How Is It Legal????

[Two Thumbs]

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?

Marriage is a privileged not a right.

fyi; Obama broke the 5th when he had alawaki executed by bomb.

Liberals took away free speech when they passed hate speech laws.

Liberals have all but removed the right to bear arms.


these things are far more important.

but you wanna cry about gays getting a marriage license.

grow up.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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?

Marriage is a privileged not a right.

fyi; Obama broke the 5th when he had alawaki executed by bomb.

Liberals took away free speech when they passed hate speech laws.

Liberals have all but removed the right to bear arms.


these things are far more important.

but you wanna cry about gays getting a marriage license.

grow up.

Progressives are under a misconception that marriage is a "right."

It shows how ignorant they are to our rights and liberties...

To them marriage is a right, speech is limited, guns are limited, "separation of church and state" is apparently in the constitution...

They're ignorant people and anyone who disagrees with them are members of a "hate group."

They're fucking retarded...

 

[dblack]

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?

Gay marriage isn't really the problem. But equal protection is. The problem is that government grants special rights to married couples to begin with. That violates equal protect in its own right. Eliminate the perks government gives to married couples, and let people enter into whatever kinds of marriage agreements they want.

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage is a privileged not a right.

Your opinion differs greatly from the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. They have declared that marriage IS a right (on no less than three occasions to boot).

 

[Mr.Nick]

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?

Gay marriage isn't really the problem. But equal protection is. The problem is that government grants special rights to married couples to begin with. That violates equal protect in its own right. Eliminate the perks government gives to married couples, and let people enter into whatever kinds of marriage agreements they want.

What's stopping gays from engaging in civil contracts (hence civil unions)??

Gays got their civil unions, however that is not good enough - no, no - gays should be allowed to walk into a Catholic church and demand to be "married" and they expect the government to enforce that..

Besides "equal protection" is a flimsy term anyways.

One could say since you have a BMW and I don't - I have a RIGHT to a BMW under "equal protection."

 

[Katzndogz]

Oh yes the death of Bin Laden, and the lie told to the world, as well as denying him the muslim death that was claimed and hiding his body in the US.

I hope obama brings that one up.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Truth is gays want to force others to accept them... Which is highly illogical.

If you don't like peas you don't like peas - you can't force someone who doesn't like peas to like peas.

Truth is I could give a rats ass about gays, they can have their civil (legal) unions but not marriage.

Gays are pushing the envelope when they press for marriage (which is a traditional holy union)...

 

[Seawytch]

What's stopping gays from engaging in civil contracts (hence civil unions)??

The laws in most states for one.

Gays got their civil unions, however that is not good enough - no, no - gays should be allowed to walk into a Catholic church and demand to be "married" and they expect the government to enforce that..

No "they gays" didn't get their civil unions. A few states have civil unions which, by the way, do not provide anywhere near the benefits and protections that are associated with legal civil marriage, but most do not.

Also, could you please point out where "the gays" have turned down civil unions?

Finally, the catholic church and any other church is free to NOT perform same sex ceremonies and nobody is advocating for forcing them to. See, "they gays" already have equal access to religious marriage. A church can say "no" to any couple for any reason. Many of them say "yes" to our unions.

You need to learn the difference between religious and civil marriage. We don't give a shit about the religious aspect, we want equal access to the civil one.

Besides "equal protection" is a flimsy term anyways.

One could say since you have a BMW and I don't - I have a RIGHT to a BMW under "equal protection."

A BMW isn't a fundamental right, marriage is.

 

[Full-Auto]

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 a little thing called equal protection under the law. We are all treated equally in this regard. Yes it goes or limits people preferences, however it is no different then penalizing a couple for being married or taxing someone at a different rate. Our government is full of discrimination by law. You fuck me over, so I become obligated to dish it back. All legal of course.

 

[The Rabbi]

Equal protection and its enforcement hasn't devolved to the states. Snooping in peoples' bedroom windows is an invasion of privacy. No state should have that kind of control over its people. Why should anyone care what you have to say on the subject? State laws standing in the way of the people's freedom are no different than Jim Crow or Nuremburg laws.

