Ca Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[Sky Dancer]

Bull.

Bull nothing.

All it took today was the say-so of a federal judge...What's to stop another one from affirming the "right" to polygamy?

apples/oranges....homosexuality is not illegal

Plural marriage is.

 

[Oddball]

Bull.

Bull nothing.

All it took today was the say-so of a federal judge...What's to stop another one from affirming the "right" to polygamy?

apples/oranges....homosexuality is not illegal

So what?

What's to stop the next federal judge from deciding that state polygamy statutes violate the "rights" of the parties who wish to freely involve themselves in it?

 

[DavidS]

Really? So you're saying the people have no right to vote directly on the laws that govern their lives by direct referendum?

How does gay marriage effect their lives directly? Let's say you born, raised and married in California. How is your life directly effected by gay marriage? Are you going to lose business and money? Is your marriage threatened? Can you prove that your life today is any different than it was yesterday other than your prejducice against gay people now that gay marriage is allowed in CA?

 

[Big Fitz]

The public voted overwhelmingly for no gay marriage. A judge overturned this for activists who aren't content with just working out contractual agreements on the side like rational people. Therefore you have taken away the will of the people and supplanted it with activist special interest. People don't LIKE that when their vote is nullified by an asshole judge looking play social engineer because they feel entitled to.

It will be interesting IF it turns out SCOTUS bans gay marriage nation wide though. Willing to accept THAT decision too? The majority of Americans, particularly minorities would rejoice their will would matter.

Since when does the PUBLIC get to vote on the rights of other people? Usually the public gets to vote on something that effects them - but gay marriage DOESN'T effect anyone other than the gay couple who are getting married! The PUBLIC should have NEVER been allowed to vote for Proposition 8 - it should've never BEEN allowed to be a proposition in the first place!

Well seig heil to you too sport!

Glad to see you don't give a shit about democracy that you disagree with.

You just remember that the lack of tolerance you have for the majority will get you burned the instant they feel like doing something about the shot you're taking now.

Just warning you of what may come if you push too hard.

 

[Big Fitz]

Really? So you're saying the people have no right to vote directly on the laws that govern their lives by direct referendum?

How does gay marriage effect their lives directly? Let's say you born, raised and married in California. How is your life directly effected by gay marriage? Are you going to lose business and money? Is your marriage threatened? Can you prove that your life today is any different than it was yesterday other than your prejducice against gay people now that gay marriage is allowed in CA?

hmmm the victimless crime argument. ::: cast ignore ::: Worthless argument.

 

[Tank]

 

[Oddball]

Really? So you're saying the people have no right to vote directly on the laws that govern their lives by direct referendum?

How does gay marriage effect their lives directly? Let's say you born, raised and married in California. How is your life directly effected by gay marriage? Are you going to lose business and money? Is your marriage threatened? Can you prove that your life today is any different than it was yesterday other than your prejducice against gay people now that gay marriage is allowed in CA?

Irrelevant to the fact that a federal judge exceeded his authority.

 

[Yurt]

Really? So you're saying the people have no right to vote directly on the laws that govern their lives by direct referendum?

How does gay marriage effect their lives directly? Let's say you born, raised and married in California. How is your life directly effected by gay marriage? Are you going to lose business and money? Is your marriage threatened? Can you prove that your life today is any different than it was yesterday other than your prejducice against gay people now that gay marriage is allowed in CA?

Irrelevant to the fact that a federal judge exceeded his authority.

no he didn't...

point out what authority he exceeded? cite any law you wish...

 

[B. Kidd]

The public voted overwhelmingly for no gay marriage. A judge overturned this for activists who aren't content with just working out contractual agreements on the side like rational people. Therefore you have taken away the will of the people and supplanted it with activist special interest. People don't LIKE that when their vote is nullified by an asshole judge looking play social engineer because they feel entitled to.

It will be interesting IF it turns out SCOTUS bans gay marriage nation wide though. Willing to accept THAT decision too? The majority of Americans, particularly minorities would rejoice their will would matter.

Since when does the PUBLIC get to vote on the rights of other people? Usually the public gets to vote on something that effects them - but gay marriage DOESN'T effect anyone other than the gay couple who are getting married! The PUBLIC should have NEVER been allowed to vote for Proposition 8 - it should've never BEEN allowed to be a proposition in the first place!

MOST especially when it comes to medical marijuana ballots.

 

[Yurt]

Bull nothing.

All it took today was the say-so of a federal judge...What's to stop another one from affirming the "right" to polygamy?

apples/oranges....homosexuality is not illegal

So what?

What's to stop the next federal judge from deciding that state polygamy statutes violate the "rights" of the parties who wish to freely involve themselves in it?

the same people said the same thing when loving v. virginia came down....

logical fallacy

 

[Avatar4321]

I love the logic, the Constitutional amendment is unconstitutional.

Screw the people. Seems to be the left's new motto.

 

[Liberty]

California, lol.

 

[Political Junky]

Apparently, the pro prop 8 attorney presented only two "experts". The judge found both to be worthless.

 

[Oddball]

apples/oranges....homosexuality is not illegal

So what?

What's to stop the next federal judge from deciding that state polygamy statutes violate the "rights" of the parties who wish to freely involve themselves in it?

the same people said the same thing when loving v. virginia came down....

logical fallacy

Which "same people"?

Strawman.

 

[Oddball]

How does gay marriage effect their lives directly? Let's say you born, raised and married in California. How is your life directly effected by gay marriage? Are you going to lose business and money? Is your marriage threatened? Can you prove that your life today is any different than it was yesterday other than your prejducice against gay people now that gay marriage is allowed in CA?

Irrelevant to the fact that a federal judge exceeded his authority.

no he didn't...

point out what authority he exceeded? cite any law you wish...

State licensing statutes aren't (supposedly) under federal jurisdiction.

See: Dual sovereignty, the 9th and 10th Amendments.

 

[Luissa]

Irrelevant to the fact that a federal judge exceeded his authority.

no he didn't...

point out what authority he exceeded? cite any law you wish...

State licensing laws aren't under federal jurisdiction.

See: Dual sovereignty, the 9th and 10th Amendments.

the right to enter into a contract is.

 

[Luissa]

Irrelevant to the fact that a federal judge exceeded his authority.

no he didn't...

point out what authority he exceeded? cite any law you wish...

State licensing statutes aren't (supposedly) under federal jurisdiction.

See: Dual sovereignty, the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Did the Supreme Court over step it in Loving V Virginia?

 

[asterism]

The Segregationists lose again!

Bitter even in a victory.

I think I like the positive reactions of those happy about how this ruling affects their lives. I don't think I like the "stick it to them" activism by idiots.

I am pleased by results of this ruling but I am concerned about the manner in which the State Constitution of California was amended according to proper legal procedure and then it was ruled "unconstitutional."

I am more concerned with the power that the courts now have to arbitrate this. What if SCOTUS rules that the ban was indeed Constitutional? Then what?

This was a bad strategy in my opinion.

But I am quite happy for my friends in California, both those currently married and those hoping this will allow them to get married.

 

[Avatar4321]

Apparently, the pro prop 8 attorney presented only two "experts". The judge found both to be worthless.

and the Judge can't possibly be corrupt can he?

 

[Steerpike]

Apparently, the pro prop 8 attorney presented only two "experts". The judge found both to be worthless.

and the Judge can't possibly be corrupt can he?

I've already heard the corrupt/biased argument thrown out there because the judge is gay.