Today may be The Day for California!

[Luddly Neddite]

I see the usual anti-freedom rw's are here.

If they had their way, there would be cameras mounted in our bedrooms so that every "depraved" action could be recorded and made illegal.

Get the #$%^&*(#$%^&* government out of our private lives.

 

[g5000]

So you're excited about the will of the people being overturned in favor of depravity. Not terribly surprised here. But it's still amazing to comprehend that sometimes.

The will of the people.....like Segregation? Like not providing equal access to handicapped? Like Child Labor? like Slavery? like women as chattel?

Only 2 of those can be considered unconsitutional, and then only when perptuated by the government, segregation and slavery.

The others were eliminated via legislation, not judical fiat. Technically Slavery and segregation were eliminated by legislation as well, first by amendment, then by laws in wake of the court cases.

Rights are considered inalienable in this country. If the mob refuses to recognize these rights through the legislative branch, then the judicial branch has the DUTY to protect those rights.

This is exactly why we have three branches of government.

.

 

[martybegan]

The will of the people.....like Segregation? Like not providing equal access to handicapped? Like Child Labor? like Slavery? like women as chattel?

Only 2 of those can be considered unconsitutional, and then only when perptuated by the government, segregation and slavery.

The others were eliminated via legislation, not judical fiat. Technically Slavery and segregation were eliminated by legislation as well, first by amendment, then by laws in wake of the court cases.

Rights are considered inalienable in this country. If the mob refuses to recognize these rights through the legislative branch, then the judicial branch has the DUTY to protect those rights.

This is exactly why we have three branches of government.

.

And this is why I cant stand progressives and thier view on the courts. The courts should only be able to call something a "right" if it is enshrined explicitly in the consitution as a right of the people. What you want is the courts to take over the function of the legislature, bypassing the real legislatures. So basically you support oligarchy, and an oligarchy made of our legal elite.

The Courts cannot create rights, they can only protect those listed in the consitution as left to the people.

What you want is one branch of government, and the will of the people to go fuck itself (as long as it is disagreeing with you.)

 

[mudwhistle]

The Supreme Court is also looking at DOMA.

That is where things are really going to crumble for the anti-gay marriage movement.
.

I didn't know such a movement existed.

I thought it was the Gay activists movement that broached the subject first.

DOMA is an anti-gay marriage law created and enacted by the anti-gay marriage movement.

.

I contend it is a protection against a movement.

 

[bodecea]

So you're excited about the will of the people being overturned in favor of depravity. Not terribly surprised here. But it's still amazing to comprehend that sometimes.

The will of the people.....like Segregation? Like not providing equal access to handicapped? Like Child Labor? like Slavery? like women as chattel?

Only 2 of those can be considered unconsitutional, and then only when perptuated by the government, segregation and slavery.

The others were eliminated via legislation, not judical fiat. Technically Slavery and segregation were eliminated by legislation as well, first by amendment, then by laws in wake of the court cases.

The Point is...what is considered "the will of the people" is NOT static and if anyone were to try to legislate those things today, we'd be appalled.....100-200 years ago, they would win hands down.

 

[WillowTree]

The will of the people.....like Segregation? Like not providing equal access to handicapped? Like Child Labor? like Slavery? like women as chattel?

Only 2 of those can be considered unconsitutional, and then only when perptuated by the government, segregation and slavery.

The others were eliminated via legislation, not judical fiat. Technically Slavery and segregation were eliminated by legislation as well, first by amendment, then by laws in wake of the court cases.

The Point is...what is considered "the will of the people" is NOT static and if anyone were to try to legislate those things today, we'd be appalled.....100-200 years ago, they would win hands down.

so "the will of the people" is a mandate when electing bamie, but "the will of the people" is not a mandate when it goes against your wildest desires? Got it. Way to go.

 

[g5000]

Only 2 of those can be considered unconsitutional, and then only when perptuated by the government, segregation and slavery.

The others were eliminated via legislation, not judical fiat. Technically Slavery and segregation were eliminated by legislation as well, first by amendment, then by laws in wake of the court cases.

Rights are considered inalienable in this country. If the mob refuses to recognize these rights through the legislative branch, then the judicial branch has the DUTY to protect those rights.

