Californians cleared to vote on same-sex marriage ban

[Steerpike]

True enough. But we can't, constitutionally, vote to deny someone's civil rights.

You can if what you're voting in is a Constitutional amendment.

 

[jillian]

But that illustrates my point EXACTLY. Prohibition DID happen. It DID become a matter voted on and it WAS passed. Later, it was repealed, which should convey the fluid nature of our Amendment process, but to say that gays ARE included as a discriminated class when they clearly are not won't keep CA from voting with the rest of the states this fall.


And no, It would not violate the Federal Constitution until gays have their version of the 14th Amendment OR are added to the list of protected statuses.


I love how you just have to talk shit at the end too, Jill. Do I strike you as the GOD type? And, since I've posted more evience than you have maybe you'd like to amend your little Play theory.

If you'd stop ranting and raving, you'd see that my opinion (and I only posed it as an opinion) is that the Constitution shouldn't be used to abridge individual rights because that's counter to it's purpose.

Even you should be able to understand that.

As for your professed constitutional analysis... thanks anyway.

 

[Steerpike]

They do have a right to vote to amend their state constitution, but not, I think, on an issue that deals with civil rights.

Sure they can. So long as you keep in mind the Federal Constitution trumps. State can have Constitutions that afford greater protections than the federal Constitution (the federal Constitution defining a minimum in that regard). The States are then free to amend their Constitutions to restrict civil rights so long as they don't go beyond the minimum guarantees of the Federal Constitution. Then, if people want to go further, they'd have to amend the federal Constitution.

 

[Shogun]

I honestly don't think we need a flame zone poll on the subject, I'm pretty sure everyone can see that you have a lot of trouble with the written word.

says the bitch who has yet to post evidence beyond wating for her personal igor and a half assed NY lawyer to pipe in.


Like I said, Rav. I posted my evidence. where is yours?

 

[Shogun]

If you'd stop ranting and raving, you'd see that my opinion (and I only posed it as an opinion) is that the Constitution shouldn't be used to abridge individual rights because that's counter to it's purpose.

Even you should be able to understand that.

As for your professed constitutional analysis... thanks anyway.

Feel free to prove your constitutional analysis otherwise, jill. I've posted my evidence. Where is yours?


What we SHOULD and what CAN be done are two separate things. Until you have more to offer besides a fucked up interpretation of Loving then your support for ravi's ignorance falls on it's face at the Utah state line

 

[jillian]

You don't know what evidence is. It isn't "evidence" if you misrepresent it... you know, like your article that you pretended said that women were using child support to pay the cable bill.

When you misrepresent, what you say is garbage.

And, frankly, your whole out-screaming anyone who disagrees with the person who thinks he has a constitutional right to smoke in a restuarant is getting a little old.

 

[Shogun]

Sure they can. So long as you keep in mind the Federal Constitution trumps. State can have Constitutions that afford greater protections than the federal Constitution (the federal Constitution defining a minimum in that regard). The States are then free to amend their Constitutions to restrict civil rights so long as they don't go beyond the minimum guarantees of the Federal Constitution. Then, if people want to go further, they'd have to amend the federal Constitution.

 

[jillian]

Sure they can. So long as you keep in mind the Federal Constitution trumps. State can have Constitutions that afford greater protections than the federal Constitution (the federal Constitution defining a minimum in that regard). The States are then free to amend their Constitutions to restrict civil rights so long as they don't go beyond the minimum guarantees of the Federal Constitution. Then, if people want to go further, they'd have to amend the federal Constitution.

Hey, Shogie baby, read that ^^^^

now THAT is the standard for your little vote.

See, honey, some people get it right.

 

[Shogun]

You don't know what evidence is. It isn't "evidence" if you misrepresent it... you know, like your article that you pretended said that women were using child support to pay the cable bill.

When you misrepresent, what you say is garbage.

And, frankly, your whole out-screaming anyone who disagrees with the person who thinks he has a constitutional right to smoke in a restuarant is getting a little old.

I posted MY links, jill. Im not misrepresenting shit. Again, until you have anything to offer besides trying to ride my nuts your position falls on it's face at the Utah state line.


Feel free to block me, jill. No one forces you to respond. Hell, no one forces you to provide evidence of your own, apparently, too. Now put up or, again, shut the fuck up.

 

[Shogun]

Hey, Shogie baby, read that ^^^^

now THAT is the standard for your little vote.

See, honey, some people get it right.

He's stated exactly what i've posted all along, jill. Without a Federal amendment otherwise states ARE FREE to vote to restrict gay marriage. Im really starting to question your credentials.


Do you know that "sure they can" means in light of Ravi's opinion or should I make a farce of your legal background some more?

 

[jillian]

He's stated exactly what i've posted all along, jill. Without a Federal amendment otherwise states ARE FREE to vote to restrict gay marriage. Im really starting to question your credentials.


