Cal Supreme Court Say YAY to Gay Marriage

[groundpounder]

Give repsect from the outset until someone loses it. THEN they have to earn it back IF they lose it. That's being civil.

Nothing wrong with being civil...

 

[Bandit]

so how bout those dodgers?!?!?!?!

 

[FreeWorkVest]

When it comes to deciding if I should treat someone with respect orr not, I always turn to the judgement of certain of the foods that talk to me.

Egplants are the wisest of the vegetables, with radishes a close second.

Oddly enough Bananas and Apricots are pretty much the wisest of all the fruits. Bananas also liked to help me with my math homework - they LOVE word problems

 

[Bandit]

When it comes to deciding if I should treat someone with respect orr not, I always turn to the judgement of certain of the foods that talk to me.

Egplants are the wisest of the vegetables, with radishes a close second.

Oddly enough Bananas and Apricots are pretty much the wisest of all the fruits. Bananas also liked to help me with my math homework - they LOVE word problems

puff puff PASS mother fucker!!! puff puff PASS!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[All Else Failed]

hey guys, we should leave it up to the states to decide if blacks should vote or not.


^^^ See how dumb that sounds? The same goes for letting states decide to let gays marry or not.

 

[gillibean]

No--you've made a common fallacious argument--an illogical analogy. It comes from your ignorance of the Constitutution (not an insult but a statement of fact). Race has been determined to be one of the categories protected from discrimination by the Federal Constiutution (race, sex, national origin) and as such, the State would need a compelling interest to restrict liberties based on that classification. Sexual orientation IS NOT protected by the Constiution and THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT that many people are missing, including yourself.

And you are ignoring my arguments. If the state cannot define marriage, then how can it stop a father and daughter from getting married or a brother and sister? You are not following the reasong to its logical conclusion. That is once you protect sexual preferences (a very amorphous category) uner the Constitution then you create a Constitutional dilemma--again--what about my example of a Minister that refuses to marry a gay couple? How do you square the with the Constitution.

Until you understand how the Constitution works you can't possibly make an intelligent legal analysis. You can make a statement (i.e., gays should have a right (Constiutional) to marry) based on your moral view, but until you understand the legal underpinnings of such a statement you can't understand the problems with your statement.

Marriage is easily defined as a union between 2 consenting adults. Not hard at all.

 

[Maulds]

No--you've made a common fallacious argument--an illogical analogy. It comes from your ignorance of the Constitutution (not an insult but a statement of fact). Race has been determined to be one of the categories protected from discrimination by the Federal Constiutution (race, sex, national origin) and as such, the State would need a compelling interest to restrict liberties based on that classification. Sexual orientation IS NOT protected by the Constiution and THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT that many people are missing, including yourself.

This is where the "Its a living document, changed at will" argument comes into play".

 

[gillibean]

So then a father and his adult dauther have a right to be married? And two brothers or a brother and sister? Or do we now have to add "unlrelated by blood" consenting adults? And how would we define "unrealated by blood?" Does that mean a father and his adopted or stepdaughter can be married?

And the whole point of the decision is the court in California said a state CAN'T define marriage as a man and a woman, so why should it be permitted to define it as two consenting adults? Why can't it be 3 adults?

You see you are not going through the legal analysis--the problems that the decision causes from a Constitutional stanpoint.

Actually it can and should be multiple adults if they so choose. I haven't figured out how to word that one so i left it off. How does the law currently deal with a father and his adult daughter wanting to marry?

 

[Natasha]

I'm glad California has decided to make this change. I'd like to see Georgia follow one day, but since we're in the Bible belt, I don't see it happening.

 

[All Else Failed]

No--you've made a common fallacious argument--an illogical analogy. It comes from your ignorance of the Constitutution (not an insult but a statement of fact). Race has been determined to be one of the categories protected from discrimination by the Federal Constiutution (race, sex, national origin) and as such, the State would need a compelling interest to restrict liberties based on that classification. Sexual orientation IS NOT protected by the Constiution and THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT that many people are missing, including yourself.

And you are ignoring my arguments. If the state cannot define marriage, then how can it stop a father and daughter from getting married or a brother and sister? You are not following the reasong to its logical conclusion. That is once you protect sexual preferences (a very amorphous category) uner the Constitution then you create a Constitutional dilemma--again--what about my example of a Minister that refuses to marry a gay couple? How do you square the with the Constitution.

