Liberal FASCISM in California

[Larkinn]

ok, now, show me where the bill of rights says you have a right to marriage.

It doesn't. It is however "a source document that suggests that the role of the gov is to protect rights instead of acting as a DEMOCRATIC vehicle?"

Nobody claimed that it does. Your strawmen are becoming more apparent every post.

DOH!

I agree. That was pretty stupid of you.

again, three steps ahead of you, dude. Trust me, what you think is your right and what the Constitution actually says are worlds apart. But, thanks for falling into that little snare that your silly little predictable ass would react to. I probably didn't lead you to asking me that very question.

Umm alright. By the way, still waiting for the text of the 14th amendment that makes it illegal for the state to segregate.

 

[Larkinn]

oh, hey, thanks for linking strait to article one!


The "Vesting Clause" grants all legislative authority to Congress. Other vesting clauses are found in Articles II and III as well, and differ in respect to the branch of government concerned; Article II's vesting clause vests the President with "the executive power" and Article III's vesting clause vests "the judicial power" in the federal judiciary. The Vesting Clauses thus establish the principle of separation of powers by specifically giving to each branch of the federal government only those powers it can exercise and no others.[1] This means that no branch may exercise powers that properly belong to another (e.g., since the legislative power is vested in Congress, the executive and judiciary may not enact laws).

The judiciary can, however, interpret laws already on the books (such as the California Constitution). They interpreted it to mean that you can't ban gay marriage.

 

[Shogun]

hehe..

yea.. a legislated measure specifically protecting marriage between a man and woman, passed by both houses and signed by the governator, sure the fuck can be interpreted as "can't ban gay marriage"!

 

[Shogun]

Calif. ruling on gay marriage could impact election


WASHINGTON — A California Supreme Court decision Thursday overturning the state's ban on gay marriage could energize efforts nationwide to legalize same-sex marriage and put a spotlight on the issue in November's presidential election that probably will galvanize activists on both sides.

After a similar court decision in Massachusetts in 2003, Republicans used support for traditional marriage to invigorate social conservatives, most importantly in the key battleground state of Ohio during the last presidential election.

A nationwide Gallup Poll taken last week shows opposition to same-sex unions has not eased, and the voters most likely to say it could affect their vote are almost all opposed to gay marriage.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-15-calif-gay-marriage_N.htm?csp=34




OH hey, what do you fucking know! USA Today must have their very own Shogun...

 

[Larkinn]

hehe..

yea.. a legislated measure specifically protecting marriage between a man and woman, passed by both houses and signed by the governator, sure the fuck can be interpreted as "can't ban gay marriage"!

Try learning the facts first. It wasn't passed in the Senate, the House, OR signed by any governor. It was a proposition, prop 22 to be exact.

In fact the exact OPPOSITE happened. In 2005, a bill to legalize same-sex marriage was passed in California by the legislature that was vetoed by Scwarznegger.

By the way, neither the legislature nor the people can pass a law that contradicts the state or federal constitution, without altering the constitution itself.

 

[Shogun]

aaaaaaand what part of the Fed Constitution do yu want to quote that indicates you have a right to marriage?


oh, and I probably didn't just bait you into my little political beartrap AGAIN...
I keep telling you.. predictable.


So, praytell, how does a FAILED prop 22 become a viable springboard for judical activism? What LAW did the judiciery in California "interpret"?

careful, im probably not setting you up to fall again.

 

[Larkinn]

aaaaaaand what part of the Fed Constitution do yu want to quote that indicates you have a right to marriage?

We are talking about the CALIFORNIA Constitution. Besides that it doesn't say ANYWHERE you have a right to marriage, it says you have a right to EQUALITY.

God, your wrong on so many levels, its hard to keep up.

oh, and I probably didn't just bait you into my little political beartrap AGAIN...
I keep telling you.. predictable.

Which bear trap would that be Shogun?

Would that be where you incorrectly said that the ban was signed by the governor, and approved by 2 houses? Would that be where you incorrectly said that the USSC could over-rule the California Supremes on this issue? Would that be where you incorrectly said that prop 22 failed?

Learn the facts, and then come back, boy. Do a little bit of research before opening your mouth.

