California`s Prop 8, Overturned By Judge

Submitted by: madest 7 years ago in
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/05/california-proposition-8-ban-overturned

Wow, that"s a full rainbow! It"s a double rainbow all the way! Oh My God! It"s a double rainbow all the way!
There are 272 comments:
Male 2,868
"INTHE OPINION of one judge it`s unconstitutional. IN THE OPINION of SEVEN MILLION VOTERS it`s OK."

Seven million voters have no authority to decide whether or not a law is unconstitutional- they can only decide if they want it or not. Voters can pass a law that you have to wear red socks on wednesdays under penalty of death- that doesn`t make it constitutional, and it will be swiftly shot down by the courts.
0
Reply
Male 102
The concept of sovereignty is lost with you CrakrJak. All rights are reserved to the people. Restrictions are placed on the authority of the powers of government. Murder is unlawful not because the people do not have the right to kill but that those that are killed have had their right to life infringed. It is the right of the people to have property and possessions on their person and also to be secure in their property and possessions, this includes narcotics as it is narcotics are not specifically abolished by an amendment. Where abortion is conflicting is on the basis of when does a child, infant, fetus, or embryo have the sovereign right of life and when that right should be protected. Suffrage of those 18 or older is not a restriction of rights but a restriction of responsibility. Rights and the responsible exercise thereof is directly correlated.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Heureux: You reached so far on that supposition, I`m surprised it didn`t break your back.

We have restricted peoples rights in this country. For instance, It`s not your right to kill someone. It`s not a 17 year old`s right to vote, It is not your right to possess scheduled narcotics.

These lines are much older than our country. I didn`t draw them. You don`t get to the right to cross them just because of your lifestyle choice. It is nothing like a persons race, color, or creed. This is not about `civil rights` this is about a new special right. There never was a `right` to same-sex marriage, Just as there was no `right` to have an abortion. In fact, The constitution doesn`t mention marriage or abortion anywhere in it`s text. That means it`s a power to be left up to the states to govern. NOT for activists judges to decide!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Uganda`s "Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009".

Wow now THAT`S pure fascism.
0
Reply
Male 102
You are right about slavery Cajun247.
Abolition of Slavery
0
Reply
Male 10,855
I don`t think the eradication of slavery was an unintended consequence. In fact I think it was the opposite, they planted seed in the original constitution in order to eradicate slavery. The rest I don`t think anyone could prove either.
0
Reply
Male 1,054
CrakrJack

" No one born in the 1920s would`ve ever believed America would ever allow this, Just as you don`t believe, Right now, The unintended consequences to come."

Thanks for exposing your inherent racism. The major societal change you are indirectly complaining about is the erosion of racism in the U.S., the recognition that race was not a barrier to equality, which led to recognition that sexual orientation is not a barrier to equality. Of course, both spring from even earlier conclusions about equality and class, gender and wealth.

The unintended consequence of creating a democratic republic was the eradication of slavery and establishing voting rights for women and ending child labor practices, eradicating segregation, guaranteeing basic rights and protections for workers, and now, recognizing the civil rights of GLBTQ people.

You don`t get to draw the line at your rights and exclude others. Go to Uganda if you hate GLBTQ people t
0
Reply
Male 102
It is all in the citations.
0
Reply
Male 102
"In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people`s business....The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." California Government Code Section 54950.

"The state cannot diminish rights of the people." Hurtado v. People of the State of California, 110 U.S. 516.

"Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627." Black`s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
uhh Dolomyte you got it the other way around.

The former is the Republic, and the latter is a Democracy.
0
Reply
Male 102
More proof of where the sovereignty lies.
"The very meaning of `sovereignty` is that the decree of the sovereign makes law." American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.

"The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls 8. "....This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people." California Constitution, Article 1, Declaration Of Rights Sec. 24.

"It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people`s business....The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." California Government Code, Sec
0
Reply
Male 1,054
Satkela

" for one am quite tired of people trying to make it seem as though being gay is a ethnicity. Being gay is a choice. "

No, Satkela, sexual orienation is not chosen. Heterosexuals do not chose to be heterosexual, homosexuals do not chose to be homosexual, bisexuals do not chose to be bisexual.

However, in this age of instant access to information, your level of ignorance is chosen.

Being a liar is also chosen, and your accusation about homosexuals "but don`t try to force everyone else to conform to the Ideal " is a lie, the fact is that homophobes like you try, through laws like Prop 8, to force your sexual ideals on homosexuals.

As for you imaginary gay friend - there are millions of real GLBTQ people who need and demand civil equality.

Comparing our relationships to beastiality and pedophilia proves that you are absolutely a bigot, and you`d be more at home in Uganda than in any civilized country.
0
Reply
Male 102
Minority rule? Majority rule? I like that CrakrJak brought up the study of civics. Sorry CrakrJak but the study of civics has been altered, edited, and then completely dropped within the last 60 years of United States public education. I just recently understood this study by studying common law.
Who rules brings the question of to where does the sovereignty lie.
If the sovereignty is in one person, a ruler, then it is a monarchy. If the sovereignty is in an elite group of people, an aristocracy, then it is an oligarchy. If the sovereignty is in a government of elected officials, congress, then it is a democracy. If the sovereignty is in each individual then it is a republic.
"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves....". CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.
0
Reply
Male 1,054
" What I care about is hearing the "civil rights this and that" comparing yourselves to the same fights African American`s had to go through. That to me is offensive and I`m WHITE! "

GLBTQ people are human beings, so it is a human rights issue, it is the same as fight as African Americans are, and have been going through. The fact that you are white and offended is irrelevant, neither your whiteness nor your heterosexuality makes you superior to anyone.
0
Reply
Male 1,054
CrakrJak - So, you hate the U.S. Constitution. Why do you live in the U.S. if you hate the very foundation of our legal system? You`d be so much happier in Uganda.

StphnHrrll - In the U.S., the majority does not rule. The Constitution rules. You may leave for another country with a different Constitution at any time, no one will miss you.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
That should say Art 2 Section 1 clauses 2 & 3
0
Reply
Male 10,855
One more thing while the Framers may have feared activist judges they also afraid of something called the "violence of faction". As I said earlier James Madison (aka Publius) wrote about this idea Federalist No. 10
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]majority has power over the minority[/quote]

The limitation there (in terms of the federal government anyway) is that they have the power to approve certain personnel NOT laws (Art. 1 Sec. 2 Clause 1 plus Amendment 17). When it comes to the president you are only voting for [quote]electors to choose the president[/quote]. Those electors, however, can then choose whoever they want (they rarely do) (Art 2 clauses 2 & 3). One exception of course in Article 5, even there it is majorities within states not the majority of the entire US.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
StphnHrrll: With the activist judges we have now that is slowly becoming the case. Law should be legislated and voted on. Judges legislating from the bench is a fear our founding fathers warned about, and tried to guard against.
0
Reply
Female 434
Could you imagine what this Country would be like if majority didn`t rule? "Oh the majority want to be able to decide things for themselves...Oh but look here 7% want the government to decide for them.... well Minority rules!"
0
Reply
Male 17,512
[quote]There is no minority polygamous groups clamoring for their rights.[/quote]

Tell that to Warren Jeffs, Former leader of the FLDS. This opens the floodgates for any group no matter what lifestyle choice they have.

[quote]No where in the constitution does it allow the majority to vote on the rights of the minority.[/quote]

Did you just completely skip civics class in school or did you flunk it outright ? Majority rule is well defined in the constitution and there have been many amendments to it over the years. In fact, The 26th amendment specifically restricts anyone under the age of 18 from voting at all.

So, Don`t lie and say that the majority has no power over the minority. That`s pure liberal bullcrap.
0
Reply
Male 40,401
[quote]There is no minority polygamous groups clamoring for their rights[/quote]
SO! You ADMIT they have rights? lolz!
You are an idiot madest, pure & simple.
There are PLENTY of groups who support polygamy. Just google it you dumbf*ck!
0
Reply
Male 40,401
[quote]Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states and federally - madest[/quote]
In the immortal words of Archie Bunker:
"Whoop de do! Whoop de DO! Whoop de DO!
madest = concern troll
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]There is no minority polygamous groups clamoring for their rights because the courts have deemed polygamy illegal.[/quote]

If homosexuality was outlawed so strongly that it wasn`t possible for homosexuals to clamour for rights, would that be OK with you? If not, why not?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states and federally.[/quote]

As was homosexuality between men not so long ago. Arguing that something should be illegal because it`s illegal is circular.