Do you know that "sure they can" means in light of Ravi's opinion or should I make a farce of your legal background some more?

No he hasn't. You make the assumption that there has to be some specific constitional provision applying to gays.

There isn't... the constitution very intentionally DOESN'T define every right... that's why we need SMART justices who understand that they actually have to think to decide these cases.

Keep on trying....

 

[Ravi]

Sure they can. So long as you keep in mind the Federal Constitution trumps. State can have Constitutions that afford greater protections than the federal Constitution (the federal Constitution defining a minimum in that regard). The States are then free to amend their Constitutions to restrict civil rights so long as they don't go beyond the minimum guarantees of the Federal Constitution. Then, if people want to go further, they'd have to amend the federal Constitution.

Okay, physically they can. But it will be struck down because it is unconstitutional at the federal level. Therefore, the vote isn't valid.

 

[Wow]

Actually we could if we passed an amendment to that effect, Not that I in anyway want that.

Our constitution once made Slavery perfectly legal and even declared Slaves to equal 3/5th of a person. Sad but true.

Just saying.

Good point!
Ravi doesn't care about your point, she just wants to ignore the Constitution when it suits her needs.

 

[jillian]

Okay, physically they can. But it will be struck down because it is unconstitutional at the federal level. Therefore, the vote isn't valid.

Whether it's is found unconstitutional at the federal level depends on what judges the next president appoints... and that's the honest truth. It might be under the current configuration or if it stays a split court (which it should) but not a chance if the loonies that Parsley and Hagee would want get put on the bench.

 

[manifold]

The gay marriage debate really cracks me up. I'm just as much of a homophobe as the next guy, but I rightly see that as my problem not theirs. At the end of the day I have a very simple litmus test vis-a-vis individual rights and it is this: I oppose any and all measures to limit the rights of others without a DAMN GOOD reason. And for the life of me I cannot fathom one single good reason to forbid same-sex couples from marrying each other if that is their wish.

 

[Ninja]

So Jillian thinks that the Heller decision was a farce, and that the Founding Fathers didn't want the 2A to apply to the states, only to Washington D.C, even though D.C. didn't exist when the Constitution was ratified...

Yet they wanted homosexual couples to bareback one another on their honeymoons in San Fran.

Um, yeah.

Just to reiterate - I've no ill will towards gays whatsoever, and couldn't give a flying fuck if they get married. But I'll be damned if that's one of the rights enumerated in Constitution.

And before you guys pull the tired "pursuit of happiness" schtick - spare me, if you've ever tried to argue that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" provides the Constitutional basis for the National Guard (which like D.C. did not exist in 1788), you've no place to go around creating new supposed "rights" that aren't specifically listed in the BoR.

And yes, I had 5 bloody marys at breakfast assholes, it's summer bitches!

 

[Shogun]

No he hasn't. You make the assumption that there has to be some specific constitional provision applying to gays.

There isn't... the constitution very intentionally DOESN'T define every right... that's why we need SMART justices who understand that they actually have to think to decide these cases.

Keep on trying....

The ninth Amendment didn't invalidate slavery or the 3/5ths standard, jill. Your silly ass appeal to "smart" justices proves that you've had your ass handed to you by a guy who didn't take the bar. I don't need to try any harder, jill. Your lack of evidence and laughable response of Scotus court packing makes that crystal clear.


FACT: It took the 14th to grant equality to protected statuses despite the 9th.

FACT: Loving was based DIRECTLY from the 14th and the application of equality over RACIAL statuses.

FACT: STATES have voted to limit marriage since 04 with no FEDERAL interference because, smart people know, sexual orientation is NOT a protected status.

FACT: Smarmy fucking posts lacking in the slightest effort of evidence and crying about SCOTUS judges won't change that OR the coming result in California.

 

[Ravi]

Whether it's is found unconstitutional at the federal level depends on what judges the next president appoints... and that's the honest truth. It might be under the current configuration or if it stays a split court (which it should) but not a chance if the loonies that Parsley and Hagee would want get put on the bench.

I'm sure you are correct. The sad thing is, the constitution was never meant to be used to restrict our civil rights, only to protect them.

 

[Steerpike]

Okay, physically they can. But it will be struck down because it is unconstitutional at the federal level. Therefore, the vote isn't valid.

Well...IF it is unconstitutional at the federal level. It's not clear that a ban on gay marriage would be. Homosexuality is not a suspect classification at this point (race and religion are, for example).

Also, it wouldn't actually be struck down, I don't think. It would be in place but would be unenforceable if in violation of the federal Constitution.

 

[Shogun]

Okay, physically they can. But it will be struck down because it is unconstitutional at the federal level. Therefore, the vote isn't valid.

You are wrong. COUNT the states that already HAVE gay marriage bans. Maybe you'd like to provide evidence of some big Federal court standoff?