Breaking. Prop 8.... struck down.

[ABikerSailor]

So much for voting. Apparently it's just a farce and when the result conflicts with the leftist agenda, no need to worry the judiciary to the rescue, to once again force the socialist will down the throats of the good voters. It's interesting how the socialists fabricate and attempt to hide behind what they claim is constitutional on one hand and ignore it altogether when it doesn't suit them or they cannot manufacture the illusion that somehow only they know what was intended.

I support gay marriage or better said, I am not opposed to it and am indifferent.
And I have voted Republican for 40 straight years 95% of the time
I ain't no leftist.
Them is fighten words!
Ever notice how come election we hear the anti gay marriage politicians and then we hear nothing about it for another 4 years?
Think about that Moe.

That's because the "gay boogeyman" is the dog whistle to get the GOP base to head out to the polls to vote for the GOP.

Interestingly enough, that dog whistle also comes in Christian as well.

The GOP was hoping that by now the economy would be so fucked up that they'd win handily this time, but, unfortunately for them, the economy is getting better, employment is going up and the Dow is at almost 13,000.

Is it any wonder that all of them have set upon this "Obama is at war with Christians and Catholics"?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In order to form the union they had to agree not to interfere in each other INTERNAL AFFAIRS - nor was any authority given to fedgov. The ONLY reason it interferes is because fedgov has powerful domestic armies and we are being governed by a continuing criminal enterprise.

Nonsense.

Majorities don’t determine civil rights, nor does one forfeit his civil rights as a consequence of his state of residence.

That the State of California violates the equal protection rights of some of its citizens is not an ‘internal affair.’

And this has nothing to do with ‘Federal authority’ and everything to do with inalienable rights.

 

[Gadawg73]

No it's not you crazy radical.

Just stop and think for a moment what are the modern implications of a marriage.

Think immigration. Think fraud.

What would happen if anyone could marry anyone with no government oversite?

How would immigration process all those "new citizens?"

That's just ONE aspect.

Snap out of your radical, make-believe, non-realistic, nonsensical, libertarian bubble!!

What government oversight is there now other than EXISTING criminal statutes if you want to get married?
How does allowing gay folk change those existing statutes?
They do not exempt gay folk if they get married as it is now.
Specifics please sir.

Clearly you are a non-thinker.

Did you see the example I brought up...that of the immigration situation?

Do I have to spell it out for you?

If/when a foreigner marries a citizen said foreigner can become an American citizen, it's the fastest track to citizenship. Although it has stipulations and a time line associated with it. The Immigration Department handles that. Last time I checked that's a part of Government, aka government oversight.

One more retort like this and I'm gonna write you off like I did that radical fool paulitician.

I responded to that absurdity already Mr. Thinker.
Again, real slow:
Legal gay marriage changes nothing with the immigration "situation".
They can marry a straight person now and commit the same fraud.
The law makes no distinction on sexual orientation when a crime is committed.
Where is that in your "government oversight situation"?
IOW, Mr. Thinker, the law makes no distinction as to sexual preference in all crimes and in your immigration "situation". Those that commit that fraud could easily do it as a heterosexual couple.

 

[Dr Grump]

and the primary reason marriage isn't now inclusive to gay couples, is due to bigotry and intolerance. We're not talking about some simple issue of morality here. This isn't slavery, this isn't gays being forced into ghettos, this isn't gays being forced to ride in the back of the bus.

Your last two sentences contradict your first (which ends with the bolded part

Did you intentionally take my statement out of context?

No. It is not out of context as far as I can tell....

 

[Gadawg73]

In order to form the union they had to agree not to interfere in each other INTERNAL AFFAIRS - nor was any authority given to fedgov. The ONLY reason it interferes is because fedgov has powerful domestic armies and we are being governed by a continuing criminal enterprise.

Nonsense.

Majorities don’t determine civil rights, nor does one forfeit his civil rights as a consequence of his state of residence.

That the State of California violates the equal protection rights of some of its citizens is not an ‘internal affair.’

And this has nothing to do with ‘Federal authority’ and everything to do with inalienable rights.