[quote]polygamous families are often formed under religious threat with pervasive incestuous relations, child and spousal abuse including the abandonment of boys.[/quote]

If it`s true, those things stem from specific circumstances. They are not inherent to, or even really related to, polygamy.

Domestic violence exists. Is that a good enough reason to outlaw all relationships, regardless of whether or not violence occurs within them? Or would it be better to just outlaw the thing that is wrong, i.e. the violence?

Or a much stronger example - alcohol. Alcohol use is genuinely a factor in all sorts of bad things. Your argument applies much more strongly in favour of outlawing alcohol than outlawing polygamy.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]The whole purpose for marriage was so that man and woman could consummate and make love to procreate.[/quote]

This premise is incorrect.

[quote]try to force everyone else to conform to the Ideal that two men or two women should marry.[/quote]

This premise is incorrect.

[quote]If we accept this then we might as well accept all the other sexually immoral things that are going on like bestiality and pedophilia.[/quote]

This premise is incorrect and also contains the unsubstantiated assumption that homosexuality is sexually immoral.

So your conclusion, being based on multiple false premises, is wrong.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion: The slippery slope argument has already came true. No one born in the 1920s would`ve ever believed America would ever allow this, Just as you don`t believe, Right now, The unintended consequences to come.[/quote]

Consequences will never be the same!

Unintended consequences isn`t a catch-all excuse for not changing things. In fact, not changing things will also have unintended consequences. There are always unintended consequences.

If you can show that one course of action will result in consequences worse than another course of action, that`s a different matter.

So, have a go. What consequences of allowing homosexual marriages will happen and are worse than the consequences of not allowing it?
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states and federally. The courts have found that polygamous families are often formed under religious threat with pervasive incestuous relations, child and spousal abuse including the abandonment of boys. There is no minority polygamous groups clamoring for their rights because the courts have deemed polygamy illegal.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Would you have felt differently if a straight judge overturned it or for other reasons?
0
Reply
Female 434
Wait, why does anyone care about polygamy... that confuses me. Someone intimated that it was a bad thing. If it`s 3 or more consenting adults what do you care? BTWI wasn`t doing the "slippery slope" comparison. I was doing a logical one and I already stated that I don`t give a crap about them getting married. What I care about is hearing the "civil rights this and that" comparing yourselves to the same fights African American`s had to go through. That to me is offensive and I`m WHITE!
0
Reply
Male 40,401
[quote]This overall was a constitutional process.[/quote]
Right Cajun, it`s still ongoing too! I don`t argue that the judge doesn`t have the "right" to overturn it, I just think he`s made a mistake. Sooner or later it will go to the Supreme Court and then the SC of Appeals! lolz! In the meanwhile, we can listen to madest whine and cry like a little sissy because he`s been proven wrong YET AGAIN!
madest, if it wasn`t "binding" then WHY did they pass it? Hummmm?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@satkela:

All a marriage is, is a binding contract of monogamy, to afford the signing parties special rights afforded them due to that contract.

This is in the eyes of the government.

In the eyes of God, anyone can get married. If God accepts their marriage, only God knows. It is up to Him to pass that judgment.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
I understand 5cats. Nonetheless even the citizenry has to agree to the constitution. I have to agree to it, follow it to the letter. This overall was a constitutional process.
@Satkela
I beg to differ. On the other hand I have heard on the radio a homosexual man claiming that the LGBT movement was hijacked.
0
Reply
Female 584
Oh and by the way, not everyone who is against gay marriage is either "a bigot, homophobe, or religious freak" Some just believe that marriage should involve 1 man and 1 woman. My best friend is a homosexual and he himself is against gay marriage. He believes that gays rights aren`t being compromised he thinks that, and these are HIS words not mine "that it`s a lot of pissy fags who want everyone else to do things their way and to accept the fact that what their doing is right." He said he "didn`t need a ring on his finger to express that he loves his boyfriend and that if he wanted the legal and monetary rights that he would just go have a civil union."
0
Reply
Male 7,378
You know what Cat5. You know the rules. You`re just being a dick. Worry about Canada. There`s only so many ways one can say the same thing. There was no "binding resolution" as you call it. It was a proposition. Use Google they`ll tell you all about it.
0
Reply
Female 584
I know a lot of people will probably think I`m closed minded or whatever but that`s their prerogative. I think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The whole purpose for marriage was so that man and woman could consummate and make love to procreate. I for one am quite tired of people trying to make it seem as though being gay is a ethnicity. Being gay is a choice. You cannot choose what color you`re born to be. I am also tired of people bashing those who don`t want to "embrace" the ways of homosexuals. You want to be gay then that`s fine but don`t try to force everyone else to conform to the Ideal that two men or two women should marry. If we accept this then we might as well accept all the other sexually immoral things that are going on like bestiality and pedophilia. Hell why not just eliminate marriage all together so that everyone can do whatever they want to whoever they want to so that everyone can practice their "constitutional right"!
0
Reply
Male 40,401
vv you 3 below vv
If the government rulers decide to have a Binding Referendum on a matter, then guess what? IT`S BINDING.
So yes their votes DO count because that`s what the government decided!
How simple does it need to be? You keep saying "the majority has no voice, only the government!" BUT in this case the government SAID the majority would rule. DUH! It`s not "in the constitution" because it`s a constitutionally valid LAW PASSED LATER!

madest you get it now? The power to order a referendum is not "in the constitution" BUT THAT`S A MOOT POINT. Try actually answering a question once in a while, you know, just for a change of pace, eh?
I`m tired of explaining the obvious to 3 year-old minds, it`s just like being at work!
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"INTHE OPINION of one judge it`s unconstitutional. IN THE OPINION of SEVEN MILLION VOTERS it`s OK."

Seven million voters have no authority to decide whether or not a law is unconstitutional- they can only decide if they want it or not. Voters can pass a law that you have to wear red socks on wednesdays under penalty of death- that doesn`t make it constitutional, and it will be swiftly shot down by the courts.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"No where in the constitution does it allow the majority to vote on the rights of the minority."

This.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Morons use the slippery slope argument. No where in the constitution does it allow the majority to vote on the rights of the minority. You already know all this. It`s been stated to you several times. The constitution is the law of the land. Nobody can usurp it. You are not the Rush Limbaugh of Canada as much as you`d like to be.
0
Reply
Male 40,401
You both miss CJ`s point (as usual).
UNEXPECTED CONSIQUENCES are what the `slippery slope` is all about! If things go perfectly, then HEY! That`s peachy!
It`s when your `good intentions` lead to other paths, THAT is the problem.
And can y`all guarentee that these other things won`t happen? DUH! NOT! No one can predict the future. THAT is what CJ`s refering to. In the past people would never have dreamed that A leads to B leads to R... R? WTF who allowed R to happen? Get it?
So along with many benifits of gay marriage come some dangers inherent in every change of this magnitude. Clear now? Some accept the dangers and others don`t. It`s called freedom of opinion.
BUt just moaning over and over that there IS NO risk involved isn`t helping anyone. It`s typical liberal blindness.
0
Reply
Male 40,401
[quote]If the law is unconstitutional it`s not allowed[/quote]
Geez madest, you`re awfully PEDANTIC about the language of others, but very loosey-goosey with your own.
INTHE OPINION of one judge it`s unconstitutional. IN THE OPINION of SEVEN MILLION VOTERS it`s OK.
There happy? Now it goes up the court system, in accordance with the laws and constitutions of various states and federal blah blah blah.

@Cajun247 If voters are stupid enough to pass a referendum saying those things, let them stew in their own juices! lolz! But yes it will be appealed just like this is. The process isn`t the problem here (with prop 8) it`s just that I don`t agree with THIS judges decision.
Nice try at the `strawman` though...
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Davymid has a point CJ. You do often reminisce about old times where rights were restricted to everyone but white, straight people.
These are Americans. Equal to you in the eyes of the law and that is what this is about. We`re a better country because of this.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
davymid: I`m not saying that America revert back to the 1920s, Geesh. You read into one part my comment too much and wouldn`t even touch the real emphasis which is the unintended consequences to come.

