Is it time to take the bull by the horns?

[middleagedgamer]

You might remember, about four or five years ago, there was a big fuss about video games, and how the government needs to regulate them because they are too violent.

Many legislative bodies (including several state legislatures, and dozens of city councils) attempted to pass legislation banning stores from selling M-rated games to minors. Even though I'm an adult, I still found this appalling.

Eventually, though, we (and, by "we," I mean pro video game activists) realized something: We don't have to justify jack squat to the government. You know why? Because video game regulation is unconstitutional. That's it. That's the bottom line. Ultimately, the government can just kiss our ass because they can't regulate video games.

The ESA (Entertainment Software Association) eventually took on a more aggressive attitude, and began filing lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit. Many of them (especially those against local governments) ended with the defendants having to pay damages and court expenses. I can't think of a single one that did not get summary judgment, and I know that 100% of them ended in favor of the video game industry. The government soon learned that this was a battle they couldn't win, and eventually backed off.

Is it time for a similar approach to gay rights? SCREW the legislative and executive branches of government! The judicial branch has typically been the voice of reason in this issue.

Somebody, add fuel to the marriage equality fire. If you're gay, and you don't live in the 1st or 9th circuit, add a third case and sue for your right to marry! Take no crap from the homophobes.

"So, you're saying that the votes of a majority of people in this state mean nothing to you?"
"Damn straight! Not when I'm actually suffering damages because of their votes, they don't!"

Take no crap from anyone. Justify your case only to the court. Get it ruled unconstitutional and, if you can, make the government pay you damages (yes, you might can do that. It'd be tricky, but it can be done) in order to send a message. That message being: Your shoving your homophobia and heterosexuality down our throats, and we will... not... stand... for it... anymore. Period.

Thoughts?

 

[1069]

I don't get it.
No, seriously: I was like, "Huh what?" :wassat1:

For some reason, I don't understand what you're trying to say, even though I've re-read your post a couple of times now.
Could you perhaps summarize it in a few concise lines, and I'll let you know what I think.
Thanks!

 

[Aunt Spiker]

You're saying the overall pattern of actions, firm stances and court-winnings that favored the video-game industry over the ESA's efforts to control our gaming habits should be applied to gay-issues.

That gays should be head-strong and take it to court.

They have.

And what happened is that the Supreme court decided it wasn't going to touch it.
And it's not IN the constitution - so congress isn't touching it, either.

Thus - it goes to the states. (per the 10th Amendment)

And where they want to challenge it and have be able to afford the costs of doing so, they have - they've won in some areas and they lost in others. . . it can't *go* to the Supreme Court if the Supreme court's not having it. . . in a denial of a Writ of Cert the Scotus is saying "whatever he said is fine . . . " post a District ruling appeal attempt.

Summary Judgment, btw, isn't really applicable in questions of 'rights' - that's a 'question of law - ONLY' . . . when the facts aren't in dispute. When it's an issue of "I want to get married" there isn't really a clear cut set of facts as in a "he beat me up" . . . "no I didn't!" type of civil suit to judge on.

 

[RightinNYC]

I don't get it.
No, seriously: I was like, "Huh what?" :wassat1:

For some reason, I don't understand what you're trying to say, even though I've re-read your post a couple of times now.
Could you perhaps summarize it in a few concise lines, and I'll let you know what I think.
Thanks!

This should clear it up:

 

[Gipper]

I'm revolting against this thread by having sex with a gay video game.

 

[middleagedgamer]

And what happened is that the Supreme court decided it wasn't going to touch it.

Huh?

In what case has the Supreme Court refused to hear it?

Thus - it goes to the states. (per the 10th Amendment)

You are seriously misinformed.

and have be able to afford the costs of doing so

They can get those costs back.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 54(d) explicitly provides for almost all of the costs of litigation to be reimbursed.

it can't *go* to the Supreme Court if the Supreme court's not having it

And, what is your grounds for believing that the Supreme Court won't hear the case?

in a denial of a Writ of Cert the Scotus is saying "whatever he said is fine . . . " post a District ruling appeal attempt.

To what case are you referring?

Summary Judgment, btw, isn't really applicable in questions of 'rights' - that's a 'question of law - ONLY' when the facts aren't in dispute. When it's an issue of "I want to get married" there isn't really a clear cut set of facts as in a "he beat me up" . . . "no I didn't!" type of civil suit to judge on.

Ok, now THAT is something I really, truly, don't understand what you just said!

 

[cpwill]

perhaps it's a reference to the recent ruling on California's Constitutional Amendment? the judge there "found as facts" alot of interesting items such as the fact that "the notion that marriage is only between a man and a woman is an outdated idea" etc.


as for this idea: well, it's refreshing to see the homosexual advocacy movement beginning to accept that it's end is not good process, but results of which it approves, and that it is willing to override the will of the people in this "representative" government in order to get its' way. we shall see what their tone on judges is the next time one of them decides to not marry blacks and whites (for example).