Today may be The Day for California!

[bodecea]

How in the hell does that make me a hypocrite? People cannot control what their race is but they can control their sexual orientation
Yeah I know you were born that way and always was a muff diver. yada yada yada.
You weren't

You are a hypocrite if in one case you support the federal courts striking down laws in all states....and in another case you say the federal courts have no right to strike down laws in the states. You are a hypocrite...to you it is nothing about what the US Supreme Court can or cannot do in relation to states rights....it's all about whether you personally approved of their decisions or not.

Actually, he is not being a hypocrite. I think the misunderstanding between you two is due to your misinterpretation of what specifically Loving said about marriage.

The point is....he is complaining about federal courts having power over states rights in the possible decision in Prop H8....He is a hypocrite if he doesn't complain about federal courts having power over states rights in ALL cases such as Loving v Virginia, Brown v Board of Ed, etc.

BTW...did you look up who has jurisdiction if a person or group sues their state like I asked yesterday?

 

[PredFan]

And btw, gays have EXACTLY the same rights as I do. No more, no less. What they want is a new right, a right that no one now has. I don't have a problem giving it to them but just to keep the record straight.

You remind me of the old story I used to pull out:

After WWII ended, a Soviet soldier and an American soldier met in a bar in what was left of Berlin and their talk led to comparing their forms of government. The American said, "We have freedom of speech in America! I can call President Truman a son of a bitch and I will not be arrested or punished in any way!" The Soviet soldier smiled and said, "We too have freedom of speech in the Soviet Union. I can call President Truman a son of a bitch and I too will not be arrested or punished! It is the same thing, comrade!"

Clever, but no, sorry.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are a hypocrite if in one case you support the federal courts striking down laws in all states....and in another case you say the federal courts have no right to strike down laws in the states. You are a hypocrite...to you it is nothing about what the US Supreme Court can or cannot do in relation to states rights....it's all about whether you personally approved of their decisions or not.

oh I get it you thinks the races should mix marry.

Why not? And states cannot make laws prohibiting those of separate races or nationalities or religions from obtaining civil marriage licenses. The federal courts have struck down any such forbidding law. States rights does not trump civil rights.

I meant to say
oh I get it you thinks the races shouldn't mix marry.

 

[bodecea]

Where is this fundamental right to same sex marriage? As I said to the other poster, I suggest you reread the case law as to what SPECIFICALLY is described as a fundamental right.

Fundamental right to marriage...with no specifying gay or straight. Have you seen the Supreme Court's ruling on Loving v. Virginia where they state that (which makes it precedence)?


Let me link and quote the passage for you...

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and in the decision:

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.

Right. As same-sex marriage is not quite "fundamental to our very existence and survival", it doesn't really classify as a fundamental right.

Marriage does...with no specification as to whether opposite-sex or same-sex. That would be discrimination based on gender. Do you support discrimination based on gender?

 

[Si modo]

You are a hypocrite if in one case you support the federal courts striking down laws in all states....and in another case you say the federal courts have no right to strike down laws in the states. You are a hypocrite...to you it is nothing about what the US Supreme Court can or cannot do in relation to states rights....it's all about whether you personally approved of their decisions or not.

Actually, he is not being a hypocrite. I think the misunderstanding between you two is due to your misinterpretation of what specifically Loving said about marriage.

The point is....he is complaining about federal courts having power over states rights in the possible decision in Prop H8....He is a hypocrite if he doesn't complain about federal courts having power over states rights in ALL cases such as Loving v Virginia, Brown v Board of Ed, etc.

BTW...did you look up who has jurisdiction if a person or group sues their state like I asked yesterday?

Well, again, he is complaining...as am I...that federal courts need to stay out of State business, EXCEPT when there is a US Constitutional issue.

Pretty much that is what the SCOTUS does, much to the chagrin of the dingbat Ginsberg.

To the bolded: Where did you ask me what? And, if you are going to assert something, I suggest YOU back it up and not tell another to do the research for you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are a hypocrite if in one case you support the federal courts striking down laws in all states....and in another case you say the federal courts have no right to strike down laws in the states. You are a hypocrite...to you it is nothing about what the US Supreme Court can or cannot do in relation to states rights....it's all about whether you personally approved of their decisions or not.

Actually, he is not being a hypocrite. I think the misunderstanding between you two is due to your misinterpretation of what specifically Loving said about marriage.

The point is....he is complaining about federal courts having power over states rights in the possible decision in Prop H8....He is a hypocrite if he doesn't complain about federal courts having power over states rights in ALL cases such as Loving v Virginia, Brown v Board of Ed, etc.

BTW...did you look up who has jurisdiction if a person or group sues their state like I asked yesterday?

The supreme court in this situation has every right to review this case because a federal court judge over turned to voice of the people

 

[bodecea]

oh I get it you thinks the races should mix marry.

