Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Gunny, Jul 16, 2008.
more ... Californians cleared to vote on same-sex marriage ban - CNN.com
Gonna be hilarious if the people vote to ban it.
They voted to ban it the first time. The court ruled it unconstitutional. If they vote to ban it, IMO, the people already issued licenses will just use the same route through the judiciary to circumvent it again.
I am not so concerned with the specific issue being challenged as I am the bigger issue (IMO) being illustrated here: We, the people have no real voice in government. Doesn't matter what the majority wants so long as a court can be found to rule in favor of the minority.
Why? Do unequal rights turn you on?
"If you think the United States could never elect an Adolf Hitler to power, note that David Duke would have become governor of Louisiana if it had just been up to the white voters in that state." Robert Altemeyer
It's not about equal rights, it's about $$$$$$$$$$$.
Do you have a problem with "The people" making the decision for themselves?
These pro-Gay marriage groups are not spending enough money to get support.
They are failing.
Why isn't California voting on building more nuclear plants and wind farms?
Gay marriage is silly compared to the real issues that affect everyone!
Yeah.. there was a time when the people didnt much care for the mingling of races.. how is this different?
Huh.. what.. this has to do with conservative ignorance, biggotry, and overarching and undue influence of the church... arent we fighting this mentality in Afghanistan?
Ayep... thats why this whole argument is as you say.. silly....
just a little law lesson.
the initial prop in cali was to amend statute.
the court then ruled the statute was illegal based on the cali constitution. this is what the court is supposed to do. remember? examine laws to determine if they fit within the constitution. it's called "balance of powers"
this new prop is to amend the constitution.
come on folks, it's american civics.
I think it offends him that at least part of what's being sought is equal rights to each others' property. But marriage is about status and property, so it really shouldn't. It's pretty much a bogus argument.
They do not have the "right" to redefine the 'institution' or actual definition of what a marriage is and always has been...
IMHO, if they want equal rights that are afforded to married couples, while calling it a civil union or whatever (insurance coverage, inheritance, tax returns, etc) ... all well and fine... but it is not a marriage
I personally think of marriage as a business contract between two people, and don't believe that it's just for government to dictate who can and can't go into business with one another. That said, the ballot initiative will pass handily. Then back to the courts...
Separate names with a comma.