Today may be The Day for California!

[martybegan]

you disagree? who gives a fuck if you disagree with the ruling. It shows you to be wrong.

You are one of those the details dont matter people. I can't wait till you type of people are just gone, out of the political picture.

Still wont admit I found a law than answered your question.

And since I am part of "the people" my opinon should matter alot more than it does now. Just because you feel comfortable giving over your rights to a judicial oligarchy doesnt mean I have to follw along.

and just wishing people like me were gone as opposed to actually trying to counter my arguments by "I like something else, therefore my way should happen irregardless of process, neenerneener" shows how weak your argument really is.

And I know you have more rep than me and negging you is pointless. Ill take the point loss to stick it to a gutless hack such as yourself any day of the week.

FOAD.

But you didn't. The law states that they can't discriminate either.

The difference like i said is Private you should be able to where in the government all are equal. Government being in the Marriage business must treat everyone fairly.

I know you don't like this and would prefer there to be a second class of citizens, but for the most of us we prefer to achieve something better.

I dont want a second class of citizens, I want the proper procedure involved when people discover some consitutional "right." Bypassing the amendment procress is taking a giant shit on the document, and those who created it.

And your whole question was to find a case where a person's right is taken away, and I found it. you lose your right to association, evidently when your club becomes big enough. Yet you refuse to admit I countered your point. Thats what makes you a gutless coward.

 

[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.

The will of the people of California said yes.

Not commenting on it being right or wrong, but that IS the will of the people in CA.

The SCOTUS needs to refuse to hear this. It's a CA issue.

And it is being challenged on constitutional grounds...which becomes a federal issue.

Or...are you of the mind that if CA passed a law banning guns, it continues to be simply a CA issue and abide by the will of the people in passing such a ban?

 

[Si modo]

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 will of the people of California said yes.

Not commenting on it being right or wrong, but that IS the will of the people in CA.

The SCOTUS needs to refuse to hear this. It's a CA issue.

And it is being challenged on constitutional grounds...which becomes a federal issue.

Or...are you of the mind that if CA passed a law banning guns, it continues to be simply a CA issue and abide by the will of the people in passing such a ban?

To the bolded: What "constitutional grounds" are those? Can you be specific?

 

[Seawytch]

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 people can't act unconstitutionally to violate the constitutional rights of others.

what if the majority will was to outlaw mormonism?

would you think it ok to overturn the will of the people.

depravity is what's in YOUR mind.

normal people don't care.

Well then you would be in violation of the first amendment, which prohibits impinging on the free practice or Religion. Its explicit, not the mental doublethink you have to pull with equal protection.

Next example please.

No, we couldn't "outlaw" Mormonism, but using your "will of the people" logic, voters could vote to take marriage rights away from Mormons. That wouldn't violate the 1st amendment. That be okay with you?

 

[Seawytch]

The will of the people of California said yes.

Not commenting on it being right or wrong, but that IS the will of the people in CA.

The SCOTUS needs to refuse to hear this. It's a CA issue.

And it is being challenged on constitutional grounds...which becomes a federal issue.

Or...are you of the mind that if CA passed a law banning guns, it continues to be simply a CA issue and abide by the will of the people in passing such a ban?

To the bolded: What "constitutional grounds" are those? Can you be specific?

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm

 

[Si modo]

And it is being challenged on constitutional grounds...which becomes a federal issue.

Or...are you of the mind that if CA passed a law banning guns, it continues to be simply a CA issue and abide by the will of the people in passing such a ban?

To the bolded: What "constitutional grounds" are those? Can you be specific?

The right to marry and the Constitution

Your link says the "legality" of CA's voters' to overturn a CA court decision is in question, not the constitutionality.

I asked for specific constitutional grounds (that's US Constitution) on which the SCOTUS might even consider to hear this case. Your link does not provide that.

Someone asked before, but it's just damn funny that CA even bothers with elections.

 

[Seawytch]

To the bolded: What "constitutional grounds" are those? Can you be specific?

The right to marry and the Constitution

Your link says the "legality" of CA's voters' to overturn a CA court decision is in question, not the constitutionality.

I asked for specific constitutional grounds (that's US Constitution) on which the SCOTUS might even consider to hear this case. Your link does not provide that.

Someone asked before, but it's just damn funny that CA even bothers with elections.

You asked "on what Constitutional grounds". I provided a link on the right to marry and the Constitution.

 

[Si modo]

The right to marry and the Constitution

Your link says the "legality" of CA's voters' to overturn a CA court decision is in question, not the constitutionality.

I asked for specific constitutional grounds (that's US Constitution) on which the SCOTUS might even consider to hear this case. Your link does not provide that.

Someone asked before, but it's just damn funny that CA even bothers with elections.

You asked "on what Constitutional grounds". I provided a link on the right to marry and the Constitution.

You may think you did.

 

[Si modo]

The Supreme Court, after taking most of the day to prepare new orders, took no action Friday on the ten same-sex marriage pleas now on the docket. It did agree to rule on whether taking a human gene out of the body for research is a process that can be patented. That case is Association for Molecular Pathology v.Myriad Genetics (docket 12-398), with the grant limited to that issue. The Justices also agreed to rule on legal protection for makers of generic drugs (Mutual Phamaceutical v. Bartlett, 12-142).

