Liberal FASCISM in California

[Ravi]

yeah boy shodumb really makes a great case for abandoning the court system although together.

Ah, I thought you two new each other from elsewhere.

 

[Larkinn]

no, the 04 election is NOT irrelevant. It shows how this particular issue has the capacity to galvanize support to overturn shit like your happy little judical legislation yesterday.

Which has nothing to do with me correcting you on the basic premises of how our judicial system works. I see...your just trying to change the subject.

In fact, if you can't see how this kind of shit brings the dogma junkies out in droves to vote AGAINST those who would otherwise support gay marriage then, again, it makes sense that you would brag about your pedigree.

Wait, I thought John McCain was going to change it?...or something

yea, it's a FACT that you can predict that no one will challenge a state law in California after a pair of married homosexuals vie for recognition of their status in another state that has banned such, eh?

That will be challenging the DOMA to see if it passes constitutional scrutiny, not the California law.

GOOD JOB, DUDE! You probably also think that Massachusetts is a done deal too, eh?

Who said it was a done deal?

Hey, enjoy it while you can.. You are defending the usurping of the legislative process and, even while it you support the results, you diminish the role of the same people who voted otherwise.

Actually courts have had the ability to interpret constitutions since Marbury v. Madison. A precedent which isn't going to get overturned.

Make sure you cry like a spurned toddler when the next Bush v Gore repercussion rolls around. It probably won't be ironic as fuck or anything.

Bush v. Gore is irrelevant to this issue.

 

[cbi0090]

Marriage has always been a primarily religious institution between a man and a woman and there isn't an real need to change that, except that the gay community doesn't want tolerance they want acceptance. There are other forms of union that could have provided the same sort of rights of a marriage between two people that would have been far less controversial and would likely have passed into law years ago but, instead, they opted to push for open conflict on what they know to be a sensitive issue, religious belief. That is just another form of intolerance.

 

[Diuretic]

"It all comes down to where we draw the line."



If it were that simple, BUT, the line changes. Look at the end of Roman history and tell me why it collapsed.

Lead pipes?

 

[Larkinn]

Marriage has always been a primarily religious institution between a man and a woman and there isn't an real need to change that, except that the gay community doesn't want tolerance they want acceptance. There are other forms of union that could have provided the same sort of rights of a marriage between two people that would have been far less controversial and would likely have passed into law years ago but, instead, they opted to push for open conflict on what they know to be a sensitive issue, religious belief. That is just another form of intolerance.

Then take the state out of Marriage. Either its religious or its not. You can't let the state control it, and then when gays want in on it say ", oh, well its religious".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have actually never read the case. What was their claim to jurisdiction?

Later edit: Never mind. EP clause.

Yup and that issue was decided 7 to 2 despite Jillian and all the other lawyers on the board claiming otherwise.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Then take the state out of Marriage. Either its religious or its not. You can't let the state control it, and then when gays want in on it say ", oh, well its religious".

No. Most of us Americans are religious and we LIKE a society with religious undertones…and have had a successful one for 200 years here in America….without your precious anti-religious rights being harmed one whit.

If you lefties that think you are going to bulldoze us into secularism and "separation of church and state" and marginalize everything traditional and moral and good in this country with your cute little legal shennanigans….you have another think coming.

Just keep pushin...

 

[Dogger]

No. Most of us Americans are religious and we LIKE a society with religious undertones…and have had a successful one for 200 years here in America….without your precious anti-religious rights being harmed one whit.

If you lefties that think you are going to bulldoze us into secularism and "separation of church and state" and marginalize everything traditional and moral and good in this country with your cute little legal shennanigans….you have another think coming.

Just keep pushin...

Yes, Larkinn, be careful. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[jillian]

No. Most of us Americans are religious and we LIKE a society with religious undertones…and have had a successful one for 200 years here in America….without your precious anti-religious rights being harmed one whit.

But most Americans DON'T want a theocracy based on gaybashing and anti-choice loonies who impose their RELIGIOUS views on the rest of us. People want a place where they can be what they choose or not be anything at all. They certainly don't want to be forced to be christian fundies or live by your rules.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

But most Americans DON'T want a theocracy based on gaybashing and anti-choice loonies who impose their RELIGIOUS views on the rest of us. People want a place where they can be what they choose or not be anything at all. They certainly don't want to be forced to be christian fundies or live by your rules.

NOBODY* is pushing theocracy....and FYI the rules are made by We The People (or should be)....too bad if you don't like them....our traditions have worked well for America for a long time and you legal liberal loons are not going to take them away from us.

*except muslims pushing sharia and far left loonies like you who are attempting to impose your brand of "religion" - called Secularism - upon the rest of us.

 

[Larkinn]

No. Most of us Americans are religious and we LIKE a society with religious undertones

Sucks to be you then.

…and have had a successful one for 200 years here in America….without your precious anti-religious rights being harmed one whit.

Anti-religious? Lmao.

If you lefties that think you are going to bulldoze us into secularism and "separation of church and state" and marginalize everything traditional and moral and good in this country with your cute little legal shennanigans….you have another think coming.

Just keep pushin...

Good luck with that.

NOBODY* is pushing theocracy....and FYI the rules are made by We The People (or should be)....too bad if you don't like them....our traditions have worked well for America for a long time and you legal liberal loons are not going to take them away from us.

You seem to be. You want religious undertones and the like. And actually the rules are made by the Constitution which allows some changed by representatives of the people, not the people themselves.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Sucks to be you then.

Me and the majority of Americans. You must live in your own little 3% world…

Anti-religious? Lmao.

