How Is It Legal????

[Malakai]

I'm still puzzled as to how, once it's signed into law by a Governor, that the people can then LEGALLY have someone's rights put to a vote. I mean, this concept tramples all over the Constitution.

Let's face it, most every person who would vote against same-sex marriage would do so based on their own personal religion. So, right there, it violates the 1st Amendment by allowing laws to be passed based on the establishment or religion

The 5th Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking away your life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the 14th prohibits the states from doing it. However, here they are, trying to take away the rights of gay couples without giving them their day in court to defend themselves in an attempt to preserve their rights.

So, can anyone explain how they get away with this?

 

[del]

magic

 

[DaGoose]

I'm still puzzled as to how, once it's signed into law by a Governor, that the people can then LEGALLY have someone's rights put to a vote. I mean, this concept tramples all over the Constitution.

Let's face it, most every person who would vote against same-sex marriage would do so based on their own personal religion. So, right there, it violates the 1st Amendment by allowing laws to be passed based on the establishment or religion

The 5th Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking away your life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the 14th prohibits the states from doing it. However, here they are, trying to take away the rights of gay couples without giving them their day in court to defend themselves in an attempt to preserve their rights.

So, can anyone explain how they get away with this?

Narrow mindedness of the masses. (PS...welcome to the board!!)

 

[Avatar4321]

Youre presuming a right exists to begin with.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Youre presuming a right exists to begin with.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - some American long ago

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm still puzzled as to how, once it's signed into law by a Governor, that the people can then LEGALLY have someone's rights put to a vote. I mean, this concept tramples all over the Constitution.

Let's face it, most every person who would vote against same-sex marriage would do so based on their own personal religion. So, right there, it violates the 1st Amendment by allowing laws to be passed based on the establishment or religion

The 5th Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking away your life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the 14th prohibits the states from doing it. However, here they are, trying to take away the rights of gay couples without giving them their day in court to defend themselves in an attempt to preserve their rights.

So, can anyone explain how they get away with this?

There is no right to same sex marriage. If there are any rights involved they would fall under the 10thA of "rights not explicitly delegated belong to the states or the people." The people vote. And that is policy.
I realize that "will of the people" is threatening to liberals, who know better for us. But that is the basis for this government.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm still puzzled as to how, once it's signed into law by a Governor, that the people can then LEGALLY have someone's rights put to a vote. I mean, this concept tramples all over the Constitution.

Let's face it, most every person who would vote against same-sex marriage would do so based on their own personal religion. So, right there, it violates the 1st Amendment by allowing laws to be passed based on the establishment or religion

The 5th Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking away your life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the 14th prohibits the states from doing it. However, here they are, trying to take away the rights of gay couples without giving them their day in court to defend themselves in an attempt to preserve their rights.

So, can anyone explain how they get away with this?

There is no right to same sex marriage. If there are any rights involved they would fall under the 10thA of "rights not explicitly delegated belong to the states or the people." The people vote. And that is policy.
I realize that "will of the people" is threatening to liberals, who know better for us. But that is the basis for this government.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people...certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I'm still puzzled as to how, once it's signed into law by a Governor, that the people can then LEGALLY have someone's rights put to a vote. I mean, this concept tramples all over the Constitution.

Let's face it, most every person who would vote against same-sex marriage would do so based on their own personal religion. So, right there, it violates the 1st Amendment by allowing laws to be passed based on the establishment or religion

The 5th Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking away your life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the 14th prohibits the states from doing it. However, here they are, trying to take away the rights of gay couples without giving them their day in court to defend themselves in an attempt to preserve their rights.

So, can anyone explain how they get away with this?

There is no right to same sex marriage. If there are any rights involved they would fall under the 10thA of "rights not explicitly delegated belong to the states or the people." The people vote. And that is policy.
I realize that "will of the people" is threatening to liberals, who know better for us. But that is the basis for this government.

How did that work out for Black (or African-Americans) again?

