Homosexual marriage very unethical.

[Ravi]

The judiciary usurping the power of the legislature and the will of the people is gettign something right?

Fascist. You don't care about the Democratic process. Only that you get the results you desire. By whatever means.

Oh, right, how could I forget.

The courts are supposed to rule against something that is unconstitutional. There is no tyranny of the majority.

 

[Ravi]

btw, don't you have to move this into the flame zone now for calling me a fascist?

 

[ReillyT]

Since when were Republicans on the right anymore? Especially California Republicans? The decison is decidedly a liberal one. The issue was forced by liberals.

Sounds like compliments of the left to me.

Fair enough. However, I have been hearing this a lot lately. Every time a Republican does something that other Republicans don't agree with, fucks up, or gets immersed in a scandal, they are not really Republicans or on the right. They turn out to actually be liberals (or at least not conservatives). It makes me wonder how all these guys got appointed and elected in the first place. Certainly doesn't sound like the Big Tent party anymore.

Actually, are there any Republican politicians anymore? Who hasn't been disavowed?

 

[Gunny]

Oh, right, how could I forget.

The courts are supposed to rule against something that is unconstitutional. There is no tyranny of the majority.

But tyranny of the minority; which, this clearly is, is okay, right?

 

[Gunny]

btw, don't you have to move this into the flame zone now for calling me a fascist?

The moderation of this board is none of your business, nor is it yours to question in a public forum.

 

[Ravi]

But tyranny of the minority; which, this clearly is, is okay, right?

I don't see it that way. I see it as allowing a vote on civil rights. That, in my opinion, is unconstitutional.

 

[ReillyT]

But tyranny of the minority; which, this clearly is, is okay, right?

The courts have always acted as a check against the majority. That is part of the rationale for this branch of government. I don't see any reason to throw a fit now just because they are (once again) performing their historical role. Perhaps you just don't like the decision?

 

[Ravi]

The moderation of this board is none of your business, nor is it yours to question in a public forum.

That's true. I do object to being called a fascist, however, and hardly think it's a fair thing to call me.

 

[Gunny]

Fair enough. However, I have been hearing this a lot lately. Every time a Republican does something that other Republicans don't agree with, fucks up, or gets immersed in a scandal, they are not really Republicans or on the right. They turn out to actually be liberals (or at least not conservatives). It makes me wonder how all these guys got appointed and elected in the first place. Certainly doesn't sound like the Big Tent party anymore.

Actually, are there any Republican politicians anymore? Who hasn't been disavowed?

I am not a Republican, nor have I ever been one. I WAS a Democrat at one time though. That was back when Democrats were more conservative than today's Republicans are.

The agenda is liberal. I said compliments of the left. I didn't identify anyone specifically by party because it really doesn't matter which of the two useless, bureaucratic conglomerates that have complete control of our government that they came from or belong to.

The fact is, the law was written based on the will of the people. The court ruled it unconstitutional. How can a law defining marriage be unConstitutional when marriage is not a Constitutional right?

 

[Gunny]

I don't see it that way. I see it as allowing a vote on civil rights. That, in my opinion, is unconstitutional.

Of course you don't see it that way. I think we've already established how you see things. You see what you want, not what's there.

 

[ReillyT]

I am not a Republican, nor have I ever been one. I WAS a Democrat at one time though. That was back when Democrats were more conservative than today's Republicans are.

The agenda is liberal. I said compliments of the left. I didn't identify anyone specifically by party because it really doesn't matter which of the two useless, bureaucratic conglomerates that have complete control of our government that they came from or belong to.

The fact is, the law was written based on the will of the people. The court ruled it unconstitutional. How can a law defining marriage be unConstitutional when marriage is not a Constitutional right?

Because Equal Protection is a constitutional right (under both the US and California constitutions). The right to obtain a driver's license isn't anywhere in the Constitution either, but one can't be denied a license due to their race because of the EP clause. It means exactly what it sounds like.

 

[Gunny]

That's true. I do object to being called a fascist, however, and hardly think it's a fair thing to call me.

It is an apt descriptor. You don't care about democracy, the will of the majority, nor anything else except enforcing what YOU think is right by whatever means it takes on however many people it takes.

 

[ReillyT]

It is an apt descriptor. You don't care about democracy, the will of the majority, nor anything else except enforcing what YOU think is right by whatever means it takes on however many people it takes.

Don't worry Ravi. I am sure the phrase was commonly thrown around after Brown v. Board of Education as well.

 

[Ravi]

Of course you don't see it that way. I think we've already established how you see things. You see what you want, not what's there.

Jesus fucking Christ. Just because I have a different view point than you do doesn't mean I'm wrong or you're wrong. It just means we have different viewpoints.

You may not have noticed but in the history of our nation it has never been deemed constitutional to vote on civil rights.

 

[Gunny]

Because Equal Protection is a constitutional right (under both the US and California constitutions). The right to obtain a driver's license isn't anywhere in the Constitution either, but one can't be denied a license due to their race because of the EP clause. It means exactly what it sounds like.

Homosexuals already HAVE equal protection under the law, in EVERY way. This is in fact, a separate law that caters specifically to them and is exclusionary to all others. Seems to me you've gotten what is constitutional and not ass-backward.

 

[Ravi]

Don't worry Ravi. I am sure the phrase was commonly thrown around after Brown v. Board of Education as well.

I like you Reilly.

 

[ReillyT]

Homosexuals already HAVE equal protection under the law, in EVERY way. This is in fact, a separate law that caters specifically to them and is exclusionary to all others. Seems to me you've gotten what is constitutional and not ass-backward.

People used the same argument to defend bans on interracial marriage. "Nobody has the right to marry someone of the other race, so everyone has the same rights." The courts saw that this was bullshit then, and courts will see that it remains bullshit now.

 

[ReillyT]

I like you Reilly.

I like you too Ravi.

 

[Gunny]

People used the same argument to defend bans on interracial marriage. "Nobody has the right to marry someone of the other race, so everyone has the same rights." The courts saw that this was bullshit then, and courts will see that it remains bullshit now.

BS. People keep trying to compare interracial marriage with gay marriage and there is no comparison. Interracial marriages are STILL between a man and a woman, and race is hereditary, not manifest solely by behavior.

What is bullshit is you attempting to compare apples to oranges.

 

[ReillyT]

BS. People keep trying to compare interracial marriage with gay marriage and there is no comparison. Interracial marriages are STILL between a man and a woman, and race is hereditary, not manifest solely by behavior.

What is bullshit is you attempting to compare apples to oranges.

No one is denying that interracial marriage as allowed in the 60s was between a man and a woman. That is why this is an analogy.

Analogy: noun. a comparison between one thing and another made to explain or clarify.
AskOxford: analogy

An analogy doesn't depend on the actual similarity between components of distinct circumstances, but on the relation of these components to one another. Just like the ban on interracial marriages did not provide equal rights to mixed race couples, the ban on gay marriage doesn't provide equal rights to gay couples. If the mixed race question were the same as the gay question, it would cease to be an analogy, it would be identical.