Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional..

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

How is allowing gay marriage taking away any of your rights?

How is gay marriage a right?

 

[Sean]

How is gay marriage a right?

Unresponsive.

How is gay marriage taking away any of your rights?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

How has straight marriage taken away any of their "rights?"

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

How has straight marriage taken away any of their "rights?"

Again, unresponsive.

How is gay marriage taking away any of your rights?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Unresponsive because the question is fucking nonsense...





Show me a marriage "right" for ANYONE in the US Constitution.



Go back to being smart. I don't fall for emotional traps lacking any sense of reason...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

It's amazing how liberals find protection for everything they like in the Equal Protection Clause but see no protection for the "rich" when it comes to economic discrimination in the same clause.

DAMNIT!!!




You pulled my trigger...

They got Communism put into the Constitution.

If they aren't careful, they are going to force the majority to use the Constitution to protect their way of life...

 

[kbate]

PS - Ours is a Constitution of Individual Liberty, not group rights.

As an individual, any gay is free to marry a woman and any lesbian is free to marry a man and either one of them is perfectly free to enter into a legal contract with someone of the same sex that preserves their "rights" in every legal setting...

The problem is that your second statement is not true. While you make legal contracts - they are generally unenforceable in cases where biological relations desires are at odds with your contractual partner. Medical decisions, Probate law and even family custody law are 3 places where biology defeats law.

Contracts that states may ignore are not protections nor are they equal justice under law.

When a $35 marriage contract ratified by a religious figure buys those protections and rights for a heterosexual couple - where is the justice for homosexual couples?

And more important - why do you wish those rights to only confer to man/woman? What is it that you are trying to protect? From whom?

 

[Byron In Exile]

What's your point byron, I see nothing in your Jefferson quotations that would indicate that he would advocate judicial advocacy.

He absolutely didn't.

Taken in conjunction with those quotes that vette posted one could only conclude that the contrary is the case. Quite clearly Jefferson saw legislative and constitutional amendment processes as the way forward.

Correct.

I would further add that Jefferson was an optomist, that is not an indictment, merely an observation.

Also correct. Almost to the point of being naive in his faith in the common sense of the people.

He, and many of his contemporaries, saw themselves on the leading edge of a new age of reason. I think that like many today he felt that all of the new discoveries in the realm of science would somehow have profound changes in the realm of mans relationship to his government.

But, they already have. The institution of slavery has been eliminated, and women can vote. Wheee...! Ain't progress grand?

My position is that nothing has changed in the least.

I don't understand that statement.

How man interacts with his government has certainly changed, for the better AND for the worse, due to technology but that there has no change in governmental forms at all.

The consolidation of federal power under Lincoln, under FDR... seriously? No change?

But the issue at hand is NOT whether gay marriage should be legal. I think that the trend is clear, and has been for quite some time, and that gay marriage is an inevitable societal conclussion to the ongoing process of change. Afterall marriage is merely a shotcut to what can already be accomplished by the filing of the proper legal documents. The issue is whether that decision should be made by the people of the several states or by the courts by fiat.

I agree about what you say the issue isn't, and I agree with what you say about the trend. But what the issue is, is whether a State has amended its Constitution, as California has, in a way which conflicts with the US Constitution. That's the question.

When the courts can render decisions on what the judge(s) believe the consitution meant to say, or by what it infers on subjects on which it is mute, rather than what the document actually says, then we are on our way to a government where elections, all elections, are rendered meaningless beyond the hopes that a different judge for life be appointed. We enter a phase where men who are wholly unaccountable to the people for their actions become a communal monoarchy.

You think we're not there, yet? Look what Obama, Pelosi, and Reid just pulled off with their (fortunately) short-lived super-majority.

I don't care whether California, or any other state for that matter, decides to allow gays to marry or not. I see that as the proper role of the states and the intent of the founders. I do care whether that change comes about via the people or the courts. The former reflects exactly the evolutionary change that Jefferson discussed, the latter is no different than an edict from the king.

Again, "States' rights" are constrained by the US Constitution.

A State may pass a law which says that lunch counters must be segregated according to race, but it will be null and void.

This amendment to the California Constitution may be null and void for the same reason.

 

[Sean]

Unresponsive because the question is fucking nonsense...





Show me a marriage "right" for ANYONE in the US Constitution.



Go back to being smart. I don't fall for emotional traps lacking any sense of reason...

The question isn't ridiculous. You stated that the left wanted to take away your rights. Your refusal to answer shows that even you know you're talking through your arse.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Bullshit.

Power of attorney and changing perceptions render your reply obsolete.

The majority is perfectly fucking willing to work with you on all those issues, but for some reason yes just isn't a good enough answer. For the moral busybody on a crusade, it never is...
__________________
"Sex is not messed up because it was put in the closet; it was put in the closet because it was messed up."

