Californians cleared to vote on same-sex marriage ban

[Ravi]

Move to Cuba, Venezuela, Iran or France. No one is stopping you!
These countries do not have a Constitution.

I'm not the one that doesn't support the constitution. Nor is Jeepers. You might want to consider moving to one of those places yourself.

 

[doeton]

Move to Cuba, Venezuela, Iran or France. No one is stopping you!
These countries do not have a Constitution.

hahah...now i understand the nickname.

you do realize it was the constitution the judges were enforcing when they ruled the law illegal right?

and it was also the judges who said the new initiative to change the constitution could go forward.

it basic civics sillies.

 

[Shogun]

And with good reason. Imagine if the majority agreed with most of Shog's opinions? We'd all be screwed.

indeed.. democracy must chaffe your nuts something fierce. as I said, I don't have a probem with gay marriage. I'd vote FOR it. But, disregarding results you don't agree with basically undermines the entire basis of a government ruled by the people. Again, blacks didn't get equality from the courts. Legislated public opinion did that. Now lick my nuts.

 

[Jeepers]

If you love Cuba, why aren't you living there now?.

Hmm.. Its illegal, property rights probably arent the best in the world and its hard to work at a bank while living in a fugitive nation.

All Homos came from a Hetero relationship, hence they already benefited from these benefits..

and that means what now.. SOL for the little fairies eh.. granted your completely ignoring children invetro technology.

A marriage could include love and affection but the act of formalizing a marriage is done with a money contract..

Hey as long as their is love in some conservative relationships... whew...

Hospital visitation and property rights can he handled through a will and a POA..

Truth is your KIND dont like these kinds of rights do ya... Here are comments on one senate bill designed to address this..
"Conservative groups are fighting the proposal. Their concern is not about visitation, but putting anything into law that acknowledges same sex partnerships.
"What we object to is the creation of these domestic partner statuses, which is really marriage by another name and that's what we see they are attempting to do", said Tom Prichard of the Minnesota Family Council."

Does a will work when a person hasnt died... When taking their partner to the hospital do they swing by the house to pick up their partnership documents.. Truth is your theory in this regard does not pan out..

It's clear, you want to rape the US tax system, then live in a foreign country to dodge US taxes!

How do I rape the tax system in this regard.. Please let me know cause its obvious that I am all about greed.. granted, I am most likely paying more in taxes than you make in a year...

You have some issues with greed.

No issues.. I love it... Now run along and play Nancy...

 

[Ravi]

indeed.. democracy must chaffe your nuts something fierce. as I said, I don't have a probem with gay marriage. I'd vote FOR it. But, disregarding results you don't agree with basically undermines the entire basis of a government ruled by the people. Again, blacks didn't get equality from the courts. Legislated public opinion did that. Now lick my nuts.

Civil rights are not meant to be voted on by the people. If we were a pure democracy, you'd be correct. But we aren't that type of democracy.

 

[Wow]

I'm not the one that doesn't support the constitution. Nor is Jeepers. You might want to consider moving to one of those places yourself.

Jeepers: Our founders even feared mob (democratic) rule...
Originally Posted by Ravi View Post
And with good reason. Imagine if the majority agreed with most of Shog's opinions? We'd all be screwed.

You and Jeepers have no regard for the US Constitution.
You think Judges should make their own laws.

Move to Cuba, Venezuela or Iran. No one is stopping you!
These countries do not have a Constitution.

 

[Ravi]

Jeepers: Our founders even feared mob (democratic) rule...
Originally Posted by Ravi View Post
And with good reason. Imagine if the majority agreed with most of Shog's opinions? We'd all be screwed.

You and Jeepers have no regard for the US Constitution.
You think Judges should make their own laws.

Move to Cuba, Venezuela or Iran. No one is stopping you!
These countries do not have a Constitution.

Obviously you slept through civics class.

 

[Shogun]

Civil rights are not meant to be voted on by the people. If we were a pure democracy, you'd be correct. But we aren't that type of democracy.

marriage is not a civil right. You can quote Loving all day long but try doing so without having to also reference the 14th amendment - A product of Legislation. Clearly, THIS WILL be voted on by the people and i'm betting that the anti-gay marriage people will line up in droves which will result in more emotional, hysterical nonsense about the disregard for public opinion as well as potentially handing Ca to mccain.


Face it. If the state can restrict polygamy it can restrict gay marraige until the people vote otherwise. stomping your foot won't impress anyone.

 

[Jeepers]

Jeepers: Our founders even feared mob (democratic) rule...
Originally Posted by Ravi View Post
And with good reason. Imagine if the majority agreed with most of Shog's opinions? We'd all be screwed.

You and Jeepers have no regard for the US Constitution.
You think Judges should make their own laws.

Move to Cuba, Venezuela or Iran. No one is stopping you!
These countries do not have a Constitution.

Actually each country has their own constitution if I am not mistaken... I actually keep a copy of the constitution right here with me... what say you nancy.. when was the last time you read it...

