Prop 8 heads to Calif. Supreme Court

[LiveUninhibited]

No that part is NOT violated at all. You are so mistaken it is almost pointless to try and talk to you. Using your argument that somehow failure to be able to marry is a loss of Liberty is the same as claiming because one State allows 14 year olds to get a driver's License then the rest of the States have to also. Doesn't work that way.

In fact check out age of consent laws and get back to me on loss of "liberty".

Yes it is that is why the courts in CA passed the same sex marriage laws in the first place. The law stands against the 14th Amendment. Read the ruleing in that case and that was the decision. So guess what if the SCOCA decides to let this slide it will go directly to SCOTUS and be changed in every state. Then same sex marriage will be legal everywhere just the same as Texas did to get abortion legal in every state of the union California will do the same for same sex marriage.

You may think same sex marriage is immoral. Law does not consider moral teachings. It considers rights in accord with the US Constitution.

I actually feel sorry for you, you are going to be so crushed when nothing of what you just posted comes to pass.

It's not a question of if but when.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes it is that is why the courts in CA passed the same sex marriage laws in the first place. The law stands against the 14th Amendment. Read the ruleing in that case and that was the decision. So guess what if the SCOCA decides to let this slide it will go directly to SCOTUS and be changed in every state. Then same sex marriage will be legal everywhere just the same as Texas did to get abortion legal in every state of the union California will do the same for same sex marriage.

You may think same sex marriage is immoral. Law does not consider moral teachings. It considers rights in accord with the US Constitution.

I actually feel sorry for you, you are going to be so crushed when nothing of what you just posted comes to pass.

It's not a question of if but when.

Not any time soon. More then likely the California Supreme Court correctly rules they have no business in this matter and any attempt to claim a loss of Liberty will be laughed out of the US Supreme Court.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

I actually feel sorry for you, you are going to be so crushed when nothing of what you just posted comes to pass.

It's not a question of if but when.

Not any time soon. More then likely the California Supreme Court correctly rules they have no business in this matter and any attempt to claim a loss of Liberty will be laughed out of the US Supreme Court.

Laughed out of the Supreme Court? I doubt that. The current California Supreme Court:

Six justices were appointed by Republicans (George, Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, and Corrigan) and one by a Democrat, Moreno.

Statistical analyses conducted by LexisNexis personnel at the Court's request indicate that the decisions of the Supreme Court of California are by far the most followed of any state supreme court in the United States.[7] Between 1940 and 2005, 1,260 decisions of the Court were expressly followed by out-of-state courts (meaning that those courts expressly found the Court's reasoning persuasive and applied it to the cases before them).

Supreme Court of California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They're not exactly an ultraliberal, fringe group.

Edit: Then if it is ruled as a revision, there's this: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/just-days-befor.html

 

[Inferno]

No that part is NOT violated at all. You are so mistaken it is almost pointless to try and talk to you. Using your argument that somehow failure to be able to marry is a loss of Liberty is the same as claiming because one State allows 14 year olds to get a driver's License then the rest of the States have to also. Doesn't work that way.

In fact check out age of consent laws and get back to me on loss of "liberty".

Yes it is that is why the courts in CA passed the same sex marriage laws in the first place. The law stands against the 14th Amendment. Read the ruleing in that case and that was the decision. So guess what if the SCOCA decides to let this slide it will go directly to SCOTUS and be changed in every state. Then same sex marriage will be legal everywhere just the same as Texas did to get abortion legal in every state of the union California will do the same for same sex marriage.

You may think same sex marriage is immoral. Law does not consider moral teachings. It considers rights in accord with the US Constitution.

I actually feel sorry for you, you are going to be so crushed when nothing of what you just posted comes to pass.

Just watch and see. It will either be brought down in CA. It will rule for Prop 8 to be brought down. Or it will go to SCOTUS and made national and CA will bring down Prop 8 then. I am not worried. I think you are doing better with the reading comrehension since you got someone to help you understand the posts. You seem to jave a better understanding now of what they actually say. Thanks

 

[Inferno]

I actually feel sorry for you, you are going to be so crushed when nothing of what you just posted comes to pass.

It's not a question of if but when.

Not any time soon. More then likely the California Supreme Court correctly rules they have no business in this matter and any attempt to claim a loss of Liberty will be laughed out of the US Supreme Court.

