Liberal FASCISM in California

[Shogun]

REAL conservatives? Should we all just take your word on it or would you like to shock this monkey and post some evidence?


And, again, I support gay marriage... just not the total disregard of our constitutions or people thereof in order to achieve a 3 month window that brings us right back to repeating the 04 election.


oh, and how many classic liberals can you name who would have supported gay marriage produced by judicial activism? Now, don't prematurely larkinate here since this might just require an answer that is a bit deeper than crying about my political ideology.

 

[Ravi]

REAL conservatives? Should we all just take your word on it or would you like to shock this monkey and post some evidence?


And, again, I support gay marriage... just not the total disregard of our constitutions or people thereof in order to achieve a 3 month window that brings us right back to repeating the 04 election.


oh, and how many classic liberals can you name who would have supported gay marriage produced by judicial activism? Now, don't prematurely larkinate here since this might just require an answer that is a bit deeper than crying about my political ideology.

Interpreting the law isn't judicial activism no matter how you'd like to pretend it is.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Interpreting the law isn't judicial activism no matter how you'd like to pretend it is.

Yeah sure - they "interpreted" some old racial equality law that had nothing to do with homosexuality while totally ignoring a 2000 anti-gay law staring them right in the face....

...hell, even one of the judges - who is pro-gay btw - dissented for that very reason...

 

[Shogun]

Yeah sure - they "interpreted" some old racial equality law that had nothing to do with homosexuality while totally ignoring a 2000 anti-gay law staring them right in the face....

...hell, even one of the judges - who is pro-gay btw - dissented for that very reason...

and thats EXACTLY why, if I were one to blame conspiracies, it's awfully funny that this same thing happens again in an election year like it did the LAST TIME it galvanized republican support. As if, in this period of republican burnout, the gop is above baiting dems like a ******* crappie since the same damn thing worked so well in 04.


i mean, it's the SAME ******* thing all over again.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

and thats EXACTLY why, if I were one to blame conspiracies, it's awfully funny that this same thing happens again in an election year like it did the LAST TIME it galvanized republican support. As if, in this period of republican burnout, the gop is above baiting dems like a ******* crappie since the same damn thing worked so well in 04.


i mean, it's the SAME ******* thing all over again.

now you wanna go and get this thread banished to the conspiracy bin?

....remember we can't talk about certain things unless they are in certain categories....

 

[Shogun]

im hoping it's not a concerted effort...


but im having '04 flashbacks and I don't think it's just the acid.

 

[Dogger]

Although this case was decided as a matter of California law, it can instructive for the rest of us. What makes it difficult to argue coherently is the absolutely schizophrenic view of marriage by conservatives. On the one hand, marriage is so minor and trivial that the states are free to regulate it without judicial oversight. On the other hand, it's the cornerstone of civilization, which will collapse if we allow gays to participate (though we never hear how that would happen).

Even if marriage is a state matter, the state cannot act arbitrarily. If gay citizens are treated differently, the equal protection clause requires a reasonable state interest for doing so. We have heard all of the apocalyptical predictions to justify the ban, but none have occurred in Massachusetts since it legalized gay marriage. I have asked those who oppose gay marriage to give me a rational basis, but no one has offered anything other than hyperbole and fear mongering.

Whenever the majority seeks to impose it’s will on a minority using the force of law, courts have been authorized to protect the fundamental rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. The courts overturned school segregation (Brown v. Board of Education), interracial marriage bans (Loving v. Virginia) and criminal punishment for homosexual conduct (Lawrence v. Texas). Each of those originated from democratic processes, and each involved the irrational suppression of a minority by the majority. Judicial review to protect fundamental liberty is a core concept of constitutional liberty. Those who object to it should seek refuge in a fascist state instead of trying to convert America into one.

 

[Larkinn]

No, your very arguement is predicated upon the idea that it is a right since, thanks to my dangling carrot trick, you agree that gay marriage was never legislated. So, did you want to post your evidence or what, puss? Maybe you can cry about ad hominems some more since we both know that your quiver is empty.

No, my argument is predicated on the idea that equality is a right. Either take marriage out of the hands of the state, or stop discriminating against gays. I don't really care which one happens.

Scroll up, lil guy. If you can't read the big words just sound them out.