Quit being obtuse and quit trying to paint people as racist homophobic bigots just because they disagree with this decision.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Angilion: The slippery slope argument has already came true. No one born in the 1920s would`ve ever believed America would ever allow this[/quote]
Crakr, please listen to yourself. Are you really wishing America would revert back to how it was in the 1920s? The 1920s was a swell time to be an American, that`s for sure. As long as you weren`t black. Or a woman. Or Irish. Or gay. Or an atheist. Or an immigrant from another country. America in the 1920s was just awesome, as long as you were a white, anglo-saxon, english-speaking, heterosexual man. For pretty much everyone else, the 1920s kinda sucked. If that`s your idea of utopia, then... I dunno, I`m gonna stop here before I say something abhorrent.

Instead I`ll fall back on what I`ve said before and I`ll say again: Don`t like gay marriage? Then shut the f*ck up and don`t get one. Easy.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: The slippery slope argument has already came true. No one born in the 1920s would`ve ever believed America would ever allow this, Just as you don`t believe, Right now, The unintended consequences to come.
0
Reply
Female 683
If you don`t like it, fine, but don`t be an idiot and ignore the constitutional rights of others. That makes your argument completely invalid.

On another note, yay. <3 Biiig step.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@Fuego

This coming from a guy who also lives in a big city?

I suppose one more bozo in Houston won`t make a big difference there either.

hehe.
0
Reply
Male 1,287
[quote] Why don`t you move to Texas or something. Ugh. [/quote]

Only if he moves to Dallas. One more bozo there won`t make a difference.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Yeah that whole slippery slope argument is only put forth by morons. You cannot compare 2 consenting adults with animals, children or crimes like polygamy and incest.[/quote]

Of course you can. Homosexuality used to be a crime itself, so your argument is obviously silly right there. You can`t rationally use "it`s a crime" as an argument against something.

The right question is not "is it a crime?" but "should it be a crime?"

My baseline question is "Where`s the victim?"

Polygamy - where`s the victim?

That`s clear - there isn`t a victim. So there`s no reason for polygamy to be illegal. Your "only two people" argument is no more rational than the "only one person of each sex" argument.

Incest - where`s the victim?

Not so clear due to genetics, but in situations where pregnancy cannot occur and all concerned are adults...where is the victim?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Well, yes. The English got rid of slavery under a king. The Americans did it after a war and then some political pressure.[/quote]

For clarification:

It was parliament, not the king. The monarch has never really been an outright ruler in England and their power has been constitutionally restricted since 1215(*).

That particular king was the last one to take direct political action, but that was in 1832 over voting reform and it wasn`t an official use of royal power. Even under the extreme circumstances (two governments collapsed and a revolt was a definite possibility), official use of royal power was going to far. Instead, he used political coercion to rig a vote.

* In which a small group of noblemen imposed the idea of inalienable rights at swordpoint.

Come to think of it, basic rights have often resulted from the aristocracy acting alone.
0
Reply
Male 648
I felt this was worth repeating since some feel compelled to drive home their belief in "majority rule" as the be all / end all of decision making in Gov`t.

"The moment a mere numerical superiority by either states or voters in this country proceeds to ignore the needs and desires of the minority, and for their own selfish purpose or advancement, hamper or oppress that minority, or debar them in any way from equal privileges and equal rights -- that moment will mark the failure of our constitutional system."

-FDR-

0
Reply
Male 10,855
@Boadica
Considering that`s the state I`m living in right now, I found your statement highly amusing.

hehe.
0
Reply
Female 1,677
5Cats shut up for the love of God. All these `lolz` and `ehs` are making us all look retarded. Why don`t you move to Texas or something. Ugh.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Not entirely correct Dolomyte

2/3 of the states via legislatures can call conventions to propose

BUT you are right saying 3/4 of the states via conventions can ratify amendments.
0
Reply
Male 102
I stand corrected. Not legislation but amendments through conventions of the people without the legislative or executive branches of government, 2/3 to propose and 3/4 to affirm. Stated in article 5.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
No they shouldn`t.

If you argue in favor of these measures then you are anti-constitutional.

(On the other hand you could try madest posted)

Stay Canadian my friend.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
excuse me "should have the ability"
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Or maybe the older majority within a state should ability the right to strip 18 year olds of their right to vote and the higher-ups should just respect the decision?

Despite the fact that is unconstitutional do so (26th amendment)?

hmm?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@5Cats

So by your logic if the majority in a state decides to ban all guns from within its borders, the aristocracy should uphold the result, despite the fact that it is unconstitutional to do so hmm?
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Not so. A constitutional amendment takes 2/3 majority vote then 38 of the 50 states.
0
Reply
Male 716
Well, technically, all you would need to do to have the 52 percent enforced is to get Congress to "amend" the constitution.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Wow Cat5 America is just too confusing for you. It doesn`t matter that people voted. It doesn`t matter that representatives decided (which they did not). If the law is unconstitutional it`s not allowed. But that`s been told to you 2 dozen times so I suspect this is just another attempt by you to be a right wing republican.
0
Reply
Male 40,401
Oh and to those who say "it`s a Republic! We elect people to make laws for us, not `majority rule`"
WELL! They DID make a decision on this law: the elected officials decided to hold a public, majority-rules VOTE! So by your `logic` everyone who supports a Republic SHOULD UPHOLD the result!
0
Reply
Male 40,401
[quote]I`m afraid you`re employing the Slippery Slope Fallacy[/quote]
Oh yeah, like this one:
If we allow certain kinds of abortion in Canada, we`ll end up with NO LAWS AT ALL that restrict abortions, paid for by free medicare!
HAhahaha! Thats just silly talk, crazy talk!
Oh wait, there`s NO LAWS at all restricting abortions in Canada. And guess what? Gender selection abortions? Legal! How slippery was THAT slope, eh?
[quote]5cats, for the sake of canada, please stop saying eh on this site.[/quote]
No way fellow hoser! I type like I talk! (plus it drives the yanks bonkers, lolz!)

Again I say: if SOCIETY wants gay marriage, they by all means pass laws! If the majority rejects it, then having a judge impose unwanted laws on `the people` is tyrrany!

MADEST: Why is poligamy a validly illegal activity? It`s between 2-7 concenting adults, eh?
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"The fundamental issue here is whether homosexual conduct, with all its physical and psychological risks, should be promoted and endorsed by society."

How is having a monogamous relationship with someone of the same sex any riskier than a monogamous relationship with someone of the opposite sex? The religious right, in constantly beating this dead horse of "all gays do is go around drating eachother all the time they`re so promiscuous blah blah blah," sound absolutely retarded when they then try to argue against gay people wanting to be in committed long-term relationships. It`s like they are pissed because gay people don`t live up to the stereotype of the hyper-promiscuous sex-crazed monster that they themselves created, and want to do everything they can to keep the stereotype alive.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"The fundamental issue here is whether homosexual conduct, with all its physical and psychological risks, should be promoted and endorsed by society."

From that link - yeah, never mind the 50% divorce rate, or the general risks that come from promiscuous sex. No, the REAL risk to society is consenting males having butt sex.

Lol, "psychological risks," like what, that you might like it???? Or that you might marry a woman when you are in fact gay, due to social pressure to conform, destroying families when you can no longer stand to hide what you really are? That s*it happens yo, we see the stories repeated over and over (tends to be more high-profile when it involves Republicans, but it happens everywhere).
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Sbeelz - your last point is certainly correct, I was perhaps just alluding to why the political tides may be turning in America. People won`t let people get away with irrational hate arguments anymore.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"Absolutely. You cannot make such an argument without eventually admitting you believe homosexuals are no better than dog f*ckers and child molsters, and that doesn`t play well in public."

It has nothing to do with weather or not it "plays well in public." It doesn`t stand up to reason. Sex between two consenting adults is in no way analogous to people who impose their sexuality on children or animals.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
The Best of the WORST Typical Reactions to the Prop 8 Ruling

I LOVE seeing right-winger`s heads exploding, trying to understand HOW America can protect homosexuals from discrimination.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"Minority rights are not implied by republican gov`t. Conversely democracy by definition disenfranchises the minority."

