Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Sadly I am lacking in intelligence to convince you...but there are some here that are not, maybe they'll chime in.That is a very good point.
I am not going to argue it, but I am not 100% sure you are entirely correct either. Defining marriage as one man one woman may not actually infringe on another person's rights, especially if they have the ability to avail themselves of the same rights.
I'll just say that IMO it is the same as denying two ethnic groups the ability to marry and your argument would be that they aren't denied anything, they are free to marry someone of the same ethnic group just like everyone else is...
Don't give up so easily. I actually support SSM, I just don't think the court has the right to overturn a valid election just because I don't like the results. My biggest problem with your argument is that I want to accept it so much that I am having a hard time finding the legal faults in it. On the other hand, if we start letting courts throw out the results of valid elections, where will it stop? That thought scares me more than screwing homosexuals out of the right to marry.
Why not argue about it? Ravi is, as usual, wrong.
Referendum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is the EXACT procedure called for in the CON to determine constitutional amendments.
Absolutely hilarious that Ravi would attempt to explain our governmental procedures when she herself doesn't understand them.
Actually, we cannot have a referendum and amend the US Constitution. If we could there would be a lot more than 27 amendments.
When civil unions was on the ballot in Washington State, we had a group from Colorado paying for ads...
Against them, I'm guessing, right?
Yep, and they were quite disturbing ads.. One talked about how if we allow civil unions for homosexuals, somehow the teachers are going to start teaching our grade school children about homosexuality. I swear I am not making it up.
Sadly I am lacking in intelligence to convince you...but there are some here that are not, maybe they'll chime in.That is a very good point.
I am not going to argue it, but I am not 100% sure you are entirely correct either. Defining marriage as one man one woman may not actually infringe on another person's rights, especially if they have the ability to avail themselves of the same rights.
I'll just say that IMO it is the same as denying two ethnic groups the ability to marry and your argument would be that they aren't denied anything, they are free to marry someone of the same ethnic group just like everyone else is...
Don't give up so easily. I actually support SSM, I just don't think the court has the right to overturn a valid election just because I don't like the results. My biggest problem with your argument is that I want to accept it so much that I am having a hard time finding the legal faults in it. On the other hand, if we start letting courts throw out the results of valid elections, where will it stop? That thought scares me more than screwing homosexuals out of the right to marry.
99/.99=100
We aren't a pure democracy.You have some sort of problem with democracy?
Proposition 8 was voted on by the citizens of California, and you think one man can tell them all that they don't have a right to a vote because you disagree with the result. Would you be as comfortable with it if a vote had been held and SSM approved and someone took it to court to overturn it?
The general public is not meant to vote on the rights of others.
As the saying goes....
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper
Sadly I am lacking in intelligence to convince you...but there are some here that are not, maybe they'll chime in.
I'll just say that IMO it is the same as denying two ethnic groups the ability to marry and your argument would be that they aren't denied anything, they are free to marry someone of the same ethnic group just like everyone else is...
Don't give up so easily. I actually support SSM, I just don't think the court has the right to overturn a valid election just because I don't like the results. My biggest problem with your argument is that I want to accept it so much that I am having a hard time finding the legal faults in it. On the other hand, if we start letting courts throw out the results of valid elections, where will it stop? That thought scares me more than screwing homosexuals out of the right to marry.
I'd agree with you if it were an election for office, not a referendum to create law. And that's exactly what both the Federal and State constitutions and their amendments are - law.
It's the job of the Courts and has been for over 200 years to evaluate laws and decide whether they are in line with Constitutional principles. It doesn't matter if that's a lower court ruling with value as precedent, or a legislative act, or a referendum. It's all law, and all subject to Constitutional review.
The process itself can be reviewed if there are no safeguards in place to make sure the people can't vote into being a law that is unconstitutional in the first place. Should the Courts sit back and allow Jim Crow to be reinstated if it's through a ballot measure and not the legislature? No, it would be wrong and blatantly unconstitutional. Does the fact that it was put into place through an election make a difference?
Also remember, the Constitution itself does not guarantee pure democracy, it guarantees every State a Republican form of government. There are several other points, but you get the idea. Law created by popular vote is no different than law created any other way and is subject to the same review.