Thats what they said when Roe v Wade slide through the SCOTUS on a 9th Amendment right to privacy issue. They didn't think it could be done. I really feel sorry for the religious morons that think they can govern on fairy tales. They will be mighty disappointed. LOL They are just a joke.

 

[Zook]

It's not a question of if but when.

Not any time soon. More then likely the California Supreme Court correctly rules they have no business in this matter and any attempt to claim a loss of Liberty will be laughed out of the US Supreme Court.

Thats what they said when Roe v Wade slide through the SCOTUS on a 9th Amendment right to privacy issue. They didn't think it could be done. I really feel sorry for the religious morons that think they can govern on fairy tales. They will be mighty disappointed. LOL They are just a joke.

lol Why do YOU always drag religion into this? Its as if its your religion to attack religion.
And why do you need the title of "married" any way? Why do you want that piece of paper with the ink on it saying your married? Do you not agree that it does change the definition of marriage as it was originally intended? aka Don't you agree that man originally defined marriage between a man and a women?

 

[DavidS]

The Courts were wrong. And they only created Gay marriage with a 4 to 3 vote. Notice I said CREATED. No such right existed prior to the Courts creating that supposed right. All the Amendment does is clarify what marriage is. It does not seek to change the meaning of domestic partnerships or civil unions in any way. It does not seek to create new laws. It does not seek to create contradiction IN the Constitution. It simply clarifies what marriage IS.

Again if the Court rules against this Amendment you will in effect have the Courts ruling the people have no right, as granted IN that Constitution , to create Amendments unless the Courts have a say. The Courts have NO SAY on the parts and pieces of the Constitution, except to rule what laws are within or outside said document.

Using your definition, ANY change could be twisted into an "alteration" simply by some court ruling it is. Courts do not have that power.

U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment


Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection


Amendment Text | Annotations
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

The bolded statement in the 14th amendment of the US Constitution will be violated by prop 8 in CA. The CA constitution stands with the US constitution on this.

Gays and Lesbians have equal protections. "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property" You see the words liberty. Those are the words. Prop 8 denies me as a lesbian the liberty that you as a hetersexual are entitled to. Thats the law of the land.

No that part is NOT violated at all. You are so mistaken it is almost pointless to try and talk to you. Using your argument that somehow failure to be able to marry is a loss of Liberty is the same as claiming because one State allows 14 year olds to get a driver's License then the rest of the States have to also. Doesn't work that way.

In fact check out age of consent laws and get back to me on loss of "liberty".

RGS, you know you've lost this battle and you know Inferno is correct. The Supreme Court of the United States found that when an interracial couple was not allowed to marry, it violated their 14th ammendment rights - which then defined marriage as a right for all people. The ruling did not limit it to just straight people. Prop 8 violates the 14th amendment and this ruling. You don't have an argument against this anymore.

 

[DavidS]

No that part is NOT violated at all. You are so mistaken it is almost pointless to try and talk to you. Using your argument that somehow failure to be able to marry is a loss of Liberty is the same as claiming because one State allows 14 year olds to get a driver's License then the rest of the States have to also. Doesn't work that way.

In fact check out age of consent laws and get back to me on loss of "liberty".

Yes it is that is why the courts in CA passed the same sex marriage laws in the first place. The law stands against the 14th Amendment. Read the ruleing in that case and that was the decision. So guess what if the SCOCA decides to let this slide it will go directly to SCOTUS and be changed in every state. Then same sex marriage will be legal everywhere just the same as Texas did to get abortion legal in every state of the union California will do the same for same sex marriage.

You may think same sex marriage is immoral. Law does not consider moral teachings. It considers rights in accord with the US Constitution.

I actually feel sorry for you, you are going to be so crushed when nothing of what you just posted comes to pass.

I actually feel sorry for YOU, RGS.

California Courts: Courts: Supreme Court: High Profile Case: Proposition 8 Supreme Court Filings

Over 60 cases filed with the SCOCA more than 2/3 of them looking to overturn Prop 8. Only one has to succeed.

 

[DavidS]

I actually feel sorry for you, you are going to be so crushed when nothing of what you just posted comes to pass.

It's not a question of if but when.