 

[DaGoose]

I'm still puzzled as to how, once it's signed into law by a Governor, that the people can then LEGALLY have someone's rights put to a vote. I mean, this concept tramples all over the Constitution.

Let's face it, most every person who would vote against same-sex marriage would do so based on their own personal religion. So, right there, it violates the 1st Amendment by allowing laws to be passed based on the establishment or religion

The 5th Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking away your life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the 14th prohibits the states from doing it. However, here they are, trying to take away the rights of gay couples without giving them their day in court to defend themselves in an attempt to preserve their rights.

So, can anyone explain how they get away with this?

There is no right to same sex marriage. If there are any rights involved they would fall under the 10thA of "rights not explicitly delegated belong to the states or the people." The people vote. And that is policy.
I realize that "will of the people" is threatening to liberals, who know better for us. But that is the basis for this government.

How did that work out for Black (or African-Americans) again?

Agreed. If it was a pure democracy and everything was voted on blacks would probably still be disenfranchised and segregated in the army.

But over time ignorance and hate (which is all this is) is usually overcome and it is found out that the "liberal" ideas were right to begin with.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm still puzzled as to how, once it's signed into law by a Governor, that the people can then LEGALLY have someone's rights put to a vote. I mean, this concept tramples all over the Constitution.

Let's face it, most every person who would vote against same-sex marriage would do so based on their own personal religion. So, right there, it violates the 1st Amendment by allowing laws to be passed based on the establishment or religion

The 5th Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking away your life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the 14th prohibits the states from doing it. However, here they are, trying to take away the rights of gay couples without giving them their day in court to defend themselves in an attempt to preserve their rights.

So, can anyone explain how they get away with this?

There is no right to same sex marriage. If there are any rights involved they would fall under the 10thA of "rights not explicitly delegated belong to the states or the people." The people vote. And that is policy.
I realize that "will of the people" is threatening to liberals, who know better for us. But that is the basis for this government.

How did that work out for Black (or African-Americans) again?

blahblahblah.
Is this all the fag-fans have? Who is the most vociferous opponents of gay marriage in CA? Yeah, black churches.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm still puzzled as to how, once it's signed into law by a Governor, that the people can then LEGALLY have someone's rights put to a vote. I mean, this concept tramples all over the Constitution.

Let's face it, most every person who would vote against same-sex marriage would do so based on their own personal religion. So, right there, it violates the 1st Amendment by allowing laws to be passed based on the establishment or religion

The 5th Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking away your life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the 14th prohibits the states from doing it. However, here they are, trying to take away the rights of gay couples without giving them their day in court to defend themselves in an attempt to preserve their rights.

So, can anyone explain how they get away with this?

There is no right to same sex marriage. If there are any rights involved they would fall under the 10thA of "rights not explicitly delegated belong to the states or the people." The people vote. And that is policy.
I realize that "will of the people" is threatening to liberals, who know better for us. But that is the basis for this government.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people...certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That isn't in the Constitution, turd.
Does that mean I can rob you because it would make me happy?

 

[konradv]

I'm still puzzled as to how, once it's signed into law by a Governor, that the people can then LEGALLY have someone's rights put to a vote. I mean, this concept tramples all over the Constitution.

Let's face it, most every person who would vote against same-sex marriage would do so based on their own personal religion. So, right there, it violates the 1st Amendment by allowing laws to be passed based on the establishment or religion

The 5th Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking away your life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the 14th prohibits the states from doing it. However, here they are, trying to take away the rights of gay couples without giving them their day in court to defend themselves in an attempt to preserve their rights.

So, can anyone explain how they get away with this?

There is no right to same sex marriage. If there are any rights involved they would fall under the 10thA of "rights not explicitly delegated belong to the states or the people." The people vote. And that is policy.
I realize that "will of the people" is threatening to liberals, who know better for us. But that is the basis for this government.