WTF are you blabbering about? Snooping in people's bedrooms? Is this what you do in your spare time?
No one is standing in the way of your freedom to buttfuck your buddy.

You're standing in the schoolhouse door. You're walling people up in ghettos. I really don't see a difference. You're the one with the false reading of the legal situation. People have a right to marry the person of THEIR choice, not your choice. Marriage laws have been a favorite target of oppressors and busybody snoops through the ages.

Much much?

There is no ban on marriage of any kind. Strawman much? Hyperbole much? Stupidity much?

 

[The Rabbi]

What's stopping gays from engaging in civil contracts (hence civil unions)??

The laws in most states for one.

Gays got their civil unions, however that is not good enough - no, no - gays should be allowed to walk into a Catholic church and demand to be "married" and they expect the government to enforce that..

No "they gays" didn't get their civil unions. A few states have civil unions which, by the way, do not provide anywhere near the benefits and protections that are associated with legal civil marriage, but most do not.

Also, could you please point out where "the gays" have turned down civil unions?

Finally, the catholic church and any other church is free to NOT perform same sex ceremonies and nobody is advocating for forcing them to. See, "they gays" already have equal access to religious marriage. A church can say "no" to any couple for any reason. Many of them say "yes" to our unions.

You need to learn the difference between religious and civil marriage. We don't give a shit about the religious aspect, we want equal access to the civil one.

Besides "equal protection" is a flimsy term anyways.

One could say since you have a BMW and I don't - I have a RIGHT to a BMW under "equal protection."

A BMW isn't a fundamental right, marriage is.

Any gay couple can have whatever ceremony they want and be married. I know of no state that bans that. If someone can produce a law that bans gay marriage then do it.

 

[Seawytch]

What's stopping gays from engaging in civil contracts (hence civil unions)??

The laws in most states for one.



No "they gays" didn't get their civil unions. A few states have civil unions which, by the way, do not provide anywhere near the benefits and protections that are associated with legal civil marriage, but most do not.

Also, could you please point out where "the gays" have turned down civil unions?

Finally, the catholic church and any other church is free to NOT perform same sex ceremonies and nobody is advocating for forcing them to. See, "they gays" already have equal access to religious marriage. A church can say "no" to any couple for any reason. Many of them say "yes" to our unions.

You need to learn the difference between religious and civil marriage. We don't give a shit about the religious aspect, we want equal access to the civil one.

Besides "equal protection" is a flimsy term anyways.

One could say since you have a BMW and I don't - I have a RIGHT to a BMW under "equal protection."

A BMW isn't a fundamental right, marriage is.

Any gay couple can have whatever ceremony they want and be married. I know of no state that bans that. If someone can produce a law that bans gay marriage then do it.

You, too, seem to be confused about the difference between religious and civil marriage. I've already stated that gays already have equal access to religious marriage, it's the legal, civil marriage we are prevented equal access to.

 

[dblack]

What's stopping gays from engaging in civil contracts (hence civil unions)??

Gays got their civil unions, however that is not good enough - no, no - gays should be allowed to walk into a Catholic church and demand to be "married" and they expect the government to enforce that..

Besides "equal protection" is a flimsy term anyways.

One could say since you have a BMW and I don't - I have a RIGHT to a BMW under "equal protection."

Your understanding of the term "equal protection" is flimsy, but the concept is fundamental to freedom. It means we're all treated equally when it comes to laws. Unfortunately, our government, at both state and federal levels, violates equal protection all the time - and marriage law is a good example.

Truth is gays want to force others to accept them... Which is highly illogical.

That's simply not true, and has nothing to do with logic. Gays want to right to the same legal perks as heterosexuals, that's it. Most of them really don't care whether YOU accept them or not. In any case, equal rights has nothing to do with 'acceptance'.

 

[The Rabbi]

The laws in most states for one.



No "they gays" didn't get their civil unions. A few states have civil unions which, by the way, do not provide anywhere near the benefits and protections that are associated with legal civil marriage, but most do not.

Also, could you please point out where "the gays" have turned down civil unions?