Not any time soon. More then likely the California Supreme Court correctly rules they have no business in this matter.

Uh, yeah.

On May 15, 2008 the California Supreme Court, by a vote of 4–3 In re Marriage Cases, ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution.

History of marriage in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DavidS]

Not any time soon. More then likely the California Supreme Court correctly rules they have no business in this matter and any attempt to claim a loss of Liberty will be laughed out of the US Supreme Court.

Thats what they said when Roe v Wade slide through the SCOTUS on a 9th Amendment right to privacy issue. They didn't think it could be done. I really feel sorry for the religious morons that think they can govern on fairy tales. They will be mighty disappointed. LOL They are just a joke.

lol Why do YOU always drag religion into this? Its as if its your religion to attack religion.
And why do you need the title of "married" any way? Why do you want that piece of paper with the ink on it saying your married? Do you not agree that it does change the definition of marriage as it was originally intended? aka Don't you agree that man originally defined marriage between a man and a women?

Religious people are the ones against gay marriage, which is why she's against it.

Are you married? Why do YOU need the title of married? The ability to marry someone is a RIGHT. Gays in CA are being denied that right. And no, marriage was not originally defined as between a man and a woman. Marriage has been around a hell of a lot longer than Christianity or Judaism's Exodus.

And how convenient for Christians to use the "Old" Testament when it's convenient for them and throw it out later when it's not. The whole idea behind Christianity is to say "Hey, remember that whole covenant with God thing? Yeah, throw that away. Here's a new one."

 

[Cecilie1200]

I know you self-deluded ignoramuses on the left love to rub one out to fantasies of jackbooted government thugs bursting into the houses of homosexuals and dragging them away in cuffs for DARING to indulge in "the love that dare not speak its name"

...

When you man up enough to address the truth instead of your wet dreams of the Sex Police, call me.

I'm hurt deeply inside. You have mortally wounded me with your words.

Insults work better if you touch upon the truth with them. I can't say I'm disappointed this dialogue is finished.

Seems like Cecilie is the one who's having fantasies!

I could say you're the expert, what with your fantasies of being relevant and taken seriously.

 

[Inferno]

Not any time soon. More then likely the California Supreme Court correctly rules they have no business in this matter and any attempt to claim a loss of Liberty will be laughed out of the US Supreme Court.

Thats what they said when Roe v Wade slide through the SCOTUS on a 9th Amendment right to privacy issue. They didn't think it could be done. I really feel sorry for the religious morons that think they can govern on fairy tales. They will be mighty disappointed. LOL They are just a joke.

lol Why do YOU always drag religion into this? Its as if its your religion to attack religion.
And why do you need the title of "married" any way? Why do you want that piece of paper with the ink on it saying your married? Do you not agree that it does change the definition of marriage as it was originally intended? aka Don't you agree that man originally defined marriage between a man and a women?

I drag in religion because it is the religious that stand against Prop 8. I don't need the piece of paper. I need the rights that go along with said paper. Marraige was defind of male and female of the same race. Th tchanged two. So continue with the knowledge you have on marriage.

 

[chrismac]

It's funny. Gays love to act like they're such a maligned and powerless minority, and yet, they're so comfortable with telling the apparent majority to go screw themselves. That's awfully bold for a minority group.

 

[KittenKoder]

It's funny. Gays love to act like they're such a maligned and powerless minority, and yet, they're so comfortable with telling the apparent majority to go screw themselves. That's awfully bold for a minority group.

It's so big of the apparent majority to oppress a definite minority in so many ways ... yeah, that's really brave.

 

[Luissa]

It's funny. Gays love to act like they're such a maligned and powerless minority, and yet, they're so comfortable with telling the apparent majority to go screw themselves. That's awfully bold for a minority group.

kind of like not riding public transportatiton in protest is telling the majority to screw themselves.
And why shouldn't they really, the people who are trying to keep them from getting married just see this as a way to control another group they really have no control over and have no business telling them how to live their life.

 

[chrismac]

It's funny. Gays love to act like they're such a maligned and powerless minority, and yet, they're so comfortable with telling the apparent majority to go screw themselves. That's awfully bold for a minority group.

It's so big of the apparent majority to oppress a definite minority in so many ways ... yeah, that's really brave.