The Bill of Rights explicitly exists to protect the rights of the minority. If it were only around to protect the majority, it would be redundant- since it would be protecting behaviors that the majority of people were in favor of anyway, so there would be no need to provide legal protection for the behaviors. The principle is summed up nicely by Salmon Rushdie: "What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"That being said, the "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage is nonsense"

Absolutely. You cannot make such an argument without eventually admitting you believe homosexuals are no better than dog f*ckers and child molsters, and that doesn`t play well in public, for the very reason that more and more people KNOW a homosexual - since society is becoming more accepting and homosexuals are freer to come "out" - and realize that person is no more likely to be a deviant than anyone else, gay or straight.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"Im from cali and am totally against the law, but at the same time I`m against how the judge handled the law. How can you overturn something the people wanted. To me that goes against everything this country and democracy stands for. Thats like saying F*CK to the people. so I dunno"

So, I dunno- if a State passed a law by popular referendum that required its citizens to attend Baptist Church every Sunday under threat of imprisonment, do you think it would be "against everything this country stands for" if a judge were to "overturn something the people wanted" by declaring the law unconstitutional?
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"That being said, the "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage is nonsense"

Absolutely. You cannot make such an argument without eventually admitting you believe homosexuals are no better than dog f*ckers and child molsters, and that doesn`t play well in public.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"It all comes down to civil rights, a.k.a public opinion."

I might even accept this, along with the recognition that society at large has become more accepting of the existence of homosexuality as a benign fact of human life.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"My birthday is Saturday and Friday night Im going to see Primus."

This.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"Well actually I`m going to make a few exceptions on that. There really are situations where there are "slippery slopes" so to speak. Like if we randomly nuked Russia right now, that would easily constitute a slippery slope since it would break out into intense nuclear warfare."

You`re clearly having difficulty with the "slippery slope" concept, slayer50515. A slippery slope usually starts with a relatively benign action and results in a drastic consequence- like having one drink, that leads to another that results in chronic alcoholism and death by cirrhosis of the liver. Your example is of one insanely drastic and horribly damaging action resulting in an even more massively horrible event. That`s not a slippery slope- that`s just a bad choice with predictably awful consequences. That being said, the "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage is nonsense, and it was used to argue against interracial marriage back in the day.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Do you know who argued, and won, this case?

Ted Olsen. AKA - the guy who won Bush his first term in Bush v. Gore.

Think about this. If a majority of people voted to completely ban guns, conservatives would flip out. But thats just "majority" rule, right? How is that different than saying a "majority" should be able to pass laws specifically discriminating against gays?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
The legislative power (approving) is vested solely in congress (Art 1 Sec 1). The power to pass laws is vested solely in the president (Art 1 Sec 7 Clause 2).
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Dolomyte it does not say that the people can pass federal laws without the approval from the president or congress.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"@goaliejerry
I don`t think Jesus said anything about homosexuals."

Seems to depend on who you ask, doesn`t it?
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Last point, and another one that is lost on religious conservatives. The First Amendment protects freedom of religion - you have the right to think gays are immoral. BUT, the First Amendment ALSO prevents the Federal Government (of which the Courts are a Branch) from ADVANCING or adopting, i.e. respecting the Establishment of, a religion. So courts cannot uphold the law if the only support offered for the law is based on religious morality. To do so would be to establish that the feds think Christianity is best, when instead they have a duty to be NEUTRAL when it comes to religion.

The First Amendment protects the right to hate others, and protects the hated from discrimination based solely on that hatred. See? Our Constitution strikes a JUST and FAIR BALANCE, allowing our country to prosper, despite the fact that we all know gays want to convert our children into sex slaves.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@goaliejerry
I don`t think Jesus said anything about homosexuals.
@Dolomyte
Which section?
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"Because Jesus says so" is never a legally sufficient reason, for the simple reason that in America, people do not have to believe in Jesus in order to be protected by the laws.

"Because we don`t like them" isn`t a legally sufficient reason because "they" haven`t in ANY WAY harmed you, other than in your moral convictions. In order to sue - or to pass a law banning behavior - you have to show some sort of HARM. What harm do gays marrying do, other than pissing off gay-haters?
0
Reply
Female 16
That`s so dratin` gay
0
Reply
Male 4,014
This case REEKS of Romer v. Evans.

Come on. Even you people opposed to gay marriage know its because you don`t like gays, either because they are icky, you don`t like butt sex, or Jesus says so. THAT IS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON to single out an identifiable class of persons for different treatment.

There is A DIFFERENT ANGLE too.

Supreme Court says marriage is a "fundamental right," as is procreation, and decisions about birth control / abortion. Who holds that right? The INDIVIDUAL.

Marriage is (counter-intuitively) a right held by the individual - the individual choses who to marry, when, why, etc. Thus, gay-marriage bans tell people who they can or cannot marry. Not allowed unless you can pass strict scrutiny.

And again, there is no actual, valid, rational argument against gay marriage that doesn`t devolve into "some people don`t like those gays."
0
Reply
Male 721
5cats, for the sake of canada, please stop saying eh on this site.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Boredered - I know the right wing as of late thinks that majority rule should trump constitutional protections (which, amazingly, are in the Constitution to PROTECT minorities from oppression by the majority), but thats not how it works.

This is the second Federal District Court in the past few months to find gay marriage bans unconstitutional.

Why? Because the ONLY justification for such bans, when you push opponents of gay marriage on the issue (i.e., arguing to a Court), the argument becomes nothing more than "certain people (typically religious people) really don`t like the idea of gay people marrying. Thus, we shouldn`t allow gay marriage because it would offend those people."

THIS RULING WAS NOT UNPRECEDENTED.

Romer v. Evans - Colorado citizens VOTED to pass a proposition that prevented any state government from recognizing gays as a protected class.

Supreme Court said there was NO reason for the law other than hatred of gays
0
Reply
Male 988
Well actually I`m going to make a few exceptions on that. There really are situations where there are "slippery slopes" so to speak. Like if we randomly nuked Russia right now, that would easily constitute a slippery slope since it would break out into intense nuclear warfare.
In general "slippery slopes" don`t happen very often, but there are stills some.

Just wanted to put that out there before someone gets confused and tries to retaliate.
0
Reply
Male 988
"Yeah that whole slippery slope argument is only put forth by morons."
This.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@madest:

Why is polygamy a crime?

Just a question. Don`t read into it.
0
Reply
Male 555
MrTwidget, I fully agree. Regardless of how society views gay marriage, or GLBT folks in general, they are still human beings, they are still entitled to the same rights that everyone takes for granted.
Being gay or transgendered doesn`t make you not human.

*/End soapbox/*
0
Reply
Male 795
How is gay marriage even an issue? When all this controversy started years back I laughed because I thought it was a joke. Who cares who gets married to whom? It doesn`t effect our lives. If someone wants to marry their dog, let them!
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Yeah that whole slippery slope argument is only put forth by morons. You cannot compare 2 consenting adults with animals, children or crimes like polygamy and incest.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"Unfortunately, the AllMighty does not issue tax credits to gay couples the way the Fed`s do "MARRIED COUPLES". Other things the "Higher Authority" doesn`t cover are . . .

Survivor benefits.
Legal resposibility for a spouse`s debt {marriage is responsibility, not just benefits}
Next-of-Kin status at hospitals and in legal matters.
The right not to testify agains a spouse {I need that one!}
Couples Discounts at resorts! ;)
and the list goes on and on and on"

In the end, it`s basically about money (and civil rights lawl)
0
Reply
Male 25,417
meh
0
Reply
Male 12,138
StphnHrrll, I`m afraid you`re employing the Slippery Slope Fallacy, which is a well-known logical fallacy going back to classical times. Allowing gay people marriage rights does not mean that next we`ll be legalizing peodphilia or bestiality... You know, those being "perversions" just like homosexuality and all...
0
Reply
Male 180
People are affected by `gay` marriage. The gov`t & laws view married people differently from single people. The homos` central argument for legal marriage is so each spouse can enjoy the benefits (medical, dental, etc.) the other gets from work. And in case one spouse dies, property & benefits are transferred to the survivor. These benefits are mandated by gov`t in many instances at taxpayers` expense, so yes, others are affected.

Also, societies are defined by their rules. Ours has a number of rules against specific behavior that do not hurt others, like public nudity, helmet laws, and calling a black person the N-word.

Minority rights are not implied by republican gov`t. Conversely democracy by definition disenfranchises the minority. In democracy everybody votes on every issue & candidate. In a republic elected representatives vote instead.
0
Reply
Male 102
@Gerry1of1
The sad truth is in each case of discrimination, the injured party must bring suit in court for the trespasses and against the trespassers. There is lawful recourse for any injustice at law.
0
Reply
Male 102
Also @Cajun247 the people can propose legislation and pass it without the legislative or executive branch of government. It is in Article 1 of the US constitution.