Yep. Wake up and smell the comrade coffee.

Good luck with that.

Why thanks. I believe California already has a million signatures for the ballot initiative that will put gay marriage back into the closet.

You seem to be. You want religious undertones and the like. And actually the rules are made by the Constitution which allows some changed by representatives of the people, not the people themselves.

If you think keeping our American society and traditions intact is "theocracy" you are one of the demented left. Sorry, but the rules (laws) ARE made by The People through legislation (not by judges) and they should stand unless it is proven they are in conflict with the existing rules of the Constitution.

Marriage laws are the perogative of the States. The People of California voted for an anti-gay marriage initiative that became LAW in the State of California….that is, until 4 vs. 3 judges voted it out…..ignoring the votes of 4 million voters. 4 liberal activist judges now run the FASCIST state of California.

 

[Diuretic]

....

If you think keeping our American society and traditions intact is "theocracy" you are one of the demented left. Sorry, but the rules (laws) ARE made by The People through legislation (not by judges) and they should stand unless it is proven they are in conflict with the existing rules of the Constitution.
.......

And whose job is it to decide if legislation conflicts with the Constitution?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And whose job is it to decide if legislation conflicts with the Constitution?

The ruling does not cite any conflict with the Constitution in question.

 

[Larkinn]

Me and the majority of Americans. You must live in your own little 3% world…

So are you and the vast majority of Americans just that incompetent that you can't vote someone in office who will change us into a theocracy?

Yep. Wake up and smell the comrade coffee.

Comrade? Do you just have a bunch of things that you hate and you just sort of combine them all into one thing? Everyone who is secular must also be a gay socialist or some shit?

Why thanks. I believe California already has a million signatures for the ballot initiative that will put gay marriage back into the closet.

Need more than that to change the Constitution.

If you think keeping our American society and traditions intact is "theocracy" you are one of the demented left.

And if you think that bigotry is an American tradition that should be kept about, you are one of the bigoted right. But I guess we already knew that.

Sorry, but the rules (laws) ARE made by The People through legislation (not by judges) and they should stand unless it is proven they are in conflict with the existing rules of the Constitution.

Which that one was.

Marriage laws are the perogative of the States. The People of California voted for an anti-gay marriage initiative that became LAW in the State of California….that is, until 4 vs. 3 judges voted it out…..ignoring the votes of 4 million voters. 4 liberal activist judges now run the FASCIST state of California.

God you are stupid. It conflicts with the Constitution, hence they threw it out.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The ruling does not cite any conflict with the Constitution in question.

Right.

And besides, before any Initiative is put on ballot the legislation has to pass muster and legal inspection as to whether or not it conflicts with the Constitution. Initiatives paid for and put up for vote statewide are not done lightly.

This is 4 LIBERAL FASCIST activist judges thumbing their noses at the majority of California voters.

 

[Larkinn]

Right.

And besides, before any Initiative is put on ballot the legislation has to pass muster and legal inspection as to whether or not it conflicts with the Constitution. Initiatives paid for and put up for vote statewide are not done lightly.

This is 4 LIBERAL FASCIST activist judges thumbing their noses at the majority of California voters.

Oh? And where do the people who put on ballots get the authority to decide whether the issue is constitutional or not?

 

[mattskramer]

Right.

And besides, before any Initiative is put on ballot the legislation has to pass muster and legal inspection as to whether or not it conflicts with the Constitution. Initiatives paid for and put up for vote statewide are not done lightly.

This is 4 LIBERAL FASCIST activist judges thumbing their noses at the majority of California voters.

Yet, you had no problem with judges interpreting the constitution the way that you wanted it interpreted and thumbing their noses at the majority of San Francisco voters who wanted a gun ban in their city.

This “let the citizens vote” reason is so phony. It is such a red herring that it is laughable.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So are you and the vast majority of Americans just that incompetent that you can't vote someone in office who will change us into a theocracy?

Theocracy my ass. Has the government forced you to believe in Christianity lately?

Comrade? Do you just have a bunch of things that you hate and you just sort of combine them all into one thing? Everyone who is secular must also be a gay socialist or some shit?

I'm sorry you don't understand the connection.

Need more than that to change the Constitution.

Yeah, what? You are referring to the Constitution of California?

And if you think that bigotry is an American tradition that should be kept about, you are one of the bigoted right. But I guess we already knew that.

Bigotry my ass. I'm talking about preserving the traditions and established morals of our society that have served us well for 200 years. If anyone is the bigot, it is the gay mafia gnashing its teeth at anybody with an opposing viewpoint.

Which that one was.

Tell us how it conflicted.

God you are stupid. It conflicts with the Constitution, hence they threw it out.

Again, tell us how it conflicted.

Oh? And where do the people who put on ballots get the authority to decide whether the issue is constitutional or not?

The State Department of California….along with their flock of legal eagles.

Yet, you had no problem with judges interpreting the constitution the way that you wanted it interpreted and thumbing their noses at the majority of San Francisco voters who wanted a gun ban in their city.

Excuse me, but there is a higher law in this country….check out the 2nd Amendment please.

This “let the citizens vote” reason is so phony. It is such a red herring that it is laughable.

Spoken like a LIBERAL FASCIST.

 

[mattskramer]

Excuse me, but there is a higher law in this country….check out the 2nd Amendment please.

So you support having courts overturn the will of the people based on your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Your comment does not refute anything that I said.

Spoken like a LIBERAL FASCIST.

No. I support letting the people decided in both circumstances.
I’m just exhibiting your double standard.