So, praytell, how does a FAILED prop 22 become a viable springboard for judical activism? What LAW did the judiciery in California "interpret"?

careful, im probably not setting you up to fall again.

Feel free to try and set me up all you want. All the cleverness in the world won't help you if you don't know the basic facts of the case. Learn them.

 

[Ravi]

Read it again, Shog. It says what the government is herein granted to legislate.

The government protects rights, it does not take them away. I misstated back a few posts. We don't get to vote on civil rights. They tyranny of the majority and all that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Read it again, Shog. It says what the government is herein granted to legislate.

The government protects rights, it does not take them away. I misstated back a few posts. We don't get to vote on civil rights. They tyranny of the majority and all that.

The Government protects rights? So Texas is protecting the FLDS members rights by illegally seizing their children and holding adult women as children for the sole purpose of seizing their unborn children when they are born? One woman is 22 and another 27 that they claimed were minors. most of the 31 females seized are in fact adults. The State KNEW it before they seized them as they all had legal documents PROVING their age.

 

[Ravi]

The Government protects rights? So Texas is protecting the FLDS members rights by illegally seizing their children and holding adult women as children for the sole purpose of seizing their unborn children when they are born? One woman is 22 and another 27 that they claimed were minors. most of the 31 females seized are in fact adults. The State KNEW it before they seized them as they all had legal documents PROVING their age.

I told you before if that turns out to be the case I'd be forced to agree with you.

 

[Shogun]

We are talking about the CALIFORNIA Constitution. Besides that it doesn't say ANYWHERE you have a right to marriage, it says you have a right to EQUALITY.

God, your wrong on so many levels, its hard to keep up.

HA! well then, why don't you bring up Brown v the Board of education again, dummy.



Feel free to post your evidence instead of running back and forth between the fed and the state constitutions while Im bludgeoning you about the head and neck.. Marriage is still not a right. The California state Con nor the Fed con indicates that you have a right to marriage. But, again, feel free to whip out YOUR evidence instead of crying about ad hominems after slinging your own mud and bawling about how wrong I am. Prove it, bitch. You do know how to post a link, dont you?




Which bear trap would that be Shogun?

Would that be where you incorrectly said that the ban was signed by the governor, and approved by 2 houses? Would that be where you incorrectly said that the USSC could over-rule the California Supremes on this issue? Would that be where you incorrectly said that prop 22 failed?

Indeed. by causing you to admit that the court wasn't interpreting Law so much as legislating from the bench I figure I saved a good 30 posts about you crying that Im being mean to you. Indeed, feel free to paruze the above USA Today link as well.. Maybe you can email them about their reporting of exactly the scenerio I predicted pages ago that would instigate a scotus reaction to californias ruling. Feel free to tell them to stop picking on you too, poor lil guy.



Learn the facts, and then come back, boy. Do a little bit of research before opening your mouth.



hey, I've had the testicular fortitude to post evidence so far... where is yours? Indeed. your lecture on FACTS is about as moving as your lecture on shit talking!



Bowels.. but thats about it.


Feel free to try and set me up all you want. All the cleverness in the world won't help you if you don't know the basic facts of the case. Learn them.


Who needs to TRY when I've already made you gag on the hook, line and sinker twice today? You sure are a quick one, lenny.

 

[BrianH]

The Government protects rights? So Texas is protecting the FLDS members rights by illegally seizing their children and holding adult women as children for the sole purpose of seizing their unborn children when they are born? One woman is 22 and another 27 that they claimed were minors. most of the 31 females seized are in fact adults. The State KNEW it before they seized them as they all had legal documents PROVING their age.

Don't you mean TWO out of 400 +??? I'm not saying that it's not possible for there to be more, but let's not put the cart before the horse. What proof do you have that most of the 31 females they seized are adults??? Earlier you stated that the state didn't have any proof or legal documents and that they had nothing to go on, now you're claiming they have all the documentation??

 

[Larkinn]

Feel free to post your evidence instead of running back and forth between the fed and the state constitutions while Im bludgeoning you about the head and neck.. Marriage is still not a right.

Nobody is claiming its a right. Your arguing against a point nobody has made.