This is exactly why we have three branches of government.

.

And this is why I cant stand progressives and thier view on the courts. The courts should only be able to call something a "right" if it is enshrined explicitly in the consitution as a right of the people.

This idea is antithetical to everything upon which our nation was founded, and precisely why there were some who believed we should not have a Bill of Rights precisely because of the danger that it implied those rights not mentioned were not inalienable.

You are badly mistaken.

What you want is the courts to take over the function of the legislature, bypassing the real legislatures. So basically you support oligarchy, and an oligarchy made of our legal elite.

Wow. That is quite the strawman you just created out of whole cloth!

The Courts cannot create rights, they can only protect those listed in the consitution as left to the people.

Again, you are seriously mistaken.

Regardless, the right to collect the cash and prizes granted by the federal government to married couples is in the constitution. The 14th amendment, to be precise. "Equal protection of the laws."

The federal government wrote several laws bestowing gifts on legally married people. Therefore, gay legally married people are entitled to the protection of those laws.

What you want is one branch of government, and the will of the people to go fuck itself (as long as it is disagreeing with you.)

Another strawman.

One of the chief roles of the judicial branch is to protect our rights. What you failed to learn in school is that no one has the power to legislate an inalienable right away.

DOMA is a legislative attempt to take away the protection of the laws from legally married gay people.


.

 

[martybegan]

The will of the people.....like Segregation? Like not providing equal access to handicapped? Like Child Labor? like Slavery? like women as chattel?

Only 2 of those can be considered unconsitutional, and then only when perptuated by the government, segregation and slavery.

The others were eliminated via legislation, not judical fiat. Technically Slavery and segregation were eliminated by legislation as well, first by amendment, then by laws in wake of the court cases.

The Point is...what is considered "the will of the people" is NOT static and if anyone were to try to legislate those things today, we'd be appalled.....100-200 years ago, they would win hands down.

The point is that unless specifically excluded by the consitution, the will of the people has to take precedence. The will of the people, and even the consitution are not static, however to change the consitution, and by that what we consider rights devolved to the people the proper procedure must be used, which is the amendment process. This is what the founders did when people balked at the document when it did not include specific rights in base document.

Today, instead, progressives are using sympatheic courts to basically corrupt the 3 branch system of government, strengthening the judicial branch by allowing it to legislate and execute its views on the consitution.

I find it interesting that progressives are showing this trend toward an oligarchy, a rule by legal elites, where the opinion of anywhere from 1-9 people overturns the will of millions, based not on a strict interpretation of the consitution, but on the whims of said elites.

 

[Katzndogz]

The US Supreme Court is expected to make a ruling on whether to review the 9th Circuit's Decision on Prop H8 today. Let's hope it's a good one!

I'm still wondering why California bothers holding elections.

Since today they are rigged, I too wonder what the point is? I voted in a rigged election. I just don't know who I voted for!

 

[martybegan]

Rights are considered inalienable in this country. If the mob refuses to recognize these rights through the legislative branch, then the judicial branch has the DUTY to protect those rights.

This is exactly why we have three branches of government.

.

And this is why I cant stand progressives and thier view on the courts. The courts should only be able to call something a "right" if it is enshrined explicitly in the consitution as a right of the people.

This idea is antithetical to everything upon which our nation was founded, and precisely why there were some who believed we should not have a Bill of Rights precisely because of the danger that it implied those rights not mentioned were not inalienable.

You are badly mistaken.



Wow. That is quite the strawman you just created out of whole cloth!

The Courts cannot create rights, they can only protect those listed in the consitution as left to the people.

Again, you are seriously mistaken.

Regardless, the right to collect the cash and prizes granted by the federal government to married couples is in the constitution. The 14th amendment, to be precise. "Equal protection of the laws."

The federal government wrote several laws bestowing gifts on legally married people. Therefore, gay legally married people are entitled to the protection of those laws.

What you want is one branch of government, and the will of the people to go fuck itself (as long as it is disagreeing with you.)

Another strawman.

One of the chief roles of the judicial branch is to protect our rights. What you failed to learn in school is that no one has the power to legislate an inalienable right away.

.

I see no strawmen in my arguments, I just see you justifying your desire to grant gay marriage via courts because it is easy. You seem not to care about side stepping the procedure set down by the founding document of our nation.