Point being, I didn't admit that, and you are just making shit up, as usual.

Yea, NO ONE has ANY interest in voicing the will of the people with LEGISLATION, eh?

But somehow the Constitution isn't the will of the people, eh?

I notice that after you got schooled, your no longer saying its the will of the legislature, eh?

The organization said that a constitutional marriage amendment should be placed on the November ballot and that national efforts should be made to generate a federal marriage amendment.

"The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands of the people," Barber said.

A constitutional amendment initiative specifying that marriage is only between a man and a woman is awaiting verification by the secretary of state's office after its sponsors said they had gathered enough signatures to place it on the statewide ballot.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html

Conservative leaders expressed outrage at the ruling and vowed to appeal.

"For a single judge to rule there is no conceivable purpose for preserving marriage as one man and one woman is mind-boggling," said Mathew Staver, Liberty Counsel president. "This decision will be gasoline on the fire of the pro-marriage movement in California as well as the rest of the country.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7182628/

But the scope of the court's decision could be thrown into question by an initiative already heading toward the November ballot. The initiative would amend the state Constitution to prohibit same-sex unions.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage16-2008may16,0,6182317.story

Wow, conservatives are against gay marriage? What a surprise.

learn how to read, beyotch..

Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec, who favors marriage only for opposite-sex couples, agreed that the impact could be enormous. "This is an engine that will produce a large number of marriage licenses," he said, adding that some couples would eventually move to other states and try to assert the validity of their licenses.

Federal and state laws say states need not recognize gay marriages from elsewhere, but those laws have yet to be tested.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-15-calif-gay-marriage_N.htm?csp=34

Your point?

HA! you still don't see how I made you clarify how the court ruled on something that was NOT legislation or within their jurisdiction to decide, eh?

Hey, maybe reliving 2004 will help you figure it out, stupid.

They ruled on the Constitution, which is both legislation AND in their jurisidiction.

 

[Ravi]

btw, Shog, the nineteenth amendment was to clarify that not only white men were covered by the constitution...the government doing its job and PROTECTING rights, not taking them away. Off the top of my head the one time they tried to TAKE AWAY rights was that prohibition amendment...how'd that one work out?

 

[Shogun]

Although this case was decided as a matter of California law, it can instructive for the rest of us. What makes it difficult to argue coherently is the absolutely schizophrenic view of marriage by conservatives. On the one hand, marriage is so minor and trivial that the states are free to regulate it without judicial oversight. On the other hand, it's the cornerstone of civilization, which will collapse if we allow gays to participate (though we never hear how that would happen).

Even if marriage is a state matter, the state cannot act arbitrarily. If gay citizens are treated differently, the equal protection clause requires a reasonable state interest for doing so. We have heard all of the apocalyptical predictions to justify the ban, but none have occurred in Massachusetts since it legalized gay marriage. I have asked those who oppose gay marriage to give me a rational basis, but no one has offered anything other than hyperbole and fear mongering.

Whenever the majority seeks to impose it’s will on a minority using the force of law, courts have been authorized to protect the fundamental rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. The courts overturned school segregation (Brown v. Board of Education), interracial marriage bans (Loving v. Virginia) and criminal punishment for homosexual conduct (Lawrence v. Texas). Each of those originated from democratic processes, and each involved the irrational suppression of a minority by the majority. Judicial review to protect fundamental liberty is a core concept of constitutional liberty. Those who object to it should seek refuge in a fascist state instead of trying to convert America into one.

hey, you've been given the same advice since braying on and on and on about Bush V Gore in 2000. Here, you may enjoy a 3 month window or California MAY keep gay marriage like Mass. Either way, you have just swallowed the same hook, line and sinker that was also cast into the pond back in 04. Way to look ahead.


And, you may enjoy bench legislating but that's now how the founding fathers, OR the Constitution itself, meant for our system to work. By all means, enjoy your happy dance while we gear up for deja vu 08.

 

[Larkinn]

hey, you've been given the same advice since braying on and on and on about Bush V Gore in 2000. Here, you may enjoy a 3 month window or California MAY keep gay marriage like Mass. Either way, you have just swallowed the same hook, line and sinker that was also cast into the pond back in 04. Way to look ahead.

They will keep it. The majority of people agree with the decision. So much for your "against the will of the people" nonsense.