"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
CS Lewis

 

[Sean]

Yesterday I sarcastically suggested that now that the government has decided to manage marriage they ought to issue to everyone a Civil Union Certificate and those who wanted to be married could then go to church to be married; knowing full well that the first church that refused to marry a gay couple would get pounced in my the ACLU like a tick on a dog. They still wouldn't be happy.

Because discrimination is wrong. It's quite simple. All men are created equal, remember?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The question isn't ridiculous. You stated that the left wanted to take away your rights. Your refusal to answer shows that even you know you're talking through your arse.

I was using the word as loosely as they do...

That's fair, right?

What they want to take away is my culture and replace it with theirs and if I don't allow it, they scream tyranny of the majority and NOT FAIR!!!

Well, I have news for the Left. Life ain't fair. Try working harder to get ahead and see who they hitch to your wagon...
__________________
"We know that the moment of greatest danger to a society is when it comes near realizing its most cherished dreams."
Eric Hoffer

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Because discrimination is wrong. It's quite simple. All men are created equal, remember?

Doesn't guarantee equal outcome.

 

[Sean]

I was using the word as loosely as they do...

That's fair, right?

What they want to take away is my culture and replace it with theirs and if I don't allow it, they scream tyranny of the majority and NOT FAIR!!!

Well, I have news for the Left. Life ain't fair. Try working harder to get ahead and see who they hitch to your wagon...
__________________
"We know that the moment of greatest danger to a society is when it comes near realizing its most cherished dreams."
Eric Hoffer

How is gay marriage taking away your culture? Is allowing two people that love each other to marry somehow going to stop you opening a casino?

 

[Byron In Exile]

When a $35 marriage contract ratified by a religious figure buys those protections and rights for a heterosexual couple - where is the justice for homosexual couples?

And more important - why do you wish those rights to only confer to man/woman? What is it that you are trying to protect? From whom?

*crickets*

 

[Sean]

Doesn't guarantee equal outcome.

No, it doesn't. But discrimination stops people from pursuing happiness if they aren't allowed to do something that the majority are based on their sexual orientation.

 

[tomnorthwales]

Yesterday I sarcastically suggested that now that the government has decided to manage marriage they ought to issue to everyone a Civil Union Certificate and those who wanted to be married could then go to church to be married; knowing full well that the first church that refused to marry a gay couple would get pounced in my the ACLU like a tick on a dog. They still wouldn't be happy.

It's amazing how liberals find protection for everything they like in the Equal Protection Clause but see no protection for the "rich" when it comes to economic discrimination in the same clause.

That sounds like a good idea. Only allow legal marriage to take place in registry offices/whatever they call them in America. Then churches can be a s homophobic as they like without actually denying gays marriage. without them contravening EPC or whatever.
vette, your point about economic discrimination is starting to get repetitve. rich people pay more tax because they have more money. Rich people often manage to avoid paying tax though beacause of loop holes.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

How is gay marriage taking away your culture? Is allowing two people that love each other to marry somehow going to stop you opening a casino?

Again, gay marriage is not the goal.

You keep trying to drag me down into an emotional debate, but it will not work.

Gay unions are not marriages unless your goal is to redefine a cultural institution to replace it with your own culture. If it is okay to redefine marriage as a "right" then the logical conclusion is that almost ANYTHING can be labeled a marriage...

You see, people don't have to get "married" to express their love, anymore than they have to be in love to get married.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

What about freedom of religion?

What about it?

 

[jeninflorida]

The judge was not interested in equality.

No, it doesn't. But discrimination stops people from pursuing happiness if they aren't allowed to do something that the majority are based on their sexual orientation.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

That sounds like a good idea. Only allow legal marriage to take place in registry offices/whatever they call them in America. Then churches can be a s homophobic as they like without actually denying gays marriage. without them contravening EPC or whatever.
vette, your point about economic discrimination is starting to get repetitve. rich people pay more tax because they have more money. Rich people often manage to avoid paying tax though beacause of loop holes.

Rich people don't pay taxes. They collect taxes during economic activity, an activity which usually involves people who are not rich and absorb the tax cost by paying a higher price for the goods and services the rich have to offer.

That's the big loophole; our schools tend to teach Marxist economic theory, not the Economic Theory of Capitalism.
__________________
It is popular today to blame capitalism for everything that displeases. Indeed, who is still aware of what he would have to forego if there were no "capitalism?" When great dreams do not come true, capitalism is charged immediately. This may be a proper procedure for party politics, but in Scientific discussion, it should be avoided.
Ludwig von Mises
A Critique of Interventionalism (1929)

 

[Sean]

Again, gay marriage is not the goal.

You keep trying to drag me down into an emotional debate, but it will not work.

Gay unions are not marriages unless your goal is to redefine a cultural institution to replace it with your own culture. If it is okay to redefine marriage as a "right" then the logical conclusion is that almost ANYTHING can be labeled a marriage...

You see, people don't have to get "married" to express their love, anymore than they have to be in love to get married.

I'm not trying to drag you into anything. I'm trying to get you to justify an obviously illogical position.

The judge was not interested in equality.

No, he was interested in the law. That's his job.