@StphnHrrll The issue is of free will. With the exercise of rights comes responsibility. An animal or child does not have the capacity to exercise those rights of life with responsibility. A child is presumed to at some age have responsibility, an animal not so much. So the preservation of rights to life shall be kept for a child not of age and still a minor.
As to the freedom of life as it pertains to an animal, that gets kind of fuzzy. Michael Vick goes to prison for violating this right towards dogs but slaughter houses violate this right on a regular basis to cows, pigs, and chickens. Would Michael Vick not have gone to prison if we as a society consumed dog meat? It all comes down to civil rights, a.k.a public opinion.
0
Reply
Male 39,614
@ Dolomyte "Homosexuals are under higher scrutiny without requiring permission to get married, a marriage certificate is therefore unnecessary."

Unfortunately, the AllMighty does not issue tax credits to gay couples the way the Fed`s do "MARRIED COUPLES". Other things the "Higher Authority" doesn`t cover are . . .

Survivor benefits.
Legal resposibility for a spouse`s debt {marriage is responsibility, not just benefits}
Next-of-Kin status at hospitals and in legal matters.
The right not to testify agains a spouse {I need that one!}
Couples Discounts at resorts! ;)
and the list goes on and on and on
0
Reply
Male 102
I really enjoy political debates on this forum because there is some genuine intelligence and reasoning among this crowd. Not to mention also, a broad spectrum of religious, ethnic, social, and moral backgrounds.
We do live in a republic in America, not a democracy.
Homosexuals are under higher scrutiny without requiring permission to get married, a marriage certificate is therefore unnecessary.
A minority imposing it`s will on a majority is considered an oligarchy which is anti-democratic. A majority that imposes it`s will on a minority is considered a democracy and is anti-republican.
0
Reply
Male 40,401
vv @StphnHrrll makes excellent points (which sound a lot like mine! lolz! In other words I agree) which the anti-prop-8 folks have avoided discussing. WHERE does the restriction on who gets married end?
[quote]polyamorous couples exist, married or not, so just let them get married.[/quote]
See how easy it is? I`m NOT suggesting gays are all for these other kinds of `marriage` BUT there are lots of groups who WILL use this to get their own version of `marriage` legalized.

There NEVER was a vote on the legality of slavery in the USA, m-kay? If there was, and the anti-slavery people won, then a judge said "Oh no, it`s our constitutional right to own slaves" y`all would be happy? I THINK NOT! (and neither would I eh?)

As others have mentioned, it`s great when 1 (one) judge overturns a law you don`t like, less so when they smack down one you`re fond of...
0
Reply
Female 434
Not entirely against gay marriage, but I am against people saying "civil rights this and that" there is plenty of people who can`t marry and want to. Siblings or relatives of any kind. People want multiple spouses, some people love animals, or young children. All of these things which are illegal. You may scream and call me ignorant, but it`s a fact. These people do exist, but because it`s not your brand of perversion you do not rally for these people`s rights. Don`t get me wrong, I don`t hate or even mildly dislike gay people, everyone is entitled to their own life.... but really gay or straight is basically based on your sexually preference (or more basic definition, what gets you off) You shouldn`t pass out civil rights based on what makes you have an orgasm, black people should be offended.
0
Reply
Male 39,614
It may not get to the appeal stage. An appeal is submitted, but the higher court can just say "nope. that`s the right decision" and thereby avoid the issue. Judges who want the Supreme Court try to avoid having opinions.

Probably will go to appeal, but hopefully not.
0
Reply
Female 3,574
[quote]I`m opposed to a minority imposing it`s will on the majority. Kind of anti-democratic, eh?[/quote]
America is not a democracy. It is a republic. If the "majority" voted that all black people should get out of the country, should the government ship them out? NO, because that is unconstitutional. The same applies here.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
"So if some straight judge (who thought gays were icky) voted against this"
I think the only legitimate reason the judge could disqualify himself from the decision making, is if that judge worked in either campaigns.
0
Reply
Male 2,506
Now we drat over majority rules, yay.
0
Reply
Female 202
good for them
0
Reply
Female 1,677
"...that judge (with an agenda. He is openly gay) wielded today."

So if some straight judge (who thought gays were icky) voted against this-- he *wouldn`t* have an agenda? Oy.

"I`m opposed to a minority imposing its will on the majority."

Gays getting married is not imposing ANYTHING on you. Its will? Their will to be married like any straight couple in love? How does that affect you? IT DOESN`T. Gay couples exist, married or not, so just let them get married. I don`t understand this argument. IT HAS NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER ON ANYBODY BUT THE TWO GAY PEOPLE GETTING MARRIED. OMG.
0
Reply
Male 591
Next stop will be the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where Judge Walker`s decision is almost certain to be affirmed. Appeals courts do not call witnesses or hear testimony. Unless the trial court`s findings of fact lack any credible basis in the evidence, the appeals court must defer to the trial court on findings of fact. Judge Walker issued 80 findings of fact, all conclusive and well supported by evidence.
0
Reply
Male 39,614
I`ve yet to meet anyone who could explain to me why Chuck and Larry getting married 850 miles away affects their own life in any way.

States should all get out of the marriage business. Just have Civil Contracts instead with an automatic end date. Options to renew at 3, 5, or 10 years. Then the individual churches could do whatever their religious consciouses tell them is okay, but without legal consequences.
0
Reply
Male 6,694
My birthday is Saturday and Friday night Im going to see Primus.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Again read Federalist No. 10 heck even the constitution. The Framers didn`t give the masses power to vote for new laws, they gave them the power to vote for personnel. People are acting like their right to vote was going to be stripped from them. That`s not true, your right to vote for personnel will not be taken from you.
0
Reply
Female 2,509
"I`m opposed to a minority imposing it`s will on the majority."

welcome to the USA


"How can you overturn something the people wanted"

...remember slavery, segregation
0
Reply
Male 591
"How can you overturn something the people wanted."

Because you can`t take a vote to restrict constitutional rights. There is no higher law than the Constitution.
0
Reply
Male 1,129
Im from cali and am totally against the law, but at the same time I`m against how the judge handled the law. How can you overturn something the people wanted. To me that goes against everything this country and democracy stands for. Thats like saying F*CK to the people. so I dunno
0
Reply
Male 496
Also just FYI, this is about the 14th amendment, not the bill or rights.
0
Reply
Male 496
On another point, this judge may have wound up doing a disservice to homosexuals. He ruled that "rational basis" scrutiny applies to homosexual couples, which is the lowest level of scrutiny in equal protection cases. While this may be a "win" as far as prop 8 is concerned, they risk having the Supreme Court validate that rational basis scrutiny applies to homosexuals. If that`s the case, it`s a very low threshold for challenging future laws or government action.

If I`m not mistaken (and I`m lazy so I haven`t bothered to look into it), the Supreme Court has suggested in the past that homosexuals are deserving of a higher level of scrutiny (in which case prop 8 would have failed anyway)...
0
Reply
Male 496
I think we need to decouple the religious marriage with the bundle of civil (meaning secular, state granted) rights and responsibilities which states grant to married couples. States have granted rights to married individuals because of the special relationship that follows from a marriage. Why not instead recognize that- regardless of marriage- two competent and consenting adults can decide that they wish to assume this bundle of rights with respect to one another, regardless whether a marriage exists. By decoupling "marriage" from the bundle of state granted rights/responsibilities, then you remove the primary grounds for religious objectors- that we are violating religious principles by having official state recognition of marriages. Makes sense to me...
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@Madest.
Precisely. The entire purpose of having a bill of rights is to protect the rights of the minority from the prejudices and whims of the majority. Segregation wasn`t outlawed by popular vote- that decision was made in the courts as well.
0
Reply
Female 66
I think some of you are forgetting the fact that civil rights were not voted for by the majority. People did not suddenly become enlightened and stopped being racist, they were forced to do so by the courts.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Exactly. If you`re against same sex marriage don`t marry someone of the same sex. It`s that simple.
0
Reply
Male 34
To Mr 5Cats. The majority is not affected if the minority decides to marry. This is strictly affecting the minority and therefor the majority is still entitled to it`s opinion, but it`s of no importance. If the majority of, say, non-gingers want to take away some rights of the minority (being ginger) this doesn`t seem a good idea either, does it. (Of course this comparison is not entirely accurate as gay people DO have souls).
0
Reply
Male 4,745
I love how those opposed to this, some how feel they are affected by the decision. Unless you are gay, you have no right opposing this. Who gives a crap if "the majority" of people oppose it! If a gay couple gets married, are those "majority" affected in any way? No. Silly Homophobes.
0
Reply
Male 333
Don`t like gays, but I have no right to restrict their rights. I was against prop 8 when it got passed, there were kids from my school on the corners of streets protesting and people would drive by and yell out FAG! Messed up (but somewhat funny). Congrats though gays.
0
Reply
Male 648
"The moment a mere numerical superiority by either states or voters in this country proceeds to ignore the needs and desires of the minority, and for their own selfish purpose or advancement, hamper or oppress that minority, or debar them in any way from equal privileges and equal rights -- that moment will mark the failure of our constitutional system."