Exactly, The Constitution protects the individual minority and is a doctrine dedicated to LIMITING the power of government.
Amazing that the very people that have their freedom because of The United States Constitution know nothing about that document and what it is.
The Constitution is founded on the principle of LIMITED GOVERNMENT, it tells government what it CAN NOT DO and now we have the uneducated masses wanting to take a document that is founded on WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN NOT DO, twist it, distort it and make a whore of it for political gain to tell a certain group of different folk what they can not do INSTEAD OF WHAT GOVERNMENT CAN NOT DO.
We do not live in a democracy sports fans. Democracy majority rule is MOB RULE.
The Constitution protects the rights of the individual, the minority.
True patriots of freedom and defenders of FREEDOM seek to protect the rights of those they MAY DESPISE THE MOST.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And that gives a couple of judges carte blanche to toss it out?

What I responded to had nothing to do with judges.


What gives judges the authority to throw out a law is when it is found to be in conflict with the Constitution, nothing about how many vote a law passes by gives them that authority.


>>>>

Of what relevance is the vote margin to that issue?

It showed the trend line in California between Prop 22 to Prop 8, a shift toward approval of about 20% in just 8 short years.

>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

Yet when gay activists tried to get the issue back on the ballot, they couldn't even get enough signatures to qualify.

Even California which generally has a culture of a slime pit couldn't muster up enough signatures on a petition to get it back on the ballot.

These kind of culturally destructive acts happen in a sequence. We would never have had same sex marriage if we hadn't started on the road toward degeneracy long ago. When we accepted a divorce rate through the roof, more children aborted than born, found normalcy in a pregnant teen age girl, accepted that 7 year olds get STDs and should have school provided condoms that's when same sex marriage became inevitable. As will every other boundary down the line.

 

[syrenn]

Yet when gay activists tried to get the issue back on the ballot, they couldn't even get enough signatures to qualify.

Even California which generally has a culture of a slime pit couldn't muster up enough signatures on a petition to get it back on the ballot.

These kind of culturally destructive acts happen in a sequence. We would never have had same sex marriage if we hadn't started on the road toward degeneracy long ago. When we accepted a divorce rate through the roof, more children aborted than born, found normalcy in a pregnant teen age girl, accepted that 7 year olds get STDs and should have school provided condoms that's when same sex marriage became inevitable. As will every other boundary down the line.

Since when has our government been the mortality police?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Also, I'll point out that this "right" they had was granted by judicial fiat; it didn't "always exist".

Actually rights exist without being enumerated by the government, you might want to check the 9th for confirmation that rights do not have to be specifically enumerated by the government for them to exist for the people.

Well, first of all the problem is gay marriage supporters have the mistaken belief that they have room to sit around demanding answers for not getting their way.

You should read the Constitution in which the very 1st Amendment specifically notes that citizens have a right to bring grievance against the government, and since the incorporation of the 14th Amendment makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the States as enumerated by the 14th Amendments primary author.

The onus is those who want to change marriage, not those who want it to stay the same. It'd be great if both sides had "compelling reasons" the other side could respect, but alas that isn't the case.

Seems to be a fundamental failing in understanding of the principles under which our legal system operates. When laws are written that discriminate against citizens are challenged (grievance clause of the 1st Amendment again), it is not the citizens responsibility to show why they should be treated equally - it is the governments responsibility to provide a compelling government interest as to why the government is justified in enacting such discrimination.

Infertile heterosexual couples are an exception to the general rule that male/female couples procreate and same-sex couples do not. You're comparing the rule in one case to the exception in another and calling it the same thing.

Using your premise, actually no. It would be comparing one exception to another exception and requiring the government to provide a compelling government interest as to why one exception is allowed but another like situated exception is not allowed.

How are they being denied equal protection of the law? What are, say, straight people protected from that gay people aren't being protected from, just because they're gay?

So if the law says marriage is a man and woman, meaning a woman can only marry a man, and a man can only marry a woman, who's being discriminated against? Some men might would marry a man, some women might would marry a woman, but neither of them can. That seems equal to me.

That same logic was presented by the State of Viriginia during the Loving v. Virginia case (i.e. colored people were not being discriminated against because they were allowed to marry). It didn't fly then either.

I'll expand on this later in another post which attempts the same justification for discrimination against American citizens.


>>>>

 

[bripat9643]

Nonsense.

Majorities don’t determine civil rights

According to most of your libturd allies in here, they do determine civil rights.

 

[bodecea]

Nonsense.

Majorities don’t determine civil rights

According to most of your libturd allies in here, they do determine civil rights.