 

[Wow]

Ravi: Civil rights are not meant to be voted on by the people. If we were a pure democracy, you'd be correct. But we aren't that type of democracy.

Really?
Were you upset when the 1964 Civil Rights bill was held to a vote?

 

[jillian]

Move to Cuba, Venezuela, Iran or France. No one is stopping you!
These countries do not have a Constitution.

How very *American" of you... tell someone who disagrees with you to leave.

And here I thought everyone knew Archie Bunker was the joke.

 

[Shogun]

Vote totals

Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

* The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
* The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
* The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)

[edit] By party

The original House version:[7]

* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:[7]

* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[7]

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

[edit] By party and region

Note : "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)


Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wow]

Actually each country has their own constitution if I am not mistaken... I actually keep a copy of the constitution right here with me... what say you nancy.. when was the last time you read it...

You do not have a Constitution unless it's enforced.

 

[Tech_Esq]

They do not have the "right" to redefine the 'institution' or actual definition of what a marriage is and always has been...

IMHO, if they want equal rights that are afforded to married couples, while calling it a civil union or whatever (insurance coverage, inheritance, tax returns, etc) ... all well and fine... but it is not a marriage

I agree on this point. The government does not have the right to say what marriage is or isn't. Marriage is not an institution created by government. Marriage is a product of religion.

I think governments are perfectly within the law if they confer all the rights of what has up to this point been called marriage upon gay couples. I have no problem with that. Further I have no problem if the ultimate solution to the issue is that governments issue "civil union" licenses to everybody who gets "married."

My only point is that government should not be allowed to change the definition of something they don't own.

 

[Wow]

How very *American" of you... tell someone who disagrees with you to leave.

And here I thought everyone knew Archie Bunker was the joke.

You have the freedom to leave the US because of the US Constitution.
If you do not like the US Constitution, leave.

 

[jillian]

I agree on this point. The government does not have the right to say what marriage is or isn't. Marriage is not an institution created by government. Marriage is a product of religion.

I think governments are perfectly within the law if they confer all the rights of what has up to this point been called marriage upon gay couples. I have no problem with that. Further I have no problem if the ultimate solution to the issue is that governments issue "civil union" licenses to everybody who gets "married."

My only point is that government should not be allowed to change the definition of something they don't own.

That's incorrect. Marriage IS, in fact, a state-constructed concept. That is why, during marriage ceremonies, the person officiating says "by the powers vested in me by the state of ______________" Marriage is not a product of religion. Clergy can only perform a legal wedding if recognized by the State.

I think calling them 'civil unions' is ok. But my husband would still be my husband whether we were "married" or "civil unioned". So I think it's kind of silly.

Of course, no religious entity should or could be forced to marry anyone it chooses not to recognize.

 

[jillian]

You have the freedom to leave the US because of the US Constitution.
If you do not like the US Constitution, leave.

I'd say the same to you. I hear there are plenty of despotic tyrannical countries that would be pleased to have you.

Maybe Putin could use you. He doesn't like dissent either.

 

[Ravi]

My only point is that government should not be allowed to change the definition of something they don't own.

That's a good point, I've never thought of it that way. I think only religions should be able to "marry" someone. And I doubt any of the gays that want to be "married" would actually have a problem with that as long as they got the same type of contract everyone else is entitled to. In reality though, everyone will end up calling it a marriage just like they call it a marriage when you get hitched by the JP.

 

[Tech_Esq]

That's incorrect. Marriage IS, in fact, a state-constructed concept. That is why, during marriage ceremonies, the person officiating says "by the powers vested in me by the state of ______________" Marriage is not a product of religion. Clergy can only perform a legal wedding if recognized by the State.

I think calling them 'civil unions' is ok. But my husband would still be my husband whether we were "married" or "civil unioned". So I think it's kind of silly.

Of course, no religious entity should or could be forced to marry anyone it chooses not to recognize.

I can see why you are confused. Because government has traditionally merely recognized what heretofore has not been controversial, they have bound up in the officiant both the power to marry in the eyes of the state and of course the officiant has the power to marry, if it is so recognized, by whatever religious order they may belong to.

What I was saying is that went you actually go back and deconstruct how those powers get combined, that's what you end up with. I should have clarified that initially. Therefore the "power vested" in the officiant is not the power to marry, but the power for the marriage to be recognized by the state.

A Wiccan high priestess may marry me and my wife at a hand-fasting but unless the high-priestess has been approved by the state, the state will not recognize my marriage to my wife.

Think of what I'm proposing as similar to what they have always had in France. You have a civil wedding for the state and a religous one for the church (although I think the second is optional).

 

[Ravi]

Ravi: Civil rights are not meant to be voted on by the people. If we were a pure democracy, you'd be correct. But we aren't that type of democracy.

Really?
Were you upset when the 1964 Civil Rights bill was held to a vote?

It wasn't voted on by the people. You still don't quite get the concept of mob rule, do you?