Don't give up so easily. I actually support SSM, I just don't think the court has the right to overturn a valid election just because I don't like the results. My biggest problem with your argument is that I want to accept it so much that I am having a hard time finding the legal faults in it. On the other hand, if we start letting courts throw out the results of valid elections, where will it stop? That thought scares me more than screwing homosexuals out of the right to marry.
I'd agree with you if it were an election for office, not a referendum to create law. And that's exactly what both the Federal and State constitutions and their amendments are - law.
It's the job of the Courts and has been for over 200 years to evaluate laws and decide whether they are in line with Constitutional principles. It doesn't matter if that's a lower court ruling with value as precedent, or a legislative act, or a referendum. It's all law, and all subject to Constitutional review.
The process itself can be reviewed if there are no safeguards in place to make sure the people can't vote into being a law that is unconstitutional in the first place. Should the Courts sit back and allow Jim Crow to be reinstated if it's through a ballot measure and not the legislature? No, it would be wrong and blatantly unconstitutional. Does the fact that it was put into place through an election make a difference?
Also remember, the Constitution itself does not guarantee pure democracy, it guarantees every State a Republican form of government. There are several other points, but you get the idea. Law created by popular vote is no different than law created any other way and is subject to the same review.
Right, but there is no case that this vote itself was an illegal way to attempt to ban gay marriage. The ONLY question is does the proposition violate anyone's civil rights. Two entirely different arguments.
Ravi is trying to argue that the people don't have the right to vote directly on a proposed amendment to their state constitution.
I'd agree with you if it were an election for office, not a referendum to create law. And that's exactly what both the Federal and State constitutions and their amendments are - law.
It's the job of the Courts and has been for over 200 years to evaluate laws and decide whether they are in line with Constitutional principles. It doesn't matter if that's a lower court ruling with value as precedent, or a legislative act, or a referendum. It's all law, and all subject to Constitutional review.
The process itself can be reviewed if there are no safeguards in place to make sure the people can't vote into being a law that is unconstitutional in the first place. Should the Courts sit back and allow Jim Crow to be reinstated if it's through a ballot measure and not the legislature? No, it would be wrong and blatantly unconstitutional. Does the fact that it was put into place through an election make a difference?
Also remember, the Constitution itself does not guarantee pure democracy, it guarantees every State a Republican form of government. There are several other points, but you get the idea. Law created by popular vote is no different than law created any other way and is subject to the same review.
I'd agree with you if it were an election for office, not a referendum to create law. And that's exactly what both the Federal and State constitutions and their amendments are - law.
It's the job of the Courts and has been for over 200 years to evaluate laws and decide whether they are in line with Constitutional principles. It doesn't matter if that's a lower court ruling with value as precedent, or a legislative act, or a referendum. It's all law, and all subject to Constitutional review.
The process itself can be reviewed if there are no safeguards in place to make sure the people can't vote into being a law that is unconstitutional in the first place. Should the Courts sit back and allow Jim Crow to be reinstated if it's through a ballot measure and not the legislature? No, it would be wrong and blatantly unconstitutional. Does the fact that it was put into place through an election make a difference?
Also remember, the Constitution itself does not guarantee pure democracy, it guarantees every State a Republican form of government. There are several other points, but you get the idea. Law created by popular vote is no different than law created any other way and is subject to the same review.
I do understand that. This is still a court overturning an actual election though, one that was valid before the court decided it wasn't.
He's saying he wants HIS state to have their own right to decide.
and they would not have that right because some activists come into his state to try and persuade the citizens?.....is his state supposed to be immune to this type of shit?...welcome to the real world....
No, they would lose that right because a federal court decision would take that right away form the states and impose it upon them by decree.
We aren't a pure democracy.You have some sort of problem with democracy?
Proposition 8 was voted on by the citizens of California, and you think one man can tell them all that they don't have a right to a vote because you disagree with the result. Would you be as comfortable with it if a vote had been held and SSM approved and someone took it to court to overturn it?
The general public is not meant to vote on the rights of others.