Finally, the catholic church and any other church is free to NOT perform same sex ceremonies and nobody is advocating for forcing them to. See, "they gays" already have equal access to religious marriage. A church can say "no" to any couple for any reason. Many of them say "yes" to our unions.

You need to learn the difference between religious and civil marriage. We don't give a shit about the religious aspect, we want equal access to the civil one.



A BMW isn't a fundamental right, marriage is.

Any gay couple can have whatever ceremony they want and be married. I know of no state that bans that. If someone can produce a law that bans gay marriage then do it.

You, too, seem to be confused about the difference between religious and civil marriage. I've already stated that gays already have equal access to religious marriage, it's the legal, civil marriage we are prevented equal access to.

You can have any kind of marriage you want.
It isn't about marriage at all. It is about the gay agenda of projecting that homosexuality is just like heterosexuality, except with like parts.
It is untrue. It will always be untrue. And complaints about "civil rights" are simply a smokescreen for the real agenda.

 

[Dragon]

Actually, let's get something clear here: "Gays want people to accept them" IS true, and that is why civil unions, even if they provided all the legal benefits of marriage (which they don't -- in fact, marriage at present doesn't provide all the benefits of marriage for same-sex couples), would not be sufficient.

The goal here is to have a generation of kids grow up having at least one same-sex married couple on the block. The goal is to have one or two of their teachers in school be in a marriage with someone of the same sex. The goal is for it to seem, to a whole generation of kids, perfectly normal and expected that while most married people married the opposite sex, a few marry the same sex.

Just as a generation of kids grew up without segregation and now accept an integrated society as normal, so a generation of kids will grow up accepting homosexuality as normal for some people. The goal is to transform homosexuality from an object of bigotry to an accepted part of the normal range. And it is happening, and it will happen, and there is nothing any of you who oppose it can do about it, because you are mortal, and you will die someday, and be replaced by those who do not share your bigotry.

To answer the OP question, it is legal for the voters to override the legislature and the governor because neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor the Supreme Court of the state in question has ruled that marriage equality is a protected right. As such, marriage equality is established not by either the U.S. or state constitution, but only by an act of the legislature, and that can (provided the state constitution provides a mechanism for this) be overridden by direct vote of the people.

It isn't RIGHT, certainly, and it is swimming against the tide, and in the long run it will not stand. But at present, it is legal.

 

[The Rabbi]

Can we for once have a discussion of gay marriage without dragging the canard of civil rights into this? Can the proponents be honest enough to admit that whatever the merits of their case, hitching it to the civil rights struggle of the 1960s is dishonest?

 

[Dragon]

Can we for once have a discussion of gay marriage without dragging the canard of civil rights into this? Can the proponents be honest enough to admit that whatever the merits of their case, hitching it to the civil rights struggle of the 1960s is dishonest?

No, because it's not. Both struggles were cases of a minority being subject to second-class status, discrimination, and improperly unequal treatment. There really is no significant difference at all.

 

[The Rabbi]

Can we for once have a discussion of gay marriage without dragging the canard of civil rights into this? Can the proponents be honest enough to admit that whatever the merits of their case, hitching it to the civil rights struggle of the 1960s is dishonest?

No, because it's not. Both struggles were cases of a minority being subject to second-class status, discrimination, and improperly unequal treatment. There really is no significant difference at all.

Gays aren't a minority. Any more than people with 6 toes are a minority. Actually less.

 

[WillowTree]

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?

What? now we need a Czar and thought police? That's the dumbest scenario I've heard all day.

 

[Malakai]

To answer the OP question, it is legal for the voters to override the legislature and the governor because neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor the Supreme Court of the state in question has ruled that marriage equality is a protected right. As such, marriage equality is established not by either the U.S. or state constitution, but only by an act of the legislature, and that can (provided the state constitution provides a mechanism for this) be overridden by direct vote of the people.

It isn't RIGHT, certainly, and it is swimming against the tide, and in the long run it will not stand. But at present, it is legal.

Ah, there's the answer I was looking for. Thank you for explaining it and not derailing the thread into a debate.