as they re-right the law to say any two people... Who cares if the gays and dikes marry, if they do it in front of the christian god it isn't accepted anyways right???

Its pretty perplexing why people like The Coach care so much if 2 men get married. Its sort of an obsession on his part. Kind of weird.

[pellius]

meltdown

Oh brother. Epic, well thought out, come back. Not only are you a cowardly, shit-talking, worthless piece of shit -- but a lame and feeble moron with zero imagination and wit.

Coach has always been willingly to back up what he says and when challenged by people that live in his area always gives them an open invitation, none which has been accepted to date.

Still claiming 5'10", 230lbs, 10% body fat? Ever going to back that up with a pic?

I didn't think so. All talk. Typical of cowardly fags like you.

[Coach is Back!]

I'm not Catholic you twink, I don't understand why you keep putting that up. But then again you're a coward who hides.

[ThaRealist]

I'm not Catholic you twink, I don't understand why you keep putting that up. But then again you're a coward who hides.

Hey coach I don't care much for the christian faith, but what is your true arguement for not letting the fags and dikes not marry?? I mean if it is an unholy union than thats what it is...Let them do what they want...Like 2liveCrew said: rubbin belly to belly skin to skin fuckin like hell, but no dick goin in....If the world were gay we would destroy ourselves

[pellius]

In this case, it's not whether you agree that there should be same sex marriage. But does a single judge have the right to overrule the will of the people? Even those who are for same sex marriage considered this ruling a travesty that a single judge can impose his will on the people of California.

There was a fair vote and the people of California voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. For a single Judge to decide to impose his will and personal preference on society is judicial tyranny.

[~UN_$ung~]

In this case, it's not whether you agree that there should be same sex marriage. But does a single judge have the right to overrule the will of the people? Even those who are for same sex marriage considered this ruling a travesty that a single judge can impose his will on the people of California.

There was a fair vote and the people of California voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. For a single Judge to decide to impose his will and personal preference on society is judicial tyranny.

im kinda with ya on that.........but lets also remember that there was a time a "majority" of people would have voted for blacks to continue to go to different schools, and restaurants, and drink from different water fountains  (i would probably be one of those people)


so just cause a majority votes for something, doesnt make the will of the people right necessarily.............



just to play devil's advocate...

[CC973]

There is no such thing as "gay marriage".  Marriage is between male and female, period.

If it's really about equal rights then they should have the same rights/benefits as a married couple but it needs to be called something else.
Sadly it seems to be about using bully tactics in order to make homosexuality more mainstream and socially acceptable. They have every right to live whatever type of lifestyle they choose but don't attempt to push it on society as a whole.

[ThaRealist]

In this case, it's not whether you agree that there should be same sex marriage. But does a single judge have the right to overrule the will of the people? Even those who are for same sex marriage considered this ruling a travesty that a single judge can impose his will on the people of California.

There was a fair vote and the people of California voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. For a single Judge to decide to impose his will and personal preference on society is judicial tyranny.

I have to agree with this....Only because if there were a judge out there that chose that knocking people over the head with a hammer were legal based on his views would be outrageous....

[pellius]

Hey coach I don't care much for the christian faith, but what is your true arguement for not letting the fags and dikes not marry?? I mean if it is an unholy union than thats what it is...Let them do what they want...Like 2liveCrew said: rubbin belly to belly skin to skin fuckin like hell, but no dick goin in....If the world were gay we would destroy ourselves

First of all, please be clear that gays are asking for special rights. In regard to marriage, they have the same rights as anybody else. As Arnold said when he was first running for office, "I support gay marriage as long as it's between a man and a woman."

So gays are trying to redefine marriage in a way that has never existed in history. You may be for that but just be clear it's about same sex marriage.

Would you support a brother and sister getting married? Father/daughter? Father/son? Mother/son? How about marrying more than one spouse? There's a movement that wants to allow a person to marry their pet or an animal of their choice. Is that OK? Why or why not?