The only reason they're a "definite minority" is because they want legal recognition to do something no one can do...for reasons that have never been relevant. In other words: even straight people who support gay marriage are in the minority.

It's funny. Gays love to act like they're such a maligned and powerless minority, and yet, they're so comfortable with telling the apparent majority to go screw themselves. That's awfully bold for a minority group.

kind of like not riding public transportatiton in protest is telling the majority to screw themselves.
And why shouldn't they really, the people who are trying to keep them from getting married just see this as a way to control another group they really have no control over and have no business telling them how to live their life.

You're kind of a retard. There isn't one law, nor is anyone suggesting there be one, that says homosexuals can't marry, or have said gay marriage is illegal. They're asking society to acknowledge their unions by legalizing them, which goes against this whole idea that gay marriage is about the freedom to live your life however you want. Gays already have that freedom. That doesn't mean the rest of us are morally bound to acknowledge it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Thats what they said when Roe v Wade slide through the SCOTUS on a 9th Amendment right to privacy issue. They didn't think it could be done. I really feel sorry for the religious morons that think they can govern on fairy tales. They will be mighty disappointed. LOL They are just a joke.

lol Why do YOU always drag religion into this? Its as if its your religion to attack religion.
And why do you need the title of "married" any way? Why do you want that piece of paper with the ink on it saying your married? Do you not agree that it does change the definition of marriage as it was originally intended? aka Don't you agree that man originally defined marriage between a man and a women?

I drag in religion because it is the religious that stand against Prop 8. I don't need the piece of paper. I need the rights that go along with said paper. Marraige was defind of male and female of the same race. Th tchanged two. So continue with the knowledge you have on marriage.

Really? There are THAT many religious people in California that they can pass amendments to the state Constitution all by their little zealous selves, are there? You might want to move to another state. Or at least out of the Land of Delusion.

There are no rights that go with that piece of paper except the imagined right to force people to approve of you. Guess what? The more you push, the less they approve, because the more insane and rabid you appear.

Marriage has NEVER been defined as anything "of the same race". It has ALWAYS been merely "a man and a woman". I'm very sorry if your history training didn't extend back past the 1970s, but this ain't Selma, and you sure as hell ain't Dr. King, so get over it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's funny. Gays love to act like they're such a maligned and powerless minority, and yet, they're so comfortable with telling the apparent majority to go screw themselves. That's awfully bold for a minority group.

kind of like not riding public transportatiton in protest is telling the majority to screw themselves.
And why shouldn't they really, the people who are trying to keep them from getting married just see this as a way to control another group they really have no control over and have no business telling them how to live their life.

Oh, yeah. Because we all care so damned much about homosexuals that we're just DYING to run their lives. Narcissistic much?

WE didn't drag this into the public arena. Truth is, we never gave homosexuals a second thought until they got in our faces, and all we really want is to be able to go back to not giving a fuck what they do. Go live your goddamned lives and stop telling us about it.

 

[N4mddissent]

That doesn't mean the rest of us are morally bound to acknowledge it.

I don't think anyone is asking you to acknowledge it morally, just legally. Not the same thing. Not to be on a soapbox, but the lack of this distinction really gets under my skin. It sometimes seems that there are people who just cannot fathom the very large difference between the two. For example, Biden who as a catholic strongly believes that abortion is morally wrong, also believes that in a free nation, with diverse beliefs, it is important to recognize that it is not his perogative to make the entire nation conform to his ideas of right and wrong. Instead, in areas of personal morality, it should be up to the individual to act according to their own personal values. That is how someone can be anti-abortion and pro-choice at the same time. It is also how a reasonable person can view homosexuality and homosexual marriage as morally wrong, yet support the idea of freedom by allowing them to make that choice themselves rather than dictating what is allowed based upon the arrogant assumption that their moral values are absolute and absolutely correct.

 

[1of43]

It is also how a reasonable person can view homosexuality and homosexual marriage as morally wrong, yet support the idea of freedom by allowing them to make that choice themselves rather than dictating what is allowed based upon the arrogant assumption that their moral values are absolute and absolutely correct.

Oh please, this is BS. You're just trying to create a false catch-22 where people either let you do whatever you want, or you accuse them of trying to run your life and impress their morals on you. What's arrogant is your entitlement.