The California state Con nor the Fed con indicates that you have a right to marriage. But, again, feel free to whip out YOUR evidence instead of crying about ad hominems after slinging your own mud and bawling about how wrong I am. Prove it, bitch. You do know how to post a link, dont you?

Sure, I'll go and prove something I specifically said wasn't the case.

Indeed. by causing you to admit that the court wasn't interpreting Law so much as legislating from the bench I figure I saved a good 30 posts about you crying that Im being mean to you.

How exactly did I admit that?

Indeed, feel free to paruze the above USA Today link as well.. Maybe you can email them about their reporting of exactly the scenerio I predicted pages ago that would instigate a scotus reaction to californias ruling. Feel free to tell them to stop picking on you too, poor lil guy.

Considering they aren't appealing the ruling, since they aren't as stupid as you, there won't be a SCOTUS reaction, and if there were the reaction would be "we don't have jurisdiction".

Learn federalism, kid.

hey, I've had the testicular fortitude to post evidence so far... where is yours? Indeed. your l ecture on FACTS is about as moving as your lecture on shit talking!

You really want me to post evidence?

Proof that Prop 22 didn't fail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_(2000)

Proof that the legislature in California didn't vote to ban gay marriage, and in fact voted the opposite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California

Any other basic facts you want me to spoon feed you?

Who needs to TRY when I've already made you gag on the hook, line and sinker twice today? You sure are a quick one, lenny.

Wow...you really have no shame, do you? You have no idea what your talking about, don't even know the basics of federalism, don't even know the basics of the gay marriage ban, don't even know what prop 22 is, and you think you can talk about this issue?

Go educate yourself boy, then come back.

 

[Shogun]

Nobody is claiming its a right. Your arguing against a point nobody has made.

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.


Sure, I'll go and prove something I specifically said wasn't the case.


I tellya, your interaction in this thread reminds me of Micheal Jackson's signature Moonwalk.

How exactly did I admit that?

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


Considering they aren't appealing the ruling, since they aren't as stupid as you, there won't be a SCOTUS reaction, and if there were the reaction would be "we don't have jurisdiction".


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


Learn federalism, kid.

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




You really want me to post evidence?
Proof that Prop 22 didn't fail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_(2000)
Proof that the legislature in California didn't vote to ban gay marriage, and in fact voted the opposite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California
Any other basic facts you want me to spoon feed you?


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.



Wow...you really have no shame, do you? You have no idea what your talking about, don't even know the basics of federalism, don't even know the basics of the gay marriage ban, don't even know what prop 22 is, and you think you can talk about this issue?

Go educate yourself boy, then come back.


Your mommies might be impressed that you leaned a new word today but screaming Federalism over and over again is about as impressive as your quickness to rationalize your own ad hominems and shit talking. Indeed, feel free to email USA Today and tell them how smart you are. They will probably be as convinced as I am.

 

[Shogun]

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]

from your very own source, dooshy mcfuckstick.

 

[Ravi]

You can't vote on civil rights. Marriage should either be open to any two consenting adults or not available to anyone.

 

[Shogun]

well, again, those are opinions, ravi. Get your fucking grass root effort on like the conservatives ARE going to do and get legislation passed if you think so strongly about it rather than relying on the court to throw you a bone.

also, the nineteenth amendment WAS voted on. Legislation, ravi. Amazing, isnt it?

 

[jillian]

Nobody is claiming its a right. Your arguing against a point nobody has made.

Marriage? Er... well....

Loving v Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 [1967]

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

 

[Ravi]

well, again, those are opinions, ravi. Get your fucking grass root effort on like the conservatives ARE going to do and get legislation passed if you think so strongly about it rather than relying on the court to throw you a bone.

also, the nineteenth amendment WAS voted on. Legislation, ravi. Amazing, isnt it?

It was ratified. I know you can't understand the difference, but there is a difference.

I was just pointing out one of your un-liberal stances. btw, real conservatives actually agree with liberals on this issue. That pretty much leaves you in wingnut world.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You can't vote on civil rights. Marriage should either be open to any two consenting adults or not available to anyone.

Why do you limit it to only two consenting adults?

Would you agree to a father and adult son or adult daughter getting married? Oh hell, why not all three?

No? What about their ceeeevil rights?