Ca Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[ConHog]

They are inferior, but who cares? Let them marry.

Or better yet, Hey government you have no right to regulate marriage in the first place, get out of the business. Meaning I can go ahead and marry my wife's sister also, I've had my eye on her for quite some time anyway.

Are you saying gay people are inferior?

That's what he said.

I have to tell you. That offends me. In all the discussions you and I have been involved in and all the issues we've disagreed with, I have NEVER not once brought up your sexual orientation or inferred that you are inferior because of such.

Truly disgusting what a bigot YOU are.

 

[bodecea]

As the judicial oligarchs ignore the state's and people's right to make the laws under which they'll live.

So you are alright with one group of people limiting the rights of another group of people?

Um no were for a States right to Define what marriage is. The gays can have civil unions, why must they insist on it being called marriage?

I have no problem with ALL civil marriages being called civil unions...that, however, would require all legal documentation, laws, acts, etc. to have their wording changed from "marriage" to "civil unions".

Some law students tried to get a Proposition on the CA ballot to make that happen....didn't get very far. (even tho I signed it)

 

[Oddball]

But I'm sure judges were angels when the Chicago and DC gun bans were overturned, right?

Which Constitutional provision or amendment deems a state-issued license for anything as a right?

 

[bodecea]

Are you saying gay people are inferior?

That's what he said.

I have to tell you. That offends me. In all the discussions you and I have been involved in and all the issues we've disagreed with, I have NEVER not once brought up your sexual orientation or inferred that you are inferior because of such.

Truly disgusting what a bigot YOU are.

That's what you said.....kindly don't blame me for the words YOU type.

 

[ConHog]

As the judicial oligarchs ignore the state's and people's right to make the laws under which they'll live.

So you are alright with one group of people limiting the rights of another group of people?

Um no were for a States right to Define what marriage is. The gays can have civil unions, why must they insist on it being called marriage?

Honestly, why do you care? I just don't get it. I prefer the states just stop sanctifying marriage period.

 

[Luissa]

OH shut up. I have consistently said from long before I came to this board that I am pro gay marriage even though I personally find homosexuality sick. Go ahead and search my posts.

Touchy much? And I never said you were against it, I just wanted to know your logic. Plus you didn't say gay marriage is inferior, you implied gay people are inferior.

No, you chose to read it that way. A normal person on the other hand understood that the topic at hand was gay marriage and so that when I said THEY are inferior, I meant gay marriages, not gay people.

They are inferior, but who cares? Let them marry.

Actually it was pretty clear you were saying they "gay people" are inferior. Why else would you follow it with a " but who cares? Let "them" marry". But thanks for playing.

 

[ConHog]

Touchy much? And I never said you were against it, I just wanted to know your logic. Plus you didn't say gay marriage is inferior, you implied gay people are inferior.

No, you chose to read it that way. A normal person on the other hand understood that the topic at hand was gay marriage and so that when I said THEY are inferior, I meant gay marriages, not gay people.

They are inferior, but who cares? Let them marry.

Actually it was pretty clear you were saying they "gay people" are inferior. Why else would you follow it with a " but who cares? Let "them" marry". But thanks for playing.

You're being extra stupid tonight.

Show any instance of me EVER treating a gay person as being inferior. Go ahead Luissa, you were in another thread demanding that people who claim Obama is a Kenyan prove it, so I am here DEMANDING that you prove that I think gays are inferior or shut up.

 

[Luissa]

As the judicial oligarchs ignore the state's and people's right to make the laws under which they'll live.

Sorry, friend, but in personal freedom matters such as these, the people should have no say.

The terms "license" and "freedom" are mutually exclusive.

A license is the property of the person or state granting the privilege.

Are you saying marriage is a privilege?
Because in Loving the Supreme Court established that marriage is a right.

 

[Woyzeck]

So just think of all the horrible things to result from gay marriage.

...well I got nothing.

 

[Oddball]

Sorry, friend, but in personal freedom matters such as these, the people should have no say.

The terms "license" and "freedom" are mutually exclusive.

A license is the property of the person or state granting the privilege.

Are you saying marriage is a privilege?
Because in Loving the Supreme Court established that marriage is a right.