[ThaRealist]

First of all, please be clear that gays are asking for special rights. In regard to marriage, they have the same rights as anybody else. As Arnold said when he was first running for office, "I support gay marriage as long as it's between a man and a woman."

So gays are trying to redefine marriage in a way that has never existed in history. You may be for that but just be clear it's about same sex marriage.

Would you support a brother and sister getting married? Father/daughter? Father/son? Mother/son? How about marrying more than one spouse? There's a movement that wants to allow a person to marry their pet or an animal of their choice. Is that OK? Why or why not?

Look I agree that the U.S. is playing "devils advocate" with this...But seriously who gives a damn if the fags and dikes marry??? I mean they do already...I believe in a long enough time line gays will be eliminated anyways for sake of survival....Most lesbian women bounce back in forth between gay and straight for a reason....

[pellius]

HAHA  this is rich coming from a guy who spends hours hanging out naked in the bath room   of the local ymca  trying to strike up conversations with young men about to work on there glute/hamstring tie ins

No YMCA anywhere near where I live so you fail again. And that, my chubby friend, is single digit bodyfat that I have the balls to post. You make a lot of claims about how impressive you are, prove it?

That's what make you a coward and you may think I'm skinny but that skinny old man will easily, and I mean easily, bet the living shit out of you.

And I back up what I say, queer. Just pray we never meet. I will make sure your homo ass is crippled for life.

[pellius]

im kinda with ya on that.........but lets also remember that there was a time a "majority" of people would have voted for blacks to continue to go to different schools, and restaurants, and drink from different water fountains  (i would probably be one of those people)


so just cause a majority votes for something, doesnt make the will of the people right necessarily.............



just to play devil's advocate...

Actually my friend, your wrong. Jim Crow laws were never voted on but impose on by the courts. Remember what a law is. You have a law because you want to prevent an action or behavior that would take place without that law. Most businesses didn't care if they had Black customers. Like most businesses they care only about the color of money. Jim Crow laws were passed to prevent these business owners, schools, buses... from from accepting Blacks they otherwise would.

And it is never a good argument to pose that because there were bad laws and policies in the past it should be tolerated in the present day.

The question is, California has a legislative process that allows these laws and policies to be voted on. It's in their State constitution. Many disagree with their referendum process that allows this. And some have tried to change it -- unsuccessfully. So is it right that a single Judge can unilaterally rule against the will of the people? Forget about whether you agree or disagree with the law.

If we allow Judges to make policy what's next?  

[~UN_$ung~]

Actually my friend, your wrong. Jim Crow laws were never voted on but impose on by the courts. Remember what a law is. You have a law because you want to prevent an action or behavior that would take place without that law. Most businesses didn't care if they had Black customers. Like most businesses they care only about the color of money. Jim Crow laws were passed to prevent these business owners, schools, buses... from from accepting Blacks they otherwise would.

And it is never a good argument to pose that because there were bad laws and policies in the past it should be tolerated in the present day.

The question is, California has a legislative process that allows these laws and policies to be voted on. It's in their State constitution. Many disagree with their referendum process that allows this. And some have tried to change it -- unsuccessfully. So is it right that a single Judge can unilaterally rule against the will of the people? Forget about whether you agree or disagree with the law.

If we allow Judges to make policy what's next?  

we already allow judges to make policy.........



i could dig and cite a thousand examples of court decisions that drastically altered the american sociocultural landscape.........brown vs. the board of education, and roe vs. wade being the most obvious that comes to mind

everyday the us circuit courts make decisions that alter the lives of american citizens profoundly.

[pellius]

Look I agree that the U.S. is playing "devils advocate" with this...But seriously who gives a damn if the fags and dikes marry??? I mean they do already...I believe in a long enough time line gays will be eliminated anyways for sake of survival....Most lesbian women bounce back in forth between gay and straight for a reason....

Well, apparently, many do. You may not care but many want to simply keep marriage, as recognized by society and government as between a man and a woman. As it has always been.

My question would be, why is it so important to gays that others endorse and honor their unions? Just do what they want. Hugh Hefner, for all practical purposes, most of his life, was a polygamous. He didn't give a crap what others thought. He didn't demand that you or I or anybody else endorse, legalized and honor his alternative life style.