-FDR-
0
Reply
Male 40,401
[quote]here`s a better idea: get rid of marriage all together and if you want to share insurance or money or items with your spouse you write up a legal document to do it. the end. do i get something?[/quote]
Vindictive, you get my respect for making such an intelligent statement! :)
The government SHOULD get out of the marriage business, but sadly it`s in like a tick, or a tapeworm...
0
Reply
Male 40,401
[quote]Please state where a law can be levied to abridge one of the people`s right of life and of life style choices[/quote]

Dude! Governments of all nations can and do make laws which restrict all sorts of things!

The POINT of being opposed to this is that MILLIONS (a majority in fact) of people voted one way, and ONE judge throws that out the window?

We, as a society, have some rights too eh? No law says gays can`t de-facto live as married couples (unlike many nations, try being openly gay in Gaza!) BUT we have to draw the line somewhere, and it`s HERE. No poligamy, no polyamory, no marriage to sisters, children, german shepards!
I`m not OPPOSED to gay marriage per-se, if the majority of the public want it, then that`s OK. I`m opposed to a minority imposing it`s will on the majority. Kind of anti-democratic, eh?
0
Reply
Female 190
Hooray!
0
Reply
Female 4,376
Full on.
0
Reply
Male 178
I`m just glad. (but I`m not GLAD.)
0
Reply
Male 534
yay toys. :)
0
Reply
Male 67
personally i dont care if gays get married or not. if they want to be miserable through marriage like the rest of america i say let them but whatever

everything is so politically correct now its just annoying in which you cant do one thing. good thing im a free market anarchist because i only think that the government is trying to kill us, enslave us, and just push us around. i think that there should be far less government but still have a government
yes i do see what youre talking about Neal Boortz hes got the right idea and i think that he shouldnt run for some office due to him not wanting it
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Like I said before, I am for the liberty of all people. I could care less if homosexuals marry. [/quote]
Couldn`t. You COULDN`T care less, goddamit. Sorry, pet peeve of mine.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Thanks cajun. I think I would fit there too, but madest thinks I`m republican, because I`m a libertarian with a conservative lean (ala Neal Boortz).
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Likewise there are people who believe 9/11 is a conspiracy and Obama wasn`t born in Hawai`i.
Pending on how things go you`ll have nine more judges to decide.
I think you`re libertarian (join the club).
0
Reply
Male 10,338
I hate it when an issue comes up like this.

It`s like the whole Obama thing. There are people out there who really, actually believe, that if you do not agree with his policy, you are racist.
...
Like I said before, I am for the liberty of all people. I could care less if homosexuals marry. There are people out there that would ignore what I just said, because I am a conservative/libertarian/how ever you want to label it. They would just say "You do not agree with the judge. You are a homophobe." It`s so touchy, you know?

I do not believe one judge should have the power that judge (with an agenda. He is openly gay) wielded today. Does that make me a homophobe? Some would say so.
0
Reply
Male 721
Am i the only one thinking this but An-egg you are annoying as shat. Just sayin.
0
Reply
Male 725
That IS a f*cking double rainbow!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Not necessarily, you can still vote for another aristocrat to replace that judge once he`s done. Besides, it`s not like the other 8 propositions got overturned anyway. That vote is one a judge will have no ability to overturn. If that was the case then Bush v. Gore absolutely would`ve been decided by unelected judges. Judges do not appoint they are appointed! Lastly their power to interpret is implicitly expressed in Art 3. Sec 2. Paragraph one US constitution.

See you later!
0
Reply
Male 884
@Davymid it seems to have fixed itself, but I was on 40 chars for a bit, dunno why,
0
Reply
Male 721
Good for them, we should all abolish discrimination against any certain group for the better of mankind. I find it much easier to hate racists and people that are discrimatory like Hitler and white facists.
0
Reply
Male 577
Dude, he doesn`t really have a 40 char limit. Most of this posts are over that.
0
Reply
Male 884
@cajun, No. But you are being stripped of your right to vote by unelected judges. You may agree with his decision, but what happens when you don`t.

I really am off to bed now.

any questions, PM me, this thread`s dead.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Yep good `ol Judge Roy Bean.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
40 char limit? Well in that case I guess it`s cool, but how come only 40 chars? And @cajun, no biggie, just trying to keep the forum clean. Carry on!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
There was once a judge in my state (long time ago) that said "There`s no law against killing a chinaman." Long time ago, but it allowed other citizens to strip said chinaman of his right to life.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Sorry davymid. I`ll admit though I can`t collect all my thoughts at a moment in one post.

@An-egg
O`RLY? So you`re telling me from the late 18th century onwards that the people didn`t strip other humans of their rights so they could claim them as their property. Really!?!
0
Reply
Male 884
@Davymid
I got a 40 char limit. Sorry.
0
Reply
Male 884
@cajun, you bater
they didn`t, the `government` did
I can`t be arsed to post all the info, look it up for yourself.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Guys guys, can we please stop spamming up the boards here? Not every goddam sentence has to be a separate post. Wrap up your comments into single comments please, there`s a 1000 character limit which should be plenty... Go to chat if you want to have a back-and-forth, here it`s major spamming.

Thanks!
0
Reply
Male 884
Wait til this automaton overturns something that impinges on your life. No seriously, I know that you think I`m taking the piss, but look at it.

My last post on this matter
0
Reply
Male 102
I do not care about laws? Please state where a law can be levied to abridge one of the people`s right of life and of life style choices. Be careful now you can only point out amendments to the constitution because if it is not specifically stated as prohibited in an amendment then the people have the defacto right stated in the 9th amendment of the constitution.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Would you like it if a majority of Americans decided you had no right to privacy?
0
Reply
Male 884
Well, that clears it up. An unelected judge has more sway than the electorate. Get off your horse and look at the reality.
0
Reply
Male 884
7?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Check it An-egg.

Page 9 the "Against" column row 8 "duh". 6.4 million [quote]against[/quote].
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Here`s the official report. Scroll on down to page 9.
0
Reply
Male 884
That`s not a million voters, it`s a million people who went out to vote.
0
Reply
Male 884
Still, one man, Man, destroyed a million votes.
0
Reply
Male 577
He just cited more than 6 mill.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
0
Reply
Male 884
So you can`t cite 6 million against the vote?
0
Reply
Male 577
@Cajun247

I don`t know. I`ve lived here most of my life. I used to get upset about stuff like this, I have friends that still do. We used to make roadtrips to Austin to go to protests. I just got tired of being so frustrated all the time, and I got tired of the harrassment from neighbors. I`ve only gotten physically injured a couple times, but I`ve had A LOT of garbage thrown at me, and these two guys used to love following me around when I went to do laundry or go to my car. Those guys came up with some of the most disgustingly creative insults I`ve ever heard.

It`s probably good that someone is fighting for it, though.
0
Reply
Female 98
Wow that`s so weird, I was just watching 8:The Mormon Proposition earlier to today.
Anyway, good for them...I`m so glad US is becoming more forward thinking. I felt so riled up watching that documentary, its scary the amount of power some groups have...but obviously not that much power. Now they know how it feels to have something given to them and then taken away.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Korematsu v. US in my mind WAS fascism.
0
Reply
Male 884
Well, yes. The English got rid of slavery under a king. The Americans did it after a war and then some political pressure.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
"cite 6 million"

Look it up yourself? Heck it should be common knowledge for you!

Anyway

Was it fascism when they reversed Pleggy v. Ferguson?

