California Prop 8

[Common Sense]

I have 3000 years of History and law, you have the opinion of a couple gays.

point me to a law the defines marriage as a union between a man and woman?
point me to a law that allows the legal system to treat its people differently based up on sexual orientation?

 

[martybegan]

marriage is not NOW a fundamental right. it IS and HAS BEEN a fundamental right.

but feel free to take it up with Justice Warren.

Loving v. Virginia

So you oppose bans on Incestuous Marriages and you support Polygamy?

if the prop 8 ban is ruled constitutional, you could see these bans brought to court and challenged as unconstitutional, because the overall basis for them is their immorality. which currently is much of basis for the ban on gay marriage.

im not saying i agree with incestuous marriage or polygamy personally, but as a legal argument there is a case for them based upon discrimination.

i think the major problem here is that people can not separate their personal or religious views here for the legal views.

In my view the major issue is that Proponents of Gay Marriage are trying to use the constitution and the courts as an end run instead of doing it the way it should be done, basically convicing a majority of people it is the right thing to do, and legislating appropriately. As I stated before the constitution (unless amended towards one position or the other) is neutral on the question of marriage in general. Since the people of california amended thier constitution to ban it, it becomes banned in that state. To me there is nothing in the federal constitution (as currently written) to overturn that ban.

 

[Luissa]

I have 3000 years of History and law, you have the opinion of a couple gays.

We have had slavery since the beginning of time, does that make it right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have 3000 years of History and law, you have the opinion of a couple gays.

We have had slavery since the beginning of time, does that make it right?

So you are going to compare gays with slavery? By the way, we answered that question with a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Not a couple gays in robes.

 

[martybegan]

I have 3000 years of History and law, you have the opinion of a couple gays.

point me to a law the defines marriage as a union between a man and woman?
point me to a law that allows the legal system to treat its people differently based up on sexual orientation?

Its basically ALL law that points to this, or else why are proponents of Gay Marriage trying to change the laws currently on the books? And currently the law of the land (in dispute) is DADT, which specifically IS biased on a persons sexual orientation. You have a long history of sodomy laws, which were basically anti-gay laws.

The history is there, just because you dont like it doesnt mean it didnt happen.

 

[Luissa]

I have 3000 years of History and law, you have the opinion of a couple gays.

We have had slavery since the beginning of time, does that make it right?

So you are going to compare gays with slavery? By the way, we answered that question with a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Not a couple gays in robes.

3000 years of history doesn't make it right, I don't think that was hard to understand.
There have also been many amendments put in place that have proven to be unconstitutional.

 

[martybegan]

We have had slavery since the beginning of time, does that make it right?

So you are going to compare gays with slavery? By the way, we answered that question with a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Not a couple gays in robes.

3000 years of history doesn't make it right, I don't think that was hard to understand.
There have also been many amendments put in place that have proven to be unconstitutional.

An amendment CANNOT be unconstitutional, it is by its nature part of the constitution, and therefore automatically constitutional. Please please tell me you mean when the federal constitution overrides a states constitution, and not that a judge can render a amendment to the constitution he is supposed to follow unconstitutional.

Amendments can be repealed, and an amendment can override another, but an amendment can not be made unconstitutional.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We have had slavery since the beginning of time, does that make it right?

So you are going to compare gays with slavery? By the way, we answered that question with a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Not a couple gays in robes.

3000 years of history doesn't make it right, I don't think that was hard to understand.
There have also been many amendments put in place that have proven to be unconstitutional.

We have 27 Amendments to the Constitution. Name one that was found unconstitutional.

 

[Common Sense]

I have 3000 years of History and law, you have the opinion of a couple gays.

point me to a law the defines marriage as a union between a man and woman?
point me to a law that allows the legal system to treat its people differently based up on sexual orientation?

Its basically ALL law that points to this, or else why are proponents of Gay Marriage trying to change the laws currently on the books? And currently the law of the land (in dispute) is DADT, which specifically IS biased on a persons sexual orientation. You have a long history of sodomy laws, which were basically anti-gay laws.

The history is there, just because you dont like it doesnt mean it didnt happen.

there is actually not a law on the books which defines marriage as between a man and woman. that is the basic underlying argument here. Prop 8 modifies the constitution to define it as such.

they are trying to determine of the group that put the prop on the ballot had legal standing to do so. as well as is the prop discriminatory. that is all.

Judge Walker determined it was discriminatory, and struck it down. We are not debating the morality of being gay vs being straight. (that is a personal view that can not be argued)

is this law discriminatory, as it it infringing on the rights of a individual group? in more plain terms, this law only affects gay people, not all people. hence it discriminates and should be deemed illegal.

 

[Common Sense]

So you are going to compare gays with slavery? By the way, we answered that question with a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Not a couple gays in robes.

3000 years of history doesn't make it right, I don't think that was hard to understand.
There have also been many amendments put in place that have proven to be unconstitutional.