What you mistake is the possesion of inaliable rights (which I agree does not come from government, but from the people) and the PROTECTION of said rights, which is what the consitution is for. It gives a framework for the government to not only be limited in restricting said rights, but to also protect them when needed.

The problem comes when people go to the courts first, without creating an amendment granting said rights CONSITUTIONALLY, thus allowing the courts to enforce said rights. You are skipping the amendment process, abrogating the power of the people, via the amendment process, and as I said before, restricting the decsion to who has what rights to a subset of 200-500 people (federal courts). As a proponent of republican government, I find this abhorrent, and quite frankly, find those who support it as short sighted and even a little authoritarian.

 

[g5000]

It is funny how quickly 2nd amendment defenders realize the importance of the judicial branch when a state or municipality attempts to violate the Constitution with a gun ban of one kind or another.

When the Supreme Court struck down a law which violated the 2nd amendment, I was quick to post in a topic about it here that the court had just violated the will of the people. I ranted and raved about "legislating from the bench".

The point of my satire sailed over the heads of many.


When a state sanctions the marriage of two people, they are able to file a federal income tax return and collect the other gifts Uncle Santa bestows on married people.

Anti-gay people didn't like the idea of no longer having exclusive access to these presents. So they passed DOMA to withhold those gifts from gays.

This is clearly unconstitutional.

 

[clevergirl]

The federal government acts like Santa to married couples, giving them all kinds of cash and prize gifts.

These cash and prizes are withheld from gay married couples. They are not given equal protection of the law.

Anti-gay people are resentful about the idea of not being the only ones to get presents from Santa any more. The feel specially entitled to these gifts.
.

There are reasons the government began offering tax breaks to married couples. Procreation is healthy for a society. That said, I would be all for removing those incentives. Allowing for anyone to "a civil union". Keeping marriage as the conjoining ceremony reserved as the purview of the Church.

 

[bodecea]

Only 2 of those can be considered unconsitutional, and then only when perptuated by the government, segregation and slavery.

The others were eliminated via legislation, not judical fiat. Technically Slavery and segregation were eliminated by legislation as well, first by amendment, then by laws in wake of the court cases.

The Point is...what is considered "the will of the people" is NOT static and if anyone were to try to legislate those things today, we'd be appalled.....100-200 years ago, they would win hands down.

so "the will of the people" is a mandate when electing bamie, but "the will of the people" is not a mandate when it goes against your wildest desires? Got it. Way to go.

Yes, Willow...because the Constitution, Article II is SET UP for an election of a President. (BTW, don't forget the Electoral College, hun)

However, "the will of the people" cannot vote out our rights by popularity. If that were the case, all Muslims in this country would be kicked out or penned up by now.

 

[g5000]

The federal government acts like Santa to married couples, giving them all kinds of cash and prize gifts.

These cash and prizes are withheld from gay married couples. They are not given equal protection of the law.

Anti-gay people are resentful about the idea of not being the only ones to get presents from Santa any more. The feel specially entitled to these gifts.
.

There are reasons the government began offering tax breaks to married couples. Procreation is healthy for a society. That said, I would be all for removing those incentives. Allowing for anyone to "a civil union". Keeping marriage as the conjoining ceremony reserved as the purview of the Church.

Procreation is not a requirement to collect the cash and prizes from Uncle Santa for being married. If you have kids, you get additional cash and prizes.

You can call it whatever you like in your church. Outside the church it will be called marriage.

If you don't want your marriage in the church to sound the same as any other marriage, then call it something else.

Racists really hated it when marriage was "redefined" to include interracial marriages a few decades ago. But we rightly did not decide to call the union of a black and a white anything other than a marriage. America no longer caters to bigots.



.

 

[martybegan]

It is funny how quickly 2nd amendment defenders realize the importance of the judicial branch when a state or municipality attempts to violate the Constitution with a gun ban of one kind or another.

When the Supreme Court struck down a law which violated the 2nd amendment, I was quick to post in a topic about it here that the court had just violated the will of the people. I ranted and raved about "legislating from the bench".

The point of my satire sailed over the heads of many.