Was Brown v. BoE fascism?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Was it fascism when they struck down slavery?
0
Reply
Male 884
Cite 6 million.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
I do not want to live in a system where the simple majority can always have the say. That`s called a Democracy this is a Republic.
0
Reply
Male 884
Fascism is the `Aristocracy` striking down the will of the people.

0
Reply
Male 10,855
The other 6,000,000 people believed the law was unfair, unjust, and wrong.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Why? Because there were others and members of the masses believe the law was wrong.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
My point was the aristocracy struck down a law that had widespread support within a region.

How is the interpretation fascist? Fascism is extreme loyalty to the state, allowing gay marriage is not asking for loyalty to the state, it is granting people liberty.
0
Reply
Male 884
A Judge, across state lines, subjected them to his fascist interpretation of the law. Fascists are cool, right?
0
Reply
Male 884
Easy: The Californians, 7 million of them, were in one state. There was no `across state lines`
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@bram

Meh well attitudes vary by city hmm? I live just west of a big city.

Anywho...
0
Reply
Male 884
Finds Dolomyte amusing.
Is gay.
Doesn`t care about the laws.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Well I ask you this then, how is this different than the Civil War? Millions of people across state lines supported a (horrible one mind you) institution. A handful of aristocrats nullified it (well there`s one difference) in the absence of hundreds of others.
0
Reply
Male 884
The entire population of LA or London or New York.
0
Reply
Male 102
The issue of gay marriage has never made much sense to me.
A ceremony of marriage is not prohibited because freedom of religion is specifically protected, if your church or religious organization is against gay marriage then it is that group`s prerogative to no perform those ceremonies. Ceremonies will still take place as long as groups are willing to perform them. So...

The issue must be the marriage certificate issued by the Justice of the Peace, who is a public servant. A public servant who is funded by the public through taxes and refuses to provide service to members of the public who pay taxes?

Just print and file the damn form, that is what you`re paid to do.
0
Reply
Male 577
@Cajun247

I live in a small town in Texas. I learned a long time ago to keep my mouth shut and just be glad that I`m not getting my ass kicked. At least, it`s not illegal for me to have sex anymore. That happened when I still cared about my rights and went to protests. :-)
0
Reply
Male 884
No, not 70 thousand, 7 Million.
0
Reply
Male 884
1 man, whatever his position, nullified that.
0
Reply
Male 884
17th amendment:

But now we have an electorate that represents the people.

7000000 of them voted.


0
Reply
Male 10,855
Certainly An-egg.

At the VERY DAWN of the United States constitution, the only thing people could elect were representatives to the federal govt. (0-+1)Senators on the other hand could be selected by the legislatures within the state govts. (+1-1). Those senators could then appoint judges to the supreme court (1+1-1) and then select the president (2+1-1). Now then came 12th amendment which doesn`t change the scoreboard, and then came the 17th amendment ((3-1)-(1+1)).
Now it`s 2-2.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@bram

On the flip side of the coin. I have heard of one homosexual claiming that the LGBT movement was hijacked. Wish I could cite it though. I guess you share his opinion?
0
Reply
Male 884
@Cajun247
Try again,
Quote something or, at least, be original.
0
Reply
Male 577
Wow, people are getting so angry on here that a bunch of the arguments don`t even make sense.

I`m just lucky, that even though I`m gay, it doesn`t effect me, because nobody in their right mind would want to marry by ass. lol
0
Reply
Male 10,855
This what my federal government teacher was about the historical "scoreboard" of Aristocrats vs. The People.

3-1
then
2-2
0
Reply
Male 884
Bedybies for me


Let me know if anyone needs schooling.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Likewise the state can criminally prosecute any individual, and said individual can challenge his conviction.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@An-egg

After taking a federal government course, it`s become clear to me that this idea was planted in my head. Of course our founding wanted to all three branches of government to check and balance each other. But James Madison (aka Publius) wanted to take that a step further and have the masses and aristocracy keep a check on each other. Which is why senators and representatives vote for federal laws to be enacted, and that we can vote them out if we disapprove of their decisions.
0
Reply
Female 1,077
i don`t see why it matters to anyone else who gets married. i mean like...come on. just let everyone get married and then we`ll forget about it. the end.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
almightybob1: Since before the beginning of our constitution. I don`t believe any founding father would be in favor of gays marrying, It was so preposterous a thought back then they didn`t address `marriage` at all. So left the rest of the laws up to the states to decide.

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams
0
Reply
Male 884
Glad you accepted the truth.
0
Reply
Female 1,077
<3 <3 <3 <3
0
Reply
Male 884
Also: The people get NO RIGHTS. But that`s OK for you, right?
0
Reply
Female 1,077
i will. and we`ll win. <3 lessthanthree in your direction.
0
Reply
Male 884
I like "act your age" it shows that you have no better argument.
0
Reply
Male 884
Oh right. There aren`t further courts?
Wait and see.
0
Reply
Male 884
Well, there are paid people on these sites. They are supposed to support their `pimps` ideologies.
0
Reply
Female 1,077
act your age. unless you`re lying it says you`re a grown man. i suppose it doesn`t matter. you can piss and moan all you want and the people will get equal rights. the world is changing. it`s a shame you won`t enjoy it.
0
Reply
Male 884
I`d find another way. I`m smart like that. Thanks for asking.
0
Reply
Female 1,077
your last sentence didn`t make sense. unpaid? what relevance does that have?
0
Reply
Female 1,077
sorry, i misread. but we`re not talking about killing someone who has hurt millions of people. we`re talking about giving equl rights to all americans. what if 7 million people said YOU shouldn`t get married? wouldn`t you stomp your foot and cry no?
0
Reply
Male 884
Don`t you think it`s funny that, at this time of night, people are still (unpaid?) trying to attack a mediocre view
0
Reply
Male 884
and if 70,000 people voted to kill Hitler, and they did, I`d probably say yes.
0
Reply
Male 884
No, it was 7 Million
0
Reply
Female 1,077
an-egg, if 70,000 people voted murder was okay would you honestly say "well, then we should let it be okay"? 70,000 people can be wrong. that many people can be corrupt and unfair and unkind.
0
Reply
Male 884
@Cajun: 7000000 people voted for it. It may be wrong but do the people count for poo?
0
Reply
Male 884
@ Vindictive
altogether is one word. Sorry if I looked like I was uneducated.
0
Reply
Female 1,077
well, i made a small typing error. i don`t see why that`s a big deal. and what about trolls? i never mentioned trolls. why did you bring that up? you`re not contributing anything to the conversation you`re just acting like a child.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
I`m all for that too. But then again if we did that then everyone would get upset.

Furthermore, one of the arguments against Prop 8 is that it is a violation of the 5th amendment (due process clause). I was wondering why at first, but then I thought about it. For a long time now marriage licenses have been granted by Justices of the Peace in every state for a while. Two parties acting through the legal system is due process. In civil cases men are prohibited from suing women and vice versa, like are not prohibited from suing others within their own gender. Ergo to deny two people marriage because of their orientation would be denial of due process.
0
Reply
Female 1,077
how did you make me look silly, all you did was post two things. and why did you call me sir? that doesn`t even make sense...
0
Reply
Male 884
Sorry I made you look silly. Please don`t ban me SIR.
0
Reply
Female 1,077
yeah i did say it. why did you spazz out like that? you`re spamming and you`re going to get banned if you keep doing this. there`s better ways to create an argument than acting immaturely. to be fair, my previous comment was pretty sarcastic and off-hand. i`m not sure why you`re taking it so seriously.
0
Reply
Male 884
Then why should ANY MARRIAGE be allowed?
0
Reply
Male 884
You said it. You want to get rid of marriage.
0
Reply
Female 1,077
here`s a better idea: get rid of marriage all together and if you want to share insurance or money or items with your spouse you write up a legal document to do it. the end. do i get something?
0
Reply
Male 884
Soz. 40 characters for me!
0
Reply
Male 884
"inform"-the-interwebs.
0
Reply
Male 884
anti-I`ve-been-paid-to-
0
Reply
Male 884
I`m just anti-asshat
0
Reply
Female 120
Is it just me or is it mostly an older generation that`s very anti-gay marriage?
0
Reply
Male 884
I found this on your `cite`:
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
0
Reply
Male 113
I don`t get why people trip over Homosexual people. It`s not like you have to have sex with them. And I`m sure there`s an equal amount of great parents out there that happen to be homosexual. Just because you father impregnated your mother doesn`t change the fact that he drank all day and yelled at everyone in your family.