We have 27 Amendments to the Constitution. Name one that was found unconstitutional.

its not correct to say an amendment was unconstitutional, it is correct to say that an amendment has been repealed or modified. (i believe that this is what she meant when she said it was unconstitutional. since it was repealed and deemed illegal)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

point me to a law the defines marriage as a union between a man and woman?
point me to a law that allows the legal system to treat its people differently based up on sexual orientation?

Its basically ALL law that points to this, or else why are proponents of Gay Marriage trying to change the laws currently on the books? And currently the law of the land (in dispute) is DADT, which specifically IS biased on a persons sexual orientation. You have a long history of sodomy laws, which were basically anti-gay laws.

The history is there, just because you dont like it doesnt mean it didnt happen.

there is actually not a law on the books which defines marriage as between a man and woman. that is the basic underlying argument here. Prop 8 modifies the constitution to define it as such.

they are trying to determine of the group that put the prop on the ballot had legal standing to do so. as well as is the prop discriminatory. that is all.

Judge Walker determined it was discriminatory, and struck it down. We are not debating the morality of being gay vs being straight. (that is a personal view that can not be argued)

is this law discriminatory, as it it infringing on the rights of a individual group? in more plain terms, this law only affects gay people, not all people. hence it discriminates and should be deemed illegal.

Laws against most things discriminate against some minority.

 

[Common Sense]

Its basically ALL law that points to this, or else why are proponents of Gay Marriage trying to change the laws currently on the books? And currently the law of the land (in dispute) is DADT, which specifically IS biased on a persons sexual orientation. You have a long history of sodomy laws, which were basically anti-gay laws.

The history is there, just because you dont like it doesnt mean it didnt happen.

there is actually not a law on the books which defines marriage as between a man and woman. that is the basic underlying argument here. Prop 8 modifies the constitution to define it as such.

they are trying to determine of the group that put the prop on the ballot had legal standing to do so. as well as is the prop discriminatory. that is all.

Judge Walker determined it was discriminatory, and struck it down. We are not debating the morality of being gay vs being straight. (that is a personal view that can not be argued)

is this law discriminatory, as it it infringing on the rights of a individual group? in more plain terms, this law only affects gay people, not all people. hence it discriminates and should be deemed illegal.

Laws against most things discriminate against some minority.

examples of discriminatory laws......

 

[martybegan]

point me to a law the defines marriage as a union between a man and woman?
point me to a law that allows the legal system to treat its people differently based up on sexual orientation?

Its basically ALL law that points to this, or else why are proponents of Gay Marriage trying to change the laws currently on the books? And currently the law of the land (in dispute) is DADT, which specifically IS biased on a persons sexual orientation. You have a long history of sodomy laws, which were basically anti-gay laws.

The history is there, just because you dont like it doesnt mean it didnt happen.

there is actually not a law on the books which defines marriage as between a man and woman. that is the basic underlying argument here. Prop 8 modifies the constitution to define it as such.

they are trying to determine of the group that put the prop on the ballot had legal standing to do so. as well as is the prop discriminatory. that is all.

Judge Walker determined it was discriminatory, and struck it down. We are not debating the morality of being gay vs being straight. (that is a personal view that can not be argued)

is this law discriminatory, as it it infringing on the rights of a individual group? in more plain terms, this law only affects gay people, not all people. hence it discriminates and should be deemed illegal.

30 states have constitutional bans on same sex marriage, as well as statues on the books. I cannot seem to find the laws as written 30-40 years ago as text, but those would probably refer to a husband and a wife, which while not saying man and woman can be considered to be the same AS saying man and women. So your statement that there is no law on the books defining a marriage between a man and a women is a false one.

And the law DOES affect all people. Straight people cant marry a same sex partner either, just as any man can marry any women.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

there is actually not a law on the books which defines marriage as between a man and woman. that is the basic underlying argument here. Prop 8 modifies the constitution to define it as such.

they are trying to determine of the group that put the prop on the ballot had legal standing to do so. as well as is the prop discriminatory. that is all.

Judge Walker determined it was discriminatory, and struck it down. We are not debating the morality of being gay vs being straight. (that is a personal view that can not be argued)

is this law discriminatory, as it it infringing on the rights of a individual group? in more plain terms, this law only affects gay people, not all people. hence it discriminates and should be deemed illegal.

Laws against most things discriminate against some minority.

examples of discriminatory laws......

Laws against rape discriminate against rapists, laws against murder discriminate against murderers , laws against drunk driving discriminate against drunks that drive. Etc Etc etc. All minorities. Almost all laws discriminate against some minority of the population. All created by a majority.

 

[Luissa]

Laws against most things discriminate against some minority.

examples of discriminatory laws......

Laws against rape discriminate against rapists, laws against murder discriminate against murderers , laws against drunk driving discriminate against drunks that drive. Etc Etc etc. All minorities. Almost all laws discriminate against some minority of the population. All created by a majority.

So, you think homosexual marriage is a crime?

 

[Common Sense]

Laws against most things discriminate against some minority.

examples of discriminatory laws......