I'm saying the state-issued license is, by definition, a privilege...You can look it up. There's nothing in the world stopping any couple from drawing up their own private marriage arrangements, and having them enforced under common and contract law.

BTW, if states wish to pass laws authorizing statutory gay marriage, I couldn't care less.

 

[mal]

But I'm sure judges were angels when the Chicago and DC gun bans were overturned, right?

Um... That was the Supreme Court, Junior...

And once this gets to the 9th and it Upheld, the MOST Overturned Court in the Land will have it's Ruling seen before the Supreme Court.

As it should be.



peace...

 

[Steerpike]

I'm saying the state-issued license is, by definition, a privilege...You can look it up. There's nothing in the world stopping any couple from drawing up their own private marriage arrangements, and having them enforced under common and contract law.

That's not true. In Loving, the State refused to issue a license to a mixed-race couple. The Court struck down their miscegenation law. The State HAD to issue the license if the two were otherwise qualified to be married, because marriage is a fundamental Constitutional right. If your position were correct, the State could deny a license on the basis of race or religion as well, which they cannot.

 

[LuckyDan]

SCOTUS should have an easy time knocking this little gem down:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license..." - Walker

Prop 8 does nothing of the kind. Gays are not even mentioned in Prop 8.

Relax. This won't stand.

 

[ConHog]

Sorry, friend, but in personal freedom matters such as these, the people should have no say.

The terms "license" and "freedom" are mutually exclusive.

A license is the property of the person or state granting the privilege.

Are you saying marriage is a privilege?
Because in Loving the Supreme Court established that marriage is a right.

Guess you don't understand the difference between a marriage and a state sanctioned marriage. You have an inherent right to hunt, but if a state issues a hunting license, getting one is a privilege. A modest difference to be sure, but a difference nonetheless.

 

[Steerpike]

SCOTUS should have an easy time knocking this little gem down:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license..." - Walker

Prop 8 does nothing of the kind. Gays are not even mentioned in Prop 8.

Relax. This won't stand.

Well, if it doesn't mention it then it definitely fails to advance a rational basis...

 

[bodecea]

But I'm sure judges were angels when the Chicago and DC gun bans were overturned, right?

Which Constitutional provision or amendment deems a state-issued license for anything as a right?

Equal protection, Dude....it's not the license per se...it's that the government provides the license with all the rights, protections, and privileges to one group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens...and denies that same license to another group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens...without a valid (for the welfare of the people) reason.

 

[mal]

If this goes to the SCOTUS then marriage equality may become the law of the land.

Marriage Equality is the Law of the Land... Loving Decided that and NO Consenting Aged Person is Denied Marriage.

Those who Choose to Defy their Natural Design and Equipment don't have a Natural Right to Force their Defiance on the VAST Majority who do NOT Deviate in the form of Dishonestly Redefining Marriage in Law.

You don't want this SCOTUS to hear this Case, I Assure you.



peace...

 

[Liability]

The terms "license" and "freedom" are mutually exclusive.

A license is the property of the person or state granting the privilege.

Are you saying marriage is a privilege?
Because in Loving the Supreme Court established that marriage is a right.

I'm saying the state-issued license is, by definition, a privilege...You can look it up. There's nothing in the world stopping any couple from drawing up their own private marriage arrangements, and having them enforced under common and contract law.

BTW, if states wish to pass laws authorizing statutory gay marriage, I couldn't care less.

I fully endorse that last thought.

As to the prior paragraph, I think there's a problem with having the STATE involved in the whole thing. It may be time to re-think it.

 

[Father Time]

There we go, bias due to personal gain. Invalidates your whole stance as an honest broker. I have nothing to gain other than my right as an individual to have my vote count and not be reversed by some dickfur in a black robe.

Ad hominem.

Oh grow up. If you can't play hard ball, find another forum. Try Hannity. They treat libs with kid gloves there because they can't hack being forced to stand equally.

Saying "your personal stake invalidates your opinion" is very much ad hominem.

 

[bodecea]

SCOTUS should have an easy time knocking this little gem down:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license..." - Walker

Prop 8 does nothing of the kind. Gays are not even mentioned in Prop 8.

Relax. This won't stand.

You are right...it's gender discrimination...yet it is still unconstitutional discrimination.