Well, you will just have to name names.

 

[bripat9643]

If/when a foreigner marries a citizen said foreigner can become an American citizen, it's the fastest track to citizenship.

Actually, that's wrong. The foreign spouse of an American can get a visa, but they are not automatically granted citizenship. They have to apply for it just like every other alien resident.

 

[bripat9643]

It showed the trend line in California between Prop 22 to Prop 8, a shift toward approval of about 20% in just 8 short years.

>>>>

Brainwashing by government schools can be effective.

 

[del]

It showed the trend line in California between Prop 22 to Prop 8, a shift toward approval of about 20% in just 8 short years.

>>>>

Brainwashing by government schools can be effective.

only if one has a brain, m'lud.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, it doesn't. For one thing, saying one type of couple is being treated differently than another type of couple misses the fact that couples don't possess rights. If they did, it would be unconstitutional for any type of couple to be denied a marriage license. But of course it's not, so that's an erroneous argument.

Also, "equal protection" doesn't pertain to anything that has two people classes of people involved. The law itself has to pertain, and marriage arguably does not. You're not protected from anything simply because you're married, nor are you harmed by having a legally single status.

Let's take this comment and examine the logic has it pertains to the historical and judicial records.

The premise is...

Premise 1. Rights are base and evaluated solely based on the impact to the individual, no evaluation can occur if it is based on a couple.

Premise 2. If an individual is allowed to marry at all to a government approved individual where there is no compelling reason for government to limit other individuals, then no rights have been restricted.​

Now lets go back in time to the the Loving v. Virginia (LvV) case, basically the Virginia law provided that whites could Civily Marry whites and coloreds could Civilly Marry coloreds, but that whites could not Civilly Marry a colored.

The SCOTUS ruled on a case very similar to the current question about Same-sex Civil Marriage (laws limiting Civil Marriage base on biological factors - race and gender). Now if rights were solely imbued in the individual, then the SCOTUS would not have taken the case because clearly the white individual was allowed to marry and the colored individual was allowed to marry. The fact that they couldn't marry each other would have been irrelevant, but yet it wasn't. The SCOTUS evaluated the case based on the treatment of the rights of the couple under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

OK, Premise #1 isn't valid.

Now on to Premise #2.

In LvV, the State of Virginia attempted to argue that very point. That because whites were only allowed to marry whites and coloreds where only allowed to marry coloreds - that the two races were treated the same and that the law was not invidious or discriminatory. The SCOTUS rejected this line of reasoning and overturned the states miscegenation law based on the fact that the State had no compelling government interest in denying equal treat to the couple based on the racial composition of the couple.

So given the judicial record, both premises of the above post (rights are solely determined by individual, and discrimination is allowed as long as it's applied equally) are false.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yet when gay activists tried to get the issue back on the ballot, they couldn't even get enough signatures to qualify.

Even California which generally has a culture of a slime pit couldn't muster up enough signatures on a petition to get it back on the ballot.

To my knowledge there has been no ballot drive in California by the major organizers to get the question back on the ballot since the 2008 vote.


>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

Yet when gay activists tried to get the issue back on the ballot, they couldn't even get enough signatures to qualify.

Even California which generally has a culture of a slime pit couldn't muster up enough signatures on a petition to get it back on the ballot.

These kind of culturally destructive acts happen in a sequence. We would never have had same sex marriage if we hadn't started on the road toward degeneracy long ago. When we accepted a divorce rate through the roof, more children aborted than born, found normalcy in a pregnant teen age girl, accepted that 7 year olds get STDs and should have school provided condoms that's when same sex marriage became inevitable. As will every other boundary down the line.

Since when has our government been the mortality police?

Did you see government anywhere in my statement? Let me clarify.

Once the people of this country decided to embrace degeneracy they decided to get married and get divorced at record rates and for the most specious of reasons, when the people accepted abortion as common, and found pregnancy in teen age girls just part of growing up, and stood by in silence while the way to combat STD's in 7 year old was to give them free condoms, is when the people became so amoral, degenerate and depraved that accepting same sex marriage became inevitable. As will every other boundary down the line. The people of this nation shouldn't need a nanny government to tell them right from wrong. They should do what they did for over 200 years. They should throw these concepts in the dump where it belongs. Should have done all along.