Until you understand how the Constitution works you can't possibly make an intelligent legal analysis. You can make a statement (i.e., gays should have a right (Constiutional) to marry) based on your moral view, but until you understand the legal underpinnings of such a statement you can't understand the problems with your statement.

Tell that to all the slaves that were still slaves after the constitution was passed?

You're calling my ignorance out on the constitution? Ever hear of amendments? The constitution is a living document that can be amended for the times. It doesn't matter what kind of discrimination it is (racism or sexism etc etc) all of it should be illegal under the constitution.

That's a liberal argument--its not supposed to be changed "at will' -- there is a procedure for chaning the Constitution. But this is how liberals get accomplished what they can't at the ballot box. This is a perfect example--70 percent of the state's population (or thereabouts) want marriage defined as between a man and a woman, and they vote that way and yet 4 liberal judges impose their morality on 20 million plus people. It's exactly what they aren't suppossed to do. But as I said, this will never fly when it gets to the Supreme Court because they don't have enough liberals on the court to pull the judge-made law trick.

lolololololol ok Bill O'reilly. Anything to keep dem' fags off of each other, huh?


Yes, there is a procedure for making amendments, but that doesn't mean its not a living document. Stop pining over "tHiS iz wUt librUls dew!". Its bullshit. Most of America is middle or middle left.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Regardless of what the decision was, the concern I have is that the courts are running the country anymore, not the decisions of the people.

Basically the Supreme Courts throughout the country have all the power, that is what scares me.

Personally I could care less if you marry a goat. I think they should let gays marry so they can be miserable like everyone else, and as an added bonus, it will ruin their sex life too:24:


On a serious note though the Supreme Court overstepping boundaries that does belong to them is an issue.

 

[All Else Failed]

civil rights shouldn't be decided on a public referendum.

 

[FreeWorkVest]

Regardless of what the decision was, the concern I have is that the courts are running the country anymore, not the decisions of the people.

Basically the Supreme Courts throughout the country have all the power, that is what scares me.

Personally I could care less if you marry a goat. I think they should let gays marry so they can be miserable like everyone else, and as an added bonus, it will ruin their sex life too:24:


On a serious note though the Supreme Court overstepping boundaries that does belong to them is an issue.

The Supreme Courts judge constitutional or not. They do not pass laws, nor enforce them, only reject them.

The Supreme Courts overturn laws because they were poorly written. It is impossible to legislate from the bench.

The Supreme Courts make decisions based on precedent, scholarly writing, and decisions rendered on similar issues in other places. They make the best informed ones they can. Except for Clarence Thomas, he does as he is told.

 

[Tim]

That's a liberal argument--its not supposed to be changed "at will' -- there is a procedure for chaning the Constitution. But this is how liberals get accomplished what they can't at the ballot box. This is a perfect example--70 percent of the state's population (or thereabouts) want marriage defined as between a man and a woman, and they vote that way and yet 4 liberal judges impose their morality on 20 million plus people. It's exactly what they aren't suppossed to do. But as I said, this will never fly when it gets to the Supreme Court because they don't have enough liberals on the court to pull the judge-made law trick.

SACRAMENTO - For the first time ever, a statewide survey reports a majority of California voters favor gay marriage - a finding that pollsters describe as a milestone driven by younger people.
The Field Poll result, released today, shows the highest level of support in more than three decades of polling Californians on the hot-button issue of same-sex marriage laws. The poll found 51 percent of registered voters favor the idea of allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed, while 42 percent disapprove.

source...

 

[Tim]

I guess the supreme court wasn't stepping on the will of the people after all. :dunno

 

[Obdurate]

Well they're still fags!

 

[GuesSAngel]

Well they're still fags!

that's really nice. you must be popular with the ladies.:smiley24:

 

[Tim]

Well they're still fags!

Some people are born to love the same sex, some are not. But true ignorance is a learned behavior.

 

[GraceAbounds]

I believe he was being facetious; not serious. At least that is what I gather from my exchanges with him.

 

[Natasha]

Well they're still fags!

Such a shame. Haven't had the chance to get to know you yet...now my opinion of you is soured.

I don't know if that was a joke or not...but either way, I don't find it funny.