Proposition 8: Epic Fail

[tongodeon]

A while ago I found a transcript in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, where the judges and laywers were attempting to answer a question that I've been asking for a very long time: How does permitting same-sex marriages impair or adversely affect [the state's] interest? At that time they "didn't have a presentation on that". Neither the

Comments

[glaucon]

has the clock run out yet on the bet regarding whether ianvass would ever produce the brilliant and compelling argument against gay marriage that he swears he has hiding up his sleeve somewhere?

[tongodeon]

Unlike my bet with rwx, this is not a time-bounded bet. He's got from pretty much now till we're both dead to come up with whatever even vaguely compelling argument that the Prop 8 people failed to produce during this trial.

[occlupanid]

It's high time i took out the Costa Rican colón that tongodeon will never get, polish it, and put it safely back in my small box of foreign currency. Sweet sweet 0.002th of a dollar, that.

[tensegritydan]

You're just a sore winner, aren't you?

[starchy]

Cross-posted to FAIL Blog?

[gaping_asshole]

You and I often come to the same conclusions, but by very different means. I like to look an argument over, notice the smell of BS is completely undiluted with the smell of rational thought, declare the whole thing a steaming pile and move on to hating the people who crapped out the pile. I might call them names in the process.

You very carefully dissect the argument in question, publicly declare a list of apparent counter arguments, delve in depth in a public forum with people who counter your counter arguments, then summarize the whole process in clear terms with hyperlinks to the highlights. It would be almost perfect, meeting you at the finish line (often months) later, standing with you smugly and happily resting on your work. Sadly I have something on the order of a shred of intellectual honesty which results in my smugness getting taken down by certain knowledge of my own laziness.

Nice work.

[mmcirvin]

Even better, consider what Judge Vaughn Walker just did. He's a gay man striking down a gay-marriage ban promoted by actively dishonest and stupid means, and he was still able to take the trouble to give the other side every chance available to argue their case and then patiently take it apart down to the subatomic level. (On the other hand, it's his job.)

Of course, the main counterattack from this point on is going to have nothing to do with the substance of the decision, it'll be that HE'S GAAAYYY and had a personal conflict of interest. I suppose, though, that it would be hard to show that while still arguing that gay citizens are not being deprived of anything significant.

[tensegritydan]

Geez, I didn't actually realize he was gay. Well, that explains everything: this decision is just part of his gay agenda!

[mmcirvin]

The best commentary I've seen on this angle is from a lawyer who wrote in to Andrew Sullivan:I really, really hate - as in, this is extra special slimy, even for them - the fact that only now, since the Prop 8 proponents have lost, is the whole "he's gay, should he have recused himself" meme starting to take hold. Folks, if you think your judge should recuse himself, you put on your big boy or girl pants and you file the damn motion. [...] The point is this: if you are a good lawyer, and you've got grounds, you file that motion. And if you don't file it, either a) you're not a good lawyer, or b) you got no grounds in the first place, and you know it.