When a state sanctions the marriage of two people, they are able to file a federal income tax return and collect the other gifts Uncle Santa bestows on married people.

Anti-gay people didn't like the idea of no longer having exclusive access to these presents. So they passed DOMA to withhold those gifts from gays.

This is clearly unconstitutional.

The difference, you keep leaving out, is that the word "arms" "keep and bear" and "not to be infringed" are ALREADY IN THE CONSITUTION. it is then up to the courts to intepret these words. Thus we can all agree (or most of us) that people cannot keep a fucking howtizer in thier backyard (not arms) but can keep a personal firearm on thier person or at least in thier home.

There is no reference to marriage in the consitution. To get where you are going you have to go with the equal protection stretch. However now we rely on an interpretation of another intepretation, not an interpretation of base wording in the document.

If people are so hell bent on marriage equality, why not propose this:

1. The right to marriage between two people, regardless of gender, shall not be infringed except in cases of incest, bigamy, or coercsion shall not be infringed"

At that point the right is safe, its in the consitution, and my oppositon to gay marriage ends.

 

[martybegan]

The Point is...what is considered "the will of the people" is NOT static and if anyone were to try to legislate those things today, we'd be appalled.....100-200 years ago, they would win hands down.

so "the will of the people" is a mandate when electing bamie, but "the will of the people" is not a mandate when it goes against your wildest desires? Got it. Way to go.

Yes, Willow...because the Constitution, Article II is SET UP for an election of a President. (BTW, don't forget the Electoral College, hun)

However, "the will of the people" cannot vote out our rights by popularity. If that were the case, all Muslims in this country would be kicked out or penned up by now.

If they get 2/3 of the legislatures and 3/4 of the states, they sure as hell can. If DOMA became and amendment, the courts would have no legal recourse.

 

[clevergirl]

The federal government acts like Santa to married couples, giving them all kinds of cash and prize gifts.

These cash and prizes are withheld from gay married couples. They are not given equal protection of the law.

Anti-gay people are resentful about the idea of not being the only ones to get presents from Santa any more. The feel specially entitled to these gifts.
.

There are reasons the government began offering tax breaks to married couples. Procreation is healthy for a society. That said, I would be all for removing those incentives. Allowing for anyone to "a civil union". Keeping marriage as the conjoining ceremony reserved as the purview of the Church.

Procreation is not a requirement to collect the cash and prizes from Uncle Santa for being married. If you have kids, you get additional cash and prizes.

You can call it whatever you like in your church. Outside the church it will be called marriage.

If you don't want your marriage in the church to sound the same as any other marriage, then call it something else.

Racists really hated it when marriage was "redefined" to include interracial marriages a few decades ago. But we rightly did not decide to call the union of a black and a white anything other than a marriage. America no longer caters to bigots.



.

Actually matrimony is a word with its roots in motherhood. It is and has been the purview of the Church. Civil Unions have been the purview of secular society...

 

[g5000]

It is funny how quickly 2nd amendment defenders realize the importance of the judicial branch when a state or municipality attempts to violate the Constitution with a gun ban of one kind or another.

When the Supreme Court struck down a law which violated the 2nd amendment, I was quick to post in a topic about it here that the court had just violated the will of the people. I ranted and raved about "legislating from the bench".

The point of my satire sailed over the heads of many.


When a state sanctions the marriage of two people, they are able to file a federal income tax return and collect the other gifts Uncle Santa bestows on married people.

Anti-gay people didn't like the idea of no longer having exclusive access to these presents. So they passed DOMA to withhold those gifts from gays.

This is clearly unconstitutional.

The difference, you keep leaving out, is that the word "arms" "keep and bear" and "not to be infringed" are ALREADY IN THE CONSITUTION. it is then up to the courts to intepret these words. Thus we can all agree (or most of us) that people cannot keep a fucking howtizer in thier backyard (not arms) but can keep a personal firearm on thier person or at least in thier home.

There is no reference to marriage in the consitution. To get where you are going you have to go with the equal protection stretch. However now we rely on an interpretation of another intepretation, not an interpretation of base wording in the document.

If people are so hell bent on marriage equality, why not propose this:

1. The right to marriage between two people, regardless of gender, shall not be infringed except in cases of incest, bigamy, or coercsion shall not be infringed"

At that point the right is safe, its in the consitution, and my oppositon to gay marriage ends.