Why not? And states cannot make laws prohibiting those of separate races or nationalities or religions from obtaining civil marriage licenses. The federal courts have struck down any such forbidding law. States rights does not trump civil rights.

I meant to say
oh I get it you thinks the races shouldn't mix marry.

I don't care one way or another. If law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adult people love each other and wish to marry, what does race, religion, nationality, age or gender matter?

 

[bodecea]

Actually, he is not being a hypocrite. I think the misunderstanding between you two is due to your misinterpretation of what specifically Loving said about marriage.

The point is....he is complaining about federal courts having power over states rights in the possible decision in Prop H8....He is a hypocrite if he doesn't complain about federal courts having power over states rights in ALL cases such as Loving v Virginia, Brown v Board of Ed, etc.

BTW...did you look up who has jurisdiction if a person or group sues their state like I asked yesterday?

The supreme court in this situation has every right to review this case because a federal court judge over turned to voice of the people

I agree they have every right...#1..it's a constitutional issue (14th amendment) and #2...a group is suing their state.

And the voice of the people cannot vote AWAY rights already established without stated reasons.....have you read Prop H8? Do you see reasons stated? There are none.

 

[squeeze berry]

What I see is we're just minding our business trying to grant rights to Gay couples so they can take care of their legal problems the way hetero couples do and all of the sudden one of them walks up to us and kicks us in the cranberries.

"Owwww......WTF did you do that for?????

"You hateful bastards won't let us marry!!!!"

"Why the heck would you want to get obligated to someone. I would think you'd want to avoid that?"

"You Republican piece of shit Bible-thumpers are so old fashioned!!!"

"Heck with this.......I could care less if you want to make breaking up with your GF or BF cost several thousand dollars!!!"

exactly

With gay marriage comes gay divorce

They have a chance to avoid that boodoggle but choose not to.

lLke a spoiled child they want something only b/c they can't have it. Be careful what you ask for.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The point is....he is complaining about federal courts having power over states rights in the possible decision in Prop H8....He is a hypocrite if he doesn't complain about federal courts having power over states rights in ALL cases such as Loving v Virginia, Brown v Board of Ed, etc.

BTW...did you look up who has jurisdiction if a person or group sues their state like I asked yesterday?

The supreme court in this situation has every right to review this case because a federal court judge over turned to voice of the people

I agree they have every right...#1..it's a constitutional issue (14th amendment) and #2...a group is suing their state.

And the voice of the people cannot vote AWAY rights already established without stated reasons.....have you read Prop H8? Do you see reasons stated? There are none.

I told you to stop lying there is no established right for queers to marry.
Same-sex couples won't be able to get married in California on Friday. But it's possible that they could be free to marry, legally, by sometime next week.

Source: Same Sex Marriage Could Be Legal in California In Just a Few Days | NBC 7 San Diego

 

[bodecea]

The supreme court in this situation has every right to review this case because a federal court judge over turned to voice of the people

I agree they have every right...#1..it's a constitutional issue (14th amendment) and #2...a group is suing their state.

And the voice of the people cannot vote AWAY rights already established without stated reasons.....have you read Prop H8? Do you see reasons stated? There are none.

I told you to stop lying there is no established right for queers to marry.
Same-sex couples won't be able to get married in California on Friday. But it's possible that they could be free to marry, legally, by sometime next week.

Source: Same Sex Marriage Could Be Legal in California In Just a Few Days | NBC 7 San Diego

If there is an established right for civil marriage, the state cannot deprive law-abiding, tax-paying citizens the right to marry also....without valid and stated reasons, especially if they had that right and then it was taken away. Where are those valid and stated reasons in Prop H8? They aren't there.

This is the basis of the legal argument in front of the Supreme Court.

 

[Si modo]

I agree they have every right...#1..it's a constitutional issue (14th amendment) and #2...a group is suing their state.

And the voice of the people cannot vote AWAY rights already established without stated reasons.....have you read Prop H8? Do you see reasons stated? There are none.

I told you to stop lying there is no established right for queers to marry.
Same-sex couples won't be able to get married in California on Friday. But it's possible that they could be free to marry, legally, by sometime next week.

Source: Same Sex Marriage Could Be Legal in California In Just a Few Days | NBC 7 San Diego

If there is an established right for civil marriage, the state cannot deprive law-abiding, tax-paying citizens the right to marry also....without valid and stated reasons, especially if they had that right and then it was taken away. Where are those valid and stated reasons in Prop H8? They aren't there.

This is the basis of the legal argument in front of the Supreme Court.

To the bolded: I asked you this before, but WHERE does your (CA) constitutional state there must be "valid and stated reasons" to amend your constitution?

Where did you get that? Citation, please.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I agree they have every right...#1..it's a constitutional issue (14th amendment) and #2...a group is suing their state.

And the voice of the people cannot vote AWAY rights already established without stated reasons.....have you read Prop H8? Do you see reasons stated? There are none.