And, you may enjoy bench legislating but that's now how the founding fathers, OR the Constitution itself, meant for our system to work. By all means, enjoy your happy dance while we gear up for deja vu 08.

Actually courts have been able to interpret the constitution and decide that legislation is invalid because it goes against said constitution for hundreds of years now. Its one of the oldest precedents in this country.

 

[Shogun]

btw, Shog, the nineteenth amendment was to clarify that not only white men were covered by the constitution...the government doing its job and PROTECTING rights, not taking them away. Off the top of my head the one time they tried to TAKE AWAY rights was that prohibition amendment...how'd that one work out?

yet is was still, say it with me, LEGISLATION that was accepted and passed via what branch of government?

there has never been a RIGHT to marriage. Maybe you can point one out in either state or federal Constitution...

And, thanks for bringing up prohibition and the consumption of alcohol since THAT TOO isn't a "right" any more than hosting a dog fighting ring in your back yard. Feel free to insist differently in a DRY COUNTY though. Your point will similarly be laughed at by THOSE local people who have chosen to restrict alcohol consumption in their part of America.

 

[Ravi]

yet is was still, say it with me, LEGISLATION that was accepted and passed via what branch of government?

there has never been a RIGHT to marriage. Maybe you can point one out in either state or federal Constitution...

And, thanks for bringing up prohibition and the consumption of alcohol since THAT TOO isn't a "right" any more than hosting a dog fighting ring in your back yard. Feel free to insist differently in a DRY COUNTY though. Your point will similarly be laughed at by THOSE local people who have chosen to restrict alcohol consumption in their part of America.

Marriage as a right is debatable. It was ruled such in Loving, I believe. The problem is granting a license to one group and denying it to another means it becomes a right.

You might not know this, but drinking isn't illegal in dry counties.

Doofus.

 

[Shogun]

They will keep it. The majority of people agree with the decision. So much for your "against the will of the people" nonsense.

HA!

yea, we sure as **** saw that the majority AGREE this side of losing the 04 election because of this issue.. THANKS to Mass, no less. How many States passes legislation that disagrees with your stupid ******* opinion again? oh yea, silly me.. Of COURSE I should just take your word for it.. you ARE the larking, yo.



Actually courts have been able to interpret the constitution and decide that legislation is invalid because it goes against said constitution for hundreds of years now. Its one of the oldest precedents in this country.



Again, the court didn't INTERPRET prop 22. They INVALIDATED the legislative result. I don't expect your pea sized brain to comprehend the difference OR to admit that, in fact, almost 1/3 of the states voted AGAINST gay marriage in 04.

But, yes, because Larkin says everyone supports it then it must be true. Evidence otherwise be damned.

 

[Shogun]

Marriage as a right is debatable. It was ruled such in Loving, I believe. The problem is granting a license to one group and denying it to another means it becomes a right.

You might not know this, but drinking isn't illegal in dry counties.

Doofus.

But buying alcohol, prohibition, IS. Where is their "right", eh Ravi? And no, it's not debatable. Feel free to open your argument with evidence from the Constitution. And no, it doesn't "become a right" just because gays are not offered the same options as straits. Feel free to tell me how selling alcohol became a right since dry counties segregate availability of alcohol..

 

[Larkinn]

HA!

yea, we sure as **** saw that the majority AGREE this side of losing the 04 election because of this issue.. THANKS to Mass, no less. How many States passes legislation that disagrees with your stupid ******* opinion again? oh yea, silly me.. Of COURSE I should just take your word for it.. you ARE the larking, yo.

The majority of Californians, dumbass.

Again, the court didn't INTERPRET prop 22. They INVALIDATED the legislative result. I don't expect your pea sized brain to comprehend the difference OR to admit that, in fact, almost 1/3 of the states voted AGAINST gay marriage in 04.

The court interpreted the Constitution. They invalidated prop 22 because the Constitution (which is legislation) doesn't allow it.

What other states did has no relevance to what California is allowed, or will, do.

But buying alcohol, prohibition, IS. Where is their "right", eh Ravi? And no, it's not debatable. Feel free to open your argument with evidence from the Constitution.