Will of the people? We don't live in a democracy. This is a republic and what others think about that right is irrelevant. Mind your own busness.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is no right to same sex marriage. If there are any rights involved they would fall under the 10thA of "rights not explicitly delegated belong to the states or the people." The people vote. And that is policy.
I realize that "will of the people" is threatening to liberals, who know better for us. But that is the basis for this government.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people...certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That isn't in the Constitution, turd.
Does that mean I can rob you because it would make me happy?

the constitution...the declaration of independence.

you cannot rob people because it infringes on their person/safety/freedoms.

now, how would say -- uhm -- gay marriage infringe on your freedoms/liberties/person?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Who is the most vociferous opponents of gay marriage in CA? Yeah, black churches.

uhm, the Mormom Church, bigoted and hateful conservative religious folks?

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm still puzzled as to how, once it's signed into law by a Governor, that the people can then LEGALLY have someone's rights put to a vote. I mean, this concept tramples all over the Constitution.

Let's face it, most every person who would vote against same-sex marriage would do so based on their own personal religion. So, right there, it violates the 1st Amendment by allowing laws to be passed based on the establishment or religion

The 5th Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking away your life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the 14th prohibits the states from doing it. However, here they are, trying to take away the rights of gay couples without giving them their day in court to defend themselves in an attempt to preserve their rights.

So, can anyone explain how they get away with this?

There is no right to same sex marriage. If there are any rights involved they would fall under the 10thA of "rights not explicitly delegated belong to the states or the people." The people vote. And that is policy.
I realize that "will of the people" is threatening to liberals, who know better for us. But that is the basis for this government.

Will of the people? We don't live in a democracy. This is a republic and what others think about that right is irrelevant. Mind your own busness.

Shut up and vote liberal, is what you're saying? I beg to differ. You are sadly misinformed.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who is the most vociferous opponents of gay marriage in CA? Yeah, black churches.

uhm, the Mormom Church, bigoted and hateful conservative religious folks?

Blacks are bigoted and hateful? Generalize much?

 

[konradv]

There is no right to same sex marriage. If there are any rights involved they would fall under the 10thA of "rights not explicitly delegated belong to the states or the people." The people vote. And that is policy.
I realize that "will of the people" is threatening to liberals, who know better for us. But that is the basis for this government.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people...certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That isn't in the Constitution, turd.
Does that mean I can rob you because it would make me happy?

If a ban on same sex marriage isn't in the Constitution, wouldn't that be a right "retained by the people"? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, nitwit.

 

[The Rabbi]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people...certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That isn't in the Constitution, turd.
Does that mean I can rob you because it would make me happy?

If a ban on same sex marriage isn't in the Constitution, wouldn't that be a right "retained by the people"? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, nitwit.

WHat kind of right is a ban? Do you even know WTF you are talking about?
It is a power devolved to the states, and to the people. That means if people vote about it, that's it. Ihave no problem if the degenerates in MA want to legalize it. But in CA the people have voted multiple times to disallow it and courts have trampled all over that.

 

[editec]

I'm still puzzled as to how, once it's signed into law by a Governor, that the people can then LEGALLY have someone's rights put to a vote. I mean, this concept tramples all over the Constitution.

Let's face it, most every person who would vote against same-sex marriage would do so based on their own personal religion.

Perhaps you ought to face the fact that you aren't a legal scholar.

Nobody's religious beliefs trumps civil authority.

So, right there, it violates the 1st Amendment by allowing laws to be passed based on the establishment or religion

So right there you prove you don't understand the law.

Suppose your religion included human sacrifice. Do you have that right because of the 1st amendment?


Golly, you haven't thought this issue through very deeply have you, Mal?

You ought to demand your money back from whatever law school you attended.

Cause you got ripped off, dude.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Who is the most vociferous opponents of gay marriage in CA? Yeah, black churches.

uhm, the Mormom Church, bigoted and hateful conservative religious folks?

Blacks are bigoted and hateful? Generalize much?

"Generalize much?" - coming from you?

anyone who reads a few pages of your posts gets the joke here...