And if you think gay people are gross because gay sex is gross,then you`re pretty gay too for thinking about it. The homophobic paradox.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@An-egg.

Because it`s called a Federally Constituted Republic. I think Federalist Paper No. 10 explains why we have these judges.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
lol @ all the usual homo-hatin`, Jesus-luvin` types here in the comments.

[quote]Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman, It`s been that way since the beginning and it should stay that way. [/quote]
looooooooooooooooooool
0
Reply
Male 884
7,001,084 Californians voted for it. One man overturned it. That must be right.

(According to Wikipedia)
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman, It`s been that way since the beginning and it should stay that way. [/quote]

Since the beginning of what?
If you`re using the Bible as the basis of that statement, you`re wrong. Polygamy was rife and very widely accepted in the OT (see Gen 4:19, Gen 26:34, Deut 21:15, Judges 8:30, 2 Chronicles 11:21, etc etc etc).

Hell, in Exodus 21:10, God specifically outlines the rules for taking a second wife.



So which beginning were you referring to?
0
Reply
Male 4,680
@Boadicea- Yeah, don`t attack people on IAB, or else you`ll end up like me. You don`t want that happening, do you?

Anyway great to hear this, although it`s rather sad that it had to be overturned in the first place. I am astounded that a good chunk of Californians are against homosexuality (or at least gay marriage). STILL.
0
Reply
Female 1,677
Well almightybob: I suggest you delete minitimm`s comment. If you`re going to wantonly delete insults at bigots, I think a post advocating violence against minorities (simply for being minorities) has no place here either.

Also, I consider my comments "expressing my point of view" about what kind of person CJ is, but whatever. Mod as you please..
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Boadicea: Just because `Gay marriage` has become fashionable in the past 10 years doesn`t make it right. Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman, It`s been that way since the beginning and it should stay that way.

Gays can have civil unions with equal protection under the law, They needn`t hijack the term marriage to gain political points.

Besides, It makes a mockery of the word marriage when Gay male couples are 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than are heterosexuals. Lesbian couples are 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples in the same eight year-year period. Source
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Only have so many spaces AJ.
You`ll be shocked to learn that republicans are ironically working to weaken the 14th amendment. The same amendment they claim to have been the champion of.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
It doesn`t make your other points irrelevant Boadicea, but it IS out of line. There`s debate and expressing points of view, and then there`s just personal attacks. Stick to the former please.
0
Reply
Female 1,677
No it doesn`t.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
I would delete that last comment Bo.

It totally makes what you said previously irrelevant.
0
Reply
Female 1,677
"I guess the majority vote of the people holds no sway any more. This judge is openly gay, It`s no wonder he ruled the way he did."

Yeah, gross! A gay guy standing up for his status as an equal human being, and extending that right to others! EWWW.

Why should the majority get to decide whether two rational, consenting adults are allowed to marry each other? The majority probably would have voted against Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley getting married, yet even though that was a bigger freakshow than any gay wedding could be, they were allowed to do whatever the hell they liked based solely on their sexual orientation, completely unimpeded. What business is it of yours, CrakrJak, what people get married or don`t. Because you think they`re `icky`? You`re probably icky too, and nobody wants to think about you banging whatever poor soul puts up with you-- but it`s none of my business and I have no right to prevent you from marrying who you choose.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@agamemnon:

Actually, since a federal judge made this ruling, it is federal law that California`s same sex law is unconstitutional (which it isn`t). That means no state can present a similar law.

Unless of course, the appeal upholds the law, which it probably will.

Also madest;

You post should read California`s prop 8, Overturned by FEDERAL judge.

It makes a difference.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
14th amendment was put in to give rights to free blacks after the civil war. It gives no rights, or even mentions sexual orientation or the right to marry therein.

Actually, not even straight people have the right to marry. Nowhere in the constitution does it say we have this right. Know why?

It`s the right of the states to set family law. Marriage is a family law, and the state of California VOTED against this. This is a states rights issue. The federal government has no jurisdiction, or precedence to interfere.

I have no problem with homosexual marriage. It does not infringe on the liberties of others, so it`s okay in my book. That being said, I also believe that states rights should be respected under dual sovereignty. In this case, it has not.
0
Reply
Male 487
"Everyone has the right to be miserable "

as a married person i second this...

Honestly America, wtf does it matter?
0
Reply
Male 307
There`s a really great documentary about the Proposition 8 and the groups behind it from Wolfe Video (also available through Netflix). It is called "8: The Mormon Proposition (Equality for Some)." Check it out.

It will be interesting to see the Supreme Court jump into this - will the right-leaning conservative majority go with their supporters, or what is right? I for one think it will be quite a fight...
0
Reply
Male 621
One step in the right direction, but still far behind the progressive world.
0
Reply
Male 9
Cool. I can marry my dog now.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
I guess the majority vote of the people holds no sway any more. This judge is openly gay, It`s no wonder he ruled the way he did.
0
Reply
Male 648
Everyone has the right to be miserable
0
Reply
Male 215
Here is the full text of the ruling. The "conclusions of law" are very strongly worded. If this sticks, it could make same-sex marriage legal nation-wide.
0
Reply
Female 536
excellent!

It was stupidly unconstitutional to adopt the admendment in the first place (from a purely legal standpoint, regardless of where you stand on the issue), and now we`re finally seeing a step in the right direction. Too bad we have not heard the last from the Prop 8 supporters :(
0
Reply
Male 7,378
It`s not just good for the gays it`s good for all Americans it strengthens the constitutions 14th amendment:
[quote]No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[/quote]
0
Reply
Male 441
It really reads like minitimm was enjoying a fantasy as he wrote that. "That`s just naughty.... (backspace backspace backspace) nasty. If you actually desire to have some big beef man`s... (backspace) dude`s sweaty sack all up in your face then you deserve whatever sweet sweet... (backspace) beatings come to you."
0
Reply
Male 1,011
good...now the rest of the country follow suit.


Banning gay couples from marriage is nothing more than bigotry. This is similar BS when blacks couldn`t marry whites and etc

But on the other hand, if a church or official doesn`t want to do the ceremony for whatever grounds..they should have that choice (like they do now with straight couples)..also people have the right to be stupid and bigots, as long as it doesnt infringe on others imho.

They could simply go to the next town or church over and get married there :P not a big deal.

Now the only things I would be opposed to is anything beyond 2 people getting married (no 3-5 people, no inanimate objects, etc)

0
Reply
Male 1,399
Sounds like minitimm`s been through one of the christian camps that "cures" homosexuality.

Is "sweaty sack all up in your face" one of the mantras during quiet meditation time?
0
Reply
Male 1,625
minitimm: We all know you`ve been there and done that. It`s always people like you that are secretly gay.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Good!
0
Reply
Female 4,447
Madest, you win the interwebz in my book!
0
Reply
Male 877
the mormon church fronted by the cathoilc church bought the vote,...this is according to the prop8 documentry on the internet. if the mormon church offer a rebuttle i`ll watch that too...
0
Reply
Male 82
That`s just nasty. If you actually desire to have some dude`s sweaty sack all up in your face then you deserve whatever beatings come to you.
0
Reply
Male 427
Well, if this doesn`t work, I saw we ban all marriages then, that way we can all still be equal.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Nice tie-in with the double rainbow guy.

Can anyone tell me why homosexual marriages are a threat to the "traditional family"? Which, by the way, isn`t particularly traditional anyway.

I don`t see a connection unless you`re arguing that homosexuality is so appealing that most people would be having homosexual marriages if they could.
0
Reply
Male 1,505
It`s a step in the right direction, but don`t start celebrating until the supreme court upholds the decision made today.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@madest

I see what you did there!
0
Reply
Female 1,652
About time. It was unconstitutional like hell. The only thing keeping it going was religious influence. Take a government class, people. Sheesh.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Whatever.
0
Reply
Female 329
yay! there really is no reason to ban gay marriage.
0
Reply
Female 2,120
Yaaaaay! This makes me happy.
0
Reply
Male 1,625
Gotta love the 14th amendment.
0
Reply
Male 491
More power to them. Let then be miserable and unhappy like the rest of us after the honey moon is over.
0
Reply
Female 965
... and all the gays rejoice! YAY!
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Link: California`s Prop 8, Overturned By Judge [Rate Link] - Wow, that`s a full rainbow! It`s a double rainbow all the way! Oh My God! It`s a double rainbow all the way!
0
Reply