If a couple of homos want to get married in whatever church they support, like Bob Paris did, and play house together -- have at it. Why is it so important to them that others recognize, endorse and support this?

[ThaRealist]

Well, apparently, many do. You may not care but many want to simply keep marriage, as recognized by society and government as between a man and a woman. As it has always been.

My question would be, why is it so important to gays that others endorse and honor their unions? Just do what they want. Hugh Hefner, for all practical purposes, most of his life, was a polygamous. He didn't give a crap what others thought. He didn't demand that you or I or anybody else endorse, legalized and honor his alternative life style.

If a couple of homos want to get married in whatever church they support, like Bob Paris did, and play house together -- have at it. Why is it so important to them that others recognize, endorse and support this?

Damn I really never liked you before, but you just made to much sense right now....I agree 100% with this....

[pellius]

we already allow judges to make policy.........



i could dig and cite a thousand examples of court decisions that drastically altered the american sociocultural landscape.........brown vs. the board of education, and roe vs. wade being the most obvious that comes to mind

everyday the us circuit courts make decisions that alter the lives of american citizens profoundly.

Site thousands? Um, OK.

But back to your point: Yes, and they were wrong. The reason abortion is such a contentious issue today is because the courts usurped State rights. Remember, abortion was already legal in 13 States prior to Roe V Wade. Many, if not most, today, though they would not support over turning Roe v Wade, still consider it bad law and the reason it's still such a contentious issue today. A clear violation of State rights and the 10th amendment. Judicial activism is alive and well and getting worse.

Anyway, this is a good discussion to have and one of the reasons GetBig is such a great board, because other than the few like pugalist666 who once again shows his profound lack of intellectual heft and substance and really adds nothing to the board but just dead weight, there are a lot of thoughtful people here from all walks of life. This board truly transcends the trivial sport that is bodybuilding and why many stay here.

That's why it's such a tragedy that this board is so poorly run and maintained. I'd love to continue this discussion but having to waiting literally ten minutes for your post to load is just ridiculous and I don't have the time and patience for it.

And to pugalist, the lot right next to me, no house or anything. Just the lot. Is on the market for $750,000. I guarantee you that my garage is worth more than any house you live in in Canada.

So keep hiding behind you mommy's skirt making faces at everyone. No here likes you or respects you. You occupy the lowest rung on the ladder of manhood. That of a coward.

[pellius]

we already allow judges to make policy.........



i could dig and cite a thousand examples of court decisions that drastically altered the american sociocultural landscape.........brown vs. the board of education, and roe vs. wade being the most obvious that comes to mind

everyday the us circuit courts make decisions that alter the lives of american citizens profoundly.

Site thousands? Um, OK.

But back to your point: Yes, and they were wrong. The reason abortion is such a contentious issue today is because the courts usurped State rights. Remember, abortion was already legal in 13 States prior to Roe V Wade. Many, if not most, today, though they would not support over turning Roe v Wade, still consider it bad law and the reason it's still such a contentious issue today. A clear violation of State rights and the 10th amendment. Judicial activism is alive and well and getting worse.

Anyway, this is a good discussion to have and one of the reasons GetBig is such a great board, because other than the few like pugalist666 who once again shows his profound lack of intellectual heft and substance and really adds nothing to the board but just dead weight, there are a lot of thoughtful people here from all walks of life. This board truly transcends the trivial sport that is bodybuilding and why many stay here.

That's why it's such a tragedy that this board is so poorly run and maintained. I'd love to continue this discussion but having to waiting literally ten minutes for your post to load is just ridiculous and I don't have the time and patience for it.

And to pugalist, the lot right next to me, no house or anything. Just the lot. Is on the market for $750,000. I guarantee you that my garage is worth more than any house you live in in Canada.

So keep hiding behind you mommy's skirt making faces at everyone. No here likes you or respects you. You occupy the lowest rung on the ladder of manhood. That of a coward.