That is a very good point.
I am not going to argue it, but I am not 100% sure you are entirely correct either. Defining marriage as one man one woman may not actually infringe on another person's rights, especially if they have the ability to avail themselves of the same rights.
Oh, in keeping with Constitutional issues, I forgot to mention the Original 7 Articles, better known as the United States Constitution was ratified by the required # of states, 9, on this day, June 21, in 1788, in full force and effect March 4th 1789.
The original being on display in the Rotunda of the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Been there, seen it.
In the center case, the Declaration is left, the Constitution in the middle and the Bill of Rights, all 12 Articles, is on the right.
Quite awesome to gaze upon.
But I do know what you mean. I highly recommend visiting both of these places at least once - preferably when it's quiet.
I could careless what happens in Cailfornia this is a state issue. But what bugs the shit out of me is when the activist from Cailifornia will push this issue on my state.
Kinda like when activists from Utah were pushing thier values on California, eh?
That is a very good point.
I am not going to argue it, but I am not 100% sure you are entirely correct either. Defining marriage as one man one woman may not actually infringe on another person's rights, especially if they have the ability to avail themselves of the same rights.
Sadly I am lacking in intelligence to convince you...but there are some here that are not, maybe they'll chime in.
I'll just say that IMO it is the same as denying two ethnic groups the ability to marry and your argument would be that they aren't denied anything, they are free to marry someone of the same ethnic group just like everyone else is...
Don't give up so easily. I actually support SSM, I just don't think the court has the right to overturn a valid election just because I don't like the results. My biggest problem with your argument is that I want to accept it so much that I am having a hard time finding the legal faults in it. On the other hand, if we start letting courts throw out the results of valid elections, where will it stop? That thought scares me more than screwing homosexuals out of the right to marry.
I EXACTLY agree with you. I don't care if they get married, but it is a state's rights issue, and RAVI is wrong the people DO have the right to vote directly towards this. That isn't at question at all. NO part of the lawsuit will be based on do the people have the right to vote directly on a CON amendment. They absolutely do. She is confusing two issues.
People do not have a right to vote on limiting the rights of others. Quit putting words in my mouth.Don't give up so easily. I actually support SSM, I just don't think the court has the right to overturn a valid election just because I don't like the results. My biggest problem with your argument is that I want to accept it so much that I am having a hard time finding the legal faults in it. On the other hand, if we start letting courts throw out the results of valid elections, where will it stop? That thought scares me more than screwing homosexuals out of the right to marry.
I'd agree with you if it were an election for office, not a referendum to create law. And that's exactly what both the Federal and State constitutions and their amendments are - law.
It's the job of the Courts and has been for over 200 years to evaluate laws and decide whether they are in line with Constitutional principles. It doesn't matter if that's a lower court ruling with value as precedent, or a legislative act, or a referendum. It's all law, and all subject to Constitutional review.
The process itself can be reviewed if there are no safeguards in place to make sure the people can't vote into being a law that is unconstitutional in the first place. Should the Courts sit back and allow Jim Crow to be reinstated if it's through a ballot measure and not the legislature? No, it would be wrong and blatantly unconstitutional. Does the fact that it was put into place through an election make a difference?
Also remember, the Constitution itself does not guarantee pure democracy, it guarantees every State a Republican form of government. There are several other points, but you get the idea. Law created by popular vote is no different than law created any other way and is subject to the same review.
Right, but there is no case that this vote itself was an illegal way to attempt to ban gay marriage. The ONLY question is does the proposition violate anyone's civil rights. Two entirely different arguments.
Ravi is trying to argue that the people don't have the right to vote directly on a proposed amendment to their state constitution.
On the other hand, if we start letting courts throw out the results of valid elections, where will it stop? That thought scares me more than screwing homosexuals out of the right to marry.
Because...you...can't...vote...on...someone's...civil...rights.On the other hand, if we start letting courts throw out the results of valid elections, where will it stop? That thought scares me more than screwing homosexuals out of the right to marry.
and this happens time and time again.....the losers take the results to court....instead of taking the time between elections to try and convince people and write a better proposition.....we get lawsuits.....