The next opportunity for the Court to issue orders will be at 9:30 a.m. Monday. Nothing has ruled out the possibility that some actions on same-sex marriage could be announced at that time, although there is no indication that that will occur. ....​

Supreme Court considers gay marriage with DOMA, Prop 8 - UPI.com

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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!

Maybe the supreme court should step in an overturn the last election vote of the majority. That is what happened with the vote of prop 8 .

 

[bodecea]

Maybe if you hadn't let all of those Catholics invade the state you'd have your law.

Unintended consequences.

And young Catholics everywhere shudder. All kidding aside.........

 

[bodecea]

The will of the people of California said yes.

Not commenting on it being right or wrong, but that IS the will of the people in CA.

The SCOTUS needs to refuse to hear this. It's a CA issue.

And it is being challenged on constitutional grounds...which becomes a federal issue.

Or...are you of the mind that if CA passed a law banning guns, it continues to be simply a CA issue and abide by the will of the people in passing such a ban?

To the bolded: What "constitutional grounds" are those? Can you be specific?

Yes. A right established by state law (Pre-Prop H8) cannot be taken away from a specific group WITHOUT substantial and stated reasons. Prop H8 did no such thing, it took an already established right and took it away from a group of citizens without explanation. That is the basis of the court cases.

 

[bodecea]

To the bolded: What "constitutional grounds" are those? Can you be specific?

The right to marry and the Constitution

Your link says the "legality" of CA's voters' to overturn a CA court decision is in question, not the constitutionality.

I asked for specific constitutional grounds (that's US Constitution) on which the SCOTUS might even consider to hear this case. Your link does not provide that.

Someone asked before, but it's just damn funny that CA even bothers with elections.

It's not elections per se....it's propositions. And I agree, they need to go away....they are mostly lies to begin with.

 

[bodecea]

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!

Maybe the supreme court should step in an overturn the last election vote of the majority. That is what happened with the vote of prop 8 .

So...you have no problem with the majority voting away the already established civil rights of a minority with no explanation or clear, valid, stated reason.

 

[bodecea]

Not gotten my PFAW alert yet. Very disappointed that we have to still wait.

 

[bodecea]

Well........darn it!

 

[Seawytch]

They can't put it off forever. They can blow off the Prop 8 case and marriage becomes legal in the most populous state in the union, but they can't keep ignoring DOMA. It will have to be addressed. (And without the Justice Department defending it either. The Boehner is paying big bucks to have a private firm do it)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And it is being challenged on constitutional grounds...which becomes a federal issue.

Or...are you of the mind that if CA passed a law banning guns, it continues to be simply a CA issue and abide by the will of the people in passing such a ban?

To the bolded: What "constitutional grounds" are those? Can you be specific?

Yes. A right established by state law (Pre-Prop H8) cannot be taken away from a specific group WITHOUT substantial and stated reasons. Prop H8 did no such thing, it took an already established right and took it away from a group of citizens without explanation. That is the basis of the court cases.

Correct, specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:

“Proposition 8″ was struck down by the Ninth Circuit on the premise that it took away a right that had already existed — the right of same-sex couples to marry under the state constitution, previously declared by the state supreme court. In no other state have gays and lesbians had that right and then had it taken away. So the ruling in that case, as it reached the Supreme Court, appeared to be a California-only decision. Moreover, it closely tracked a prior Supreme Court ruling on gay rights (Romer v. Evans, in 1996), striking down a Colorado constitutional amendment that had put homosexuals into a special disfavored category, taking away rights they previously had to seek laws protecting them from discrimination, when that withdrawal was done at least partly out of hostility to those individuals’ sexual identities.

Same-sex marriage IV: The Court’s options : SCOTUSblog

And it’s the Romer decision which might compel the court to reject reviewing Perry by the four social conservative justices. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority in Romer , and he would obviously provide the fifth vote to affirm the Ninth Circuit.

A decision by the Court to not review the Prop 8 case would be a victory for same-sex couples, as they would be allowed to then marry in California.

 

[Plasmaball]

Still wont admit I found a law than answered your question.

And since I am part of "the people" my opinon should matter alot more than it does now. Just because you feel comfortable giving over your rights to a judicial oligarchy doesnt mean I have to follw along.

and just wishing people like me were gone as opposed to actually trying to counter my arguments by "I like something else, therefore my way should happen irregardless of process, neenerneener" shows how weak your argument really is.

And I know you have more rep than me and negging you is pointless. Ill take the point loss to stick it to a gutless hack such as yourself any day of the week.

FOAD.

But you didn't. The law states that they can't discriminate either.

The difference like i said is Private you should be able to where in the government all are equal. Government being in the Marriage business must treat everyone fairly.

I know you don't like this and would prefer there to be a second class of citizens, but for the most of us we prefer to achieve something better.

I dont want a second class of citizens, I want the proper procedure involved when people discover some consitutional "right." Bypassing the amendment procress is taking a giant shit on the document, and those who created it.

And your whole question was to find a case where a person's right is taken away, and I found it. you lose your right to association, evidently when your club becomes big enough. Yet you refuse to admit I countered your point. Thats what makes you a gutless coward.

but you really didnt because once you serve food you have to admit other people under the law.

 

[Plasmaball]

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!

Maybe the supreme court should step in an overturn the last election vote of the majority. That is what happened with the vote of prop 8 .

what a retarded comparison