I wonder how much upper courts will be bound or influenced by Walker's finding that the claims were deserving of strict scrutiny, but didn't receive it - since they didn't even rise to the level of rational basis.

The Ninth Circuit is going to uphold this in a walk. (Well, ya know, a 2-year+ strolling walk). And like I said before, the pretzel twists needed for the Supremes to overturn it would be entertaining in their own right. (As would Washington going up in flames. Angry, queeny, flaming gay flames.)

The trend continues

Mexico High Court Upholds Gay Marriage Law

I can't believe the comments I see online from some people. One idiot spouted that "voters rights" have just been taken away, and how we're losing our freedoms in this country, yet gays should not be allowed to marry, because they can't procreate "by design". And then also said how "liberals" aren't intelligent like he is, and how before long, we'll all be in "bondage" and enslaved to a "socialist society".

Anyone else see the blatant contradiction in that statement?

I've mostly been ignoring it, but it was his response to a No-H8 friend of mine on Facebook, so I had to go in and defend her. This was my response:

Not that I disagree with the general sentiment but errors will become the point of rebuttal even if they don't change the general argument.

The premise of your second paragraph is false. There's no state in which anal or oral sex are illegal. There may be states where such statues remain on the books (but this is common across many areas later invalidated) but since Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 all such statutes regulating private consensual sexual acts have been unconstitutional.

I know of no state law ever existing that mandated only the missionary position for heterosexual partners. But I'd love to learn I'm wrong about that, though such laws would still have been negated by Lawrence.

I believe she's referring to anti sodomy laws since by some definitions "sodomy" is "anything other than missionary sex".

Yeah, but I've never been able to actually track down an instance where statute defined sodomy in that way. I'd love to be wrong but the determination on some legal boards I found when last looking into the issue (it's come up before) was that it is kind of a legal urban legend or possibly a broad theoretical reading of a statute that wasn't ever actually implemented that way.

I'd love to be wrong though as stupid laws are funny. Broader point remains, even if that was ever the case, it is definitely now no longer the case.

And it suddenly occurs to me that I've been searching various phrases including the word sodomy from work. Probably nobody cares.

It's ok. He only rebutted that I was "being rude", and that he doesn't feel that sexuality should be shoved in anyone's faces.

Of course, I responded that he needs to practice what he preaches then and never hold hands with his wife in public.

So, homophobia is obviously his REAL issue.

My wife and I do it doggy style: I sit up and beg while she rolls over and plays dead.

Ba-dum-ching!
:D

:eek:

Sinners!


;)