Do you see anything about the government? I mean if you do there is something very wrong with your reading comprehension. As I have maintained, always, this entire culture is becoming degenerate. Accepting same sex marriage as normal is part of the continuing decline into degeneracy. It has been going on for awhile. Same sex marriage is nothing more than another rung on the ladder down.

Rejecting such degeneracy has caused a fracture in our society that is getting deeper and wider to the point where neither side can muster up enough support to maintain national cohesiveness or security. As we decline other nations rise and they should. Just as Christians displaced the excesses of Rome, including orgies and yes, widely practicesed homosexuality, someone will come in and make us a better people too.

 

[g5000]

Yet when gay activists tried to get the issue back on the ballot, they couldn't even get enough signatures to qualify.

Even California which generally has a culture of a slime pit couldn't muster up enough signatures on a petition to get it back on the ballot.

These kind of culturally destructive acts happen in a sequence. We would never have had same sex marriage if we hadn't started on the road toward degeneracy long ago. When we accepted a divorce rate through the roof, more children aborted than born, found normalcy in a pregnant teen age girl, accepted that 7 year olds get STDs and should have school provided condoms that's when same sex marriage became inevitable.

You left out negro men marrying white women.

And your claim that more children are aborted than born is patently false.

And NO ONE "accepts" that a 7 year old was raped and got a STD. You fucking asshole.

Boy oh boy. The bigots are sinking really deep in this topic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Also, I'll point out that this "right" they had was granted by judicial fiat; it didn't "always exist".

You’ve obviously not read the ruling.

Both courts made a consistent application of existing case law with regard to equal protection, citing such cases as Romer.

And no ‘right’ was ‘granted’; courts don’t have that authority, neither does the government.

Rights are inalienable, they predate both the government and Constitution, where the latter’s case law codifies those rights via the process of judicial review, establishing precedent and settled law. Judges follow that precedent and apply it where appropriate.

Because rights are inalienable they can be taken by no person, no government, no court – and that includes citizens voting in a referendum such as Proposition 8.

According to most of your libturd allies in here, they do determine civil rights.

Example?

In any event, anyone who believes such a thing is wrong, liberal or conservative.

 

[syrenn]

Yet when gay activists tried to get the issue back on the ballot, they couldn't even get enough signatures to qualify.

Even California which generally has a culture of a slime pit couldn't muster up enough signatures on a petition to get it back on the ballot.

These kind of culturally destructive acts happen in a sequence. We would never have had same sex marriage if we hadn't started on the road toward degeneracy long ago. When we accepted a divorce rate through the roof, more children aborted than born, found normalcy in a pregnant teen age girl, accepted that 7 year olds get STDs and should have school provided condoms that's when same sex marriage became inevitable. As will every other boundary down the line.

Since when has our government been the mortality police?

Did you see government anywhere in my statement? Let me clarify.

Once the people of this country decided to embrace degeneracy they decided to get married and get divorced at record rates and for the most specious of reasons, when the people accepted abortion as common, and found pregnancy in teen age girls just part of growing up, and stood by in silence while the way to combat STD's in 7 year old was to give them free condoms, is when the people became so amoral, degenerate and depraved that accepting same sex marriage became inevitable. As will every other boundary down the line. The people of this nation shouldn't need a nanny government to tell them right from wrong. They should do what they did for over 200 years. They should throw these concepts in the dump where it belongs. Should have done all along.

Do you see anything about the government? I mean if you do there is something very wrong with your reading comprehension. As I have maintained, always, this entire culture is becoming degenerate. Accepting same sex marriage as normal is part of the continuing decline into degeneracy. It has been going on for awhile. Same sex marriage is nothing more than another rung on the ladder down.

Rejecting such degeneracy has caused a fracture in our society that is getting deeper and wider to the point where neither side can muster up enough support to maintain national cohesiveness or security. As we decline other nations rise and they should. Just as Christians displaced the excesses of Rome, including orgies and yes, widely practicesed homosexuality, someone will come in and make us a better people too.

You whine that gay marriage is seat of everything amoral, degenerate and depraved at the start of this thread....

however...it would seem the evil should all be chalked up to heterosexuals.

married and divorced ... heterosexual
Teen pregnancy.... heterosexual
abortion .... requires both sexes... heterosexual.





You imply government imposed morality when you support outlawing gay marriage. How hard is that to understand?