This is why I started the Reasons To Be Anti-Gay, By The Numbers topic a while back. Just for people like you.

Because you clearly have not heard me say, several times, that access to Santa's cash and prizes is protected under the 14th amendment's "equal protection of the laws" clause.

When a state sanctions the marriage of two people, they are entitled BY LAW to certain cash and prizes.

Got that? Has that penetrated your blindness yet? Law. Cash and prizes. Tax deductions, Social Security death benefits, and many other such things. These are not magically bestowed on people. They are provided IN LAWS.

DOMA blocks gay married people, who are LEGALLY married, from access to those cash and prizes.

.


.

 

[g5000]

There are reasons the government began offering tax breaks to married couples. Procreation is healthy for a society. That said, I would be all for removing those incentives. Allowing for anyone to "a civil union". Keeping marriage as the conjoining ceremony reserved as the purview of the Church.

Procreation is not a requirement to collect the cash and prizes from Uncle Santa for being married. If you have kids, you get additional cash and prizes.

You can call it whatever you like in your church. Outside the church it will be called marriage.

If you don't want your marriage in the church to sound the same as any other marriage, then call it something else.

Racists really hated it when marriage was "redefined" to include interracial marriages a few decades ago. But we rightly did not decide to call the union of a black and a white anything other than a marriage. America no longer caters to bigots.



.

Actually matrimony is a word with its roots in motherhood. It is and has been the purview of the Church. Civil Unions have been the purview of secular society...

The Church does not bestow federal cash and prizes to married people. The government does.

That is what is at issue here. State marriage.

And people are not going to called a gay marriage anything other than a marriage. "We're married." "They're married." It is just what people will do. You cannot force them to do otherwise.




.

 

[martybegan]

It is funny how quickly 2nd amendment defenders realize the importance of the judicial branch when a state or municipality attempts to violate the Constitution with a gun ban of one kind or another.

When the Supreme Court struck down a law which violated the 2nd amendment, I was quick to post in a topic about it here that the court had just violated the will of the people. I ranted and raved about "legislating from the bench".

The point of my satire sailed over the heads of many.


When a state sanctions the marriage of two people, they are able to file a federal income tax return and collect the other gifts Uncle Santa bestows on married people.

Anti-gay people didn't like the idea of no longer having exclusive access to these presents. So they passed DOMA to withhold those gifts from gays.

This is clearly unconstitutional.

The difference, you keep leaving out, is that the word "arms" "keep and bear" and "not to be infringed" are ALREADY IN THE CONSITUTION. it is then up to the courts to intepret these words. Thus we can all agree (or most of us) that people cannot keep a fucking howtizer in thier backyard (not arms) but can keep a personal firearm on thier person or at least in thier home.

There is no reference to marriage in the consitution. To get where you are going you have to go with the equal protection stretch. However now we rely on an interpretation of another intepretation, not an interpretation of base wording in the document.

If people are so hell bent on marriage equality, why not propose this:

1. The right to marriage between two people, regardless of gender, shall not be infringed except in cases of incest, bigamy, or coercsion shall not be infringed"

At that point the right is safe, its in the consitution, and my oppositon to gay marriage ends.

This is why I started the Reasons To Be Anti-Gay, By The Numbers topic a while back. Just for people like you.

Because you clearly have not heard me say, several times, that access to Santa's cash and prizes is protected under the 14th amendment's "equal protection of the laws" clause.

When a state sanctions the marriage of two people, they are entitled BY LAW to certain cash and prizes.

Got that? Has that penetrated your blindness yet? Law. Cash and prizes. Tax deductions, Social Security death benefits, and many other such things. These are not magically bestowed on people. They are provided IN LAWS.

DOMA blocks gay married people, who are LEGALLY married, from access to those cash and prizes.

.


.

Creating civil unions and making them equal to marriage would accomplish the same thing, wouldnt it? It just wouldnt be called marriage. This has been proposed, and rejected by many in the Marriage equality movement.

Plus civil unions would be created via legislation, which meets my requirement for getting the courts out of it. There is no consitutional ban on allowing civil unions, as all they are is a form of contract, recognized by the government.

Happy now?