Laws against rape discriminate against rapists, laws against murder discriminate against murderers , laws against drunk driving discriminate against drunks that drive. Etc Etc etc. All minorities. Almost all laws discriminate against some minority of the population. All created by a majority.

these groups are not defined as minorities by law, and these individuals commit crimes against society. these are individuals who by choice commits acts of (in these examples) of violence or damage against another individual. apply this to gays wanting to get married. you are saying being gay is a criminal act that should be punishable by jail, prison or even in special circumstances death. that gays physically harm other individuals by being gay.

what a retarded argument. you are attributing gay marriage to a criminal act under the law.

legal definition of minority:

minority n. 1) in voting, a side with less than half the votes. 2) a term for people in a predominantly Caucasian country who are not Caucasian, including African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, indigenous Americans (Indians) and other people supposedly "of color," despite the irony that the majority of the world's population is not Caucasian. Sometimes the term is employed to include women and homosexuals. "Minority" carries with it a certain patronizing tone even when used to assert rights of peoples who have been discriminated against, either socially or by law. 3) The period of life under legal age

 

[RetiredGySgt]

examples of discriminatory laws......

Laws against rape discriminate against rapists, laws against murder discriminate against murderers , laws against drunk driving discriminate against drunks that drive. Etc Etc etc. All minorities. Almost all laws discriminate against some minority of the population. All created by a majority.

So, you think homosexual marriage is a crime?

I don't think Homosexuals can marry. Marriage is between a man and a woman and has been so through the entire western worlds History. And its laws.

I do not oppose Civil Unions. And I do not think the Government has any business legislating what sexual conduct is permitted between consenting adults IN THE PRIVACY of their homes or other private places.

I do believe the Government has the right to legislate what is allowed in the public domain however.

I am simply pointing out that almost all laws discriminate against some minority. That the majority of a society have the power and authority to legislate what is and is not legal within the frame work of their agreed upon Government.

I am opposed to legislation forced on us by some robed Judge. It is not their job, nor do they have that power granted to them by our system of Government.

I am past tired of Liberal judges thwarting the legit desires of the majority for their own personal agenda's.

You want Gay Marriage? Have the legislature CHANGE the laws. Not judges. You want marriage defined as anybody can marry anybody? Either get an amendment to the Constitution to make it enforceable through out the Country or get YOUR State legislature to pass a law making it legal.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

examples of discriminatory laws......

Laws against rape discriminate against rapists, laws against murder discriminate against murderers , laws against drunk driving discriminate against drunks that drive. Etc Etc etc. All minorities. Almost all laws discriminate against some minority of the population. All created by a majority.

these groups are not defined as minorities by law, and these individuals commit crimes against society. these are individuals who by choice commits acts of (in these examples) of violence or damage against another individual. apply this to gays wanting to get married. you are saying being gay is a criminal act that should be punishable by jail, prison or even in special circumstances death. that gays physically harm other individuals by being gay.

what a retarded argument. you are attributing gay marriage to a criminal act under the law.

legal definition of minority:

minority n. 1) in voting, a side with less than half the votes. 2) a term for people in a predominantly Caucasian country who are not Caucasian, including African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, indigenous Americans (Indians) and other people supposedly "of color," despite the irony that the majority of the world's population is not Caucasian. Sometimes the term is employed to include women and homosexuals. "Minority" carries with it a certain patronizing tone even when used to assert rights of peoples who have been discriminated against, either socially or by law. 3) The period of life under legal age

READ your first definition. And yes within a society any group that is smaller then the majority is a minority. Including criminal types.

Take Jillian, she supports the right of Gays to marry and claims it is because MARRIAGE is a protected right of all..... well not all, she does not think Family members should be able to marry each other. And before today she was opposed to plural marriages, I suspect she still is.

Laws are created by the majority and yes they effect the minority. A society has every right to impose a shared morality on the society so long as it fits within the Frame work of the Government agreed to by the majority.

History is on MY SIDE. The history of the LAW is on MY SIDE. 3000 years of laws and society acceptance all say marriage is BETWEEN a man and a woman. Once again even the man loving Greeks never defined marriage as between two people of the same sex. None of the Monarchs during the feudal period EVER declared marriage was anything but between a man and a woman. Even though some of them were gay. Laws on the books today say marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

[bodecea]

The Amendment IS Constitutional, The Federal Government has no business intervening. Are you aware that the Federal Judge that ruled it Unconstitutional is gay?

So?

As for appeal, if the State refuses to do its duty then the people that first argued it have every legal recourse to argue it again.

So, if the People of California pass an "amendment" by simple majority to take voting rights away from people who are Hispanic, it's ok with you? And the Federal Government has no right to interfere?

 

[bodecea]

I also don't see how anyone would agree with people being able to vote on what a minority group can and can't do.

Answer my questions. If Marriage is now a fundamental right and has no parameters defined by States, WHY is polygamy still illegal? Why are incestuous marriages between consenting adults STILL illegal? And why do YOU support THOSE infringements on what you call a Fundamental right?

Is being gay illegal, Sarge?