Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
perry v. schwarz

Protect Marriage Stops Pushing Judge To Recuse Himself, Will Use Only Its Awful Arguments To Lose Case

Protect Marriage has dropped its attempt to push Judge Stephen Reinhardt into recusing himself from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ Prop 8 trial — after Reinhardt basically ignored their request. “Our legal team is focused on the merits of our constitutional defense of Proposition 8,” says the homophobic group’s attorney Andrew Pugno. “With binding Supreme Court precedent and the will of a strong majority of Americans on our side, we are confident that Proposition 8 and the institution of marriage will ultimately prevail.”

By:           JD
On:           Dec 2, 2010
Tagged: , , , , , , ,
  • 7 Comments
    • Jon
      Jon

      have they not gotten the memo that the strong majority of americans are NOT on their side? as of a few months ago, the majority of americans support same-sex marriage in every major poll taken. groups like protect marriage and NOM and Family Research Council and blah blah blah now represent the minority in America, but they don’t seem to have that drilled into their bigoted little minds yet.

      Dec 2, 2010 at 10:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • McMike
      McMike

      Why do these groups constantly lie??? The previous poster is right. The majority of Americans are in favor of same-sex marriage. However, when Prop 8 passed it was only by a few percentage points so it was definitely NOT a strong majority but a very, very weak majority. If you have to lie to get your point across then you must know you’re on the wrong side.

      Dec 2, 2010 at 11:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      The hateros from Protect Marriage are focusing on poll numbers and lying about them, too. That’s because they realize that they’ve run out of compelling or valid arguments about what is right and how the constitution works….

      Dec 3, 2010 at 6:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 1 · Jon wrote, “have they not gotten the memo that the strong majority of americans are NOT on their side?”

      I’m sure they haven’t forgotten. They saw the proverbial writing on the wall, hence the push to get constitutional amendments and initiatives passed while they still had an edge.

      The courts do not rule based on what the majority wants but what the law says, and will throw out a law only if it is unconstitutional. If the law is constitutional but unpopular, the public will have to get it repealed via a vote by the legislature or an initiative. The problem is that initiative campaigns are expensive to run.

      Dec 3, 2010 at 5:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sweetbrandigirl2004
      sweetbrandigirl2004

      Strong majority or weak majority it really doesn’t matter and if the pro prop 8ters base their argument on majority they will for sure lose. That was the whole point of the trail was to prove that Marriage is a Constitutional right due ALL Americans and not something that can be put up for a vote to a majority rule……if you read between the lines of what he said then you can hear what he’s thinking

      Quote “With binding Supreme Court precedent and the will of a strong majority of Americans on our side, we are confident that Proposition 8 and the institution of marriage will ultimately prevail.” Unquote

      Ultimately Prevail ? Their thinking long term and U.S. Supreme Court were they feel they have the best change of winning.

      Dec 4, 2010 at 12:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sweetbrandigirl2004
      sweetbrandigirl2004

      I’m curious just what “binding Supreme Court precedent” is he referring to ? anyone know ?

      Dec 4, 2010 at 12:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill
      Bill

      He’s probably referring to Baker v. Nelson, a case from the 1970s where the Supreme Court dismissed a federal challenging to Minnesota’s policy of denying homosexuals marriage licenses “for want of a federal question.” It therefore established weak precedent that states have a right to limit marriage to heterosexual couples if they so choose.

      However, with the onslaught of gay victories in the Supreme Court in the 1990s and 2000s (e.g. Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas), the legal scrutiny applied to laws targeting gays has become much more rigorous, making Baker v. Nelson pretty much moot at this point.

      Jan 5, 2011 at 9:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     


    POPULAR ON QUEERTY


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.