Still waiting for where in the text of the 14th it says state sponsored segregations is illegal Shogun. So either you think Brown v. Board of Ed. was wrongly decided, or you've become a strict constitutionalist just because it supports your current asinine pov.

And no, it doesn't "become a right" just because gays are not offered the same options as straits. Feel free to tell me how selling alcohol became a right since dry counties segregate availability of alcohol..

Alcoholic beverages don't have any rights under the Constitution, therefore you can segregate them.

Seriously? Did you really bring up segregating alcohol as a point? Even you couldn't have thought that was valid.

 

[Ravi]

But buying alcohol, prohibition, IS. Where is their "right", eh Ravi? And no, it's not debatable. Feel free to open your argument with evidence from the Constitution. And no, it doesn't "become a right" just because gays are not offered the same options as straits. Feel free to tell me how selling alcohol became a right since dry counties segregate availability of alcohol..

Where is their right? Their right is in the constitution where it says nothing whatsoever about marriage. The only constitutional way to deny the right of gays to marry is to make a amendment to the US constitution. Which isn't authorized to deny rights. So it isn't possible, constitutionally.

Segregate alcohol? What are you smoking?

 

[Larkinn]

Where is their right? Their right is in the constitution where it says nothing whatsoever about marriage. The only constitutional way to deny the right of gays to marry is to make a amendment to the US constitution. Which isn't authorized to deny rights. So it isn't possible, constitutionally.

Segregate alcohol? What are you smoking?

You can deny rights in the Constitution. You can do whatever you want if you get the votes for it. In some sense, much of it is a denial of rights in the sense that it expressly gives government power to act and compel individuals.

 

[Ravi]

You can deny rights in the Constitution. You can do whatever you want if you get the votes for it. In some sense, much of it is a denial of rights in the sense that it expressly gives government power to act and compel individuals.

I guess I should have said it would be un-American.

Please explain your second sentence, I'm not quite grasping it.

 

[Shogun]

The majority of Californians, dumbass.

oh THOSE people... Gosh, like they matter outside your goofy ******* judical activism.

For eight years, California’s 2000 ballot initiative Proposition 22 (or Prop 22) prevented California from recognizing same-sex marriages. Voters adopted the measure on March 7, 2000 with 61.4% in favor.[1] On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court struck down this initiative and related California law in a 4-3 decision, giving same-sex couples the right to marry. [2]

This measure is also known as the Knight Initiative, after its author, the late state senator William "Pete" Knight. It may also be cited as the California Defense of Marriage Act.

Despite the act's brevity — just 14 words — its effect provoked debate long after its passage. An amendment to the state constitution with identical wording is now pending approval for voters to consider in the November 4, 2008 general election.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_(2000)






The court interpreted the Constitution. They invalidated prop 22 because the Constitution (which is legislation) doesn't allow it.

according to your bench legislating opinion.


What other states did has no relevance to what California is allowed, or will, do.

yea, DUMBFUCK. We sure did see THAT work out exactly that way in 04, didnt we? Indeed, you didn't even read yesterdays' USA Today evidence I cited, did ya? figures.



Still waiting for where in the text of the 14th it says state sponsored segregations is illegal Shogun. So either you think Brown v. Board of Ed. was wrongly decided, or you've become a strict constitutionalist just because it supports your current asinine pov.


Indeed, which is why I schooled you with Clarence Thomas quotes on that exact same decision. Magic didn't happen in Brown v Board. I realize that it makes your cockles tingle when looking back but you still can't answer WHERE IF THE **** IS THE RIGHT TO MARRIAGE IN THE CON. The FACT remains that we both know that this is not how the Founding Fathers intended the gov to work. If you can't respond with more than shit talking then perhaps you should take 3 more pages to cry about others throwing ad homenems at you.



Alcoholic beverages don't have any rights under the Constitution, therefore you can segregate them.

yet, according to Ravi's logic, EVERYONE has the right to buy alcoholic beverages regardless of local legislation passed that says otherwise. It really doesn't shock me that you didn't catch that.


Seriously? Did you really bring up segregating alcohol as a point? Even you couldn't have thought that was valid.

Perhaps you want to take that penis out from your mouth and scroll up to discover who brought up alcohol and prohibition. Indeed, facts have never been your strong suit so I fully expect you to throw another monkey turd while crying about ad hominems.