I told you to stop lying there is no established right for queers to marry.
Same-sex couples won't be able to get married in California on Friday. But it's possible that they could be free to marry, legally, by sometime next week.

Source: Same Sex Marriage Could Be Legal in California In Just a Few Days | NBC 7 San Diego

If there is an established right for civil marriage, the state cannot deprive law-abiding, tax-paying citizens the right to marry also....without valid and stated reasons, especially if they had that right and then it was taken away. Where are those valid and stated reasons in Prop H8? They aren't there.

This is the basis of the legal argument in front of the Supreme Court.

When the news report says

Same-sex couples won't be able to get married in California on Friday

Tells me you don't have a legal right to marry right now.
Your marriage that you claim you have is not legal as of yet and you will if prop 8 is struck down have to legally do the steps.

 

[bodecea]

What I see is we're just minding our business trying to grant rights to Gay couples so they can take care of their legal problems the way hetero couples do and all of the sudden one of them walks up to us and kicks us in the cranberries.

"Owwww......WTF did you do that for?????

"You hateful bastards won't let us marry!!!!"

"Why the heck would you want to get obligated to someone. I would think you'd want to avoid that?"

"You Republican piece of shit Bible-thumpers are so old fashioned!!!"

"Heck with this.......I could care less if you want to make breaking up with your GF or BF cost several thousand dollars!!!"

exactly

With gay marriage comes gay divorce

They have a chance to avoid that boodoggle but choose not to.

lLke a spoiled child they want something only b/c they can't have it. Be careful what you ask for.

I believe we are aware of that. And we choose to fight for the right to marriage anyways. Does the possibility of divorce drive straight couples from legal marriage?

 

[bodecea]

I told you to stop lying there is no established right for queers to marry.
Same-sex couples won't be able to get married in California on Friday. But it's possible that they could be free to marry, legally, by sometime next week.

Source: Same Sex Marriage Could Be Legal in California In Just a Few Days | NBC 7 San Diego

If there is an established right for civil marriage, the state cannot deprive law-abiding, tax-paying citizens the right to marry also....without valid and stated reasons, especially if they had that right and then it was taken away. Where are those valid and stated reasons in Prop H8? They aren't there.

This is the basis of the legal argument in front of the Supreme Court.

When the news report says

Same-sex couples won't be able to get married in California on Friday

Tells me you don't have a legal right to marry right now.
Your marriage that you claim you have is not legal as of yet and you will if prop 8 is struck down have to legally do the steps.

Allow me to enlighten you:

Same-sex marriage in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are one of the about 18,000 couples that obtained our legal marriage licenses between June 16th, 2008 and the passage of Prop H8 on November 4th 2008. In fact, our anniversary is July 5th.

No matter how much you want to deny it, we are legally married. As for in your state...what makes you think we would ever want to go there?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If there is an established right for civil marriage, the state cannot deprive law-abiding, tax-paying citizens the right to marry also....without valid and stated reasons, especially if they had that right and then it was taken away. Where are those valid and stated reasons in Prop H8? They aren't there.

This is the basis of the legal argument in front of the Supreme Court.

When the news report says

Same-sex couples won't be able to get married in California on Friday

Tells me you don't have a legal right to marry right now.
Your marriage that you claim you have is not legal as of yet and you will if prop 8 is struck down have to legally do the steps.

Allow me to enlighten you:

Same-sex marriage in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are one of the about 18,000 couples that obtained our legal marriage licenses between June 16th, 2008 and the passage of Prop H8 on November 4th 2008. In fact, our anniversary is July 5th.

No matter how much you want to deny it, we are legally married. As for in your state...what makes you think we would ever want to go there?

Wiki the edit as you post source? Versus a news release?

 

[mudwhistle]

If there is an established right for civil marriage, the state cannot deprive law-abiding, tax-paying citizens the right to marry also....without valid and stated reasons, especially if they had that right and then it was taken away. Where are those valid and stated reasons in Prop H8? They aren't there.

This is the basis of the legal argument in front of the Supreme Court.

When the news report says

Same-sex couples won't be able to get married in California on Friday

Tells me you don't have a legal right to marry right now.
Your marriage that you claim you have is not legal as of yet and you will if prop 8 is struck down have to legally do the steps.

Allow me to enlighten you:

Same-sex marriage in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are one of the about 18,000 couples that obtained our legal marriage licenses between June 16th, 2008 and the passage of Prop H8 on November 4th 2008. In fact, our anniversary is July 5th.

No matter how much you want to deny it, we are legally married. As for in your state...what makes you think we would ever want to go there?

I had the same problem with my business. I was granted a license by the county but during that time period the state was in the process of changing the filing requirements and somebody at the county screwed up and issued me a license. Later somebody noted a year later when my licenses were up for renewal that I didn't have a valid license anymore and they audited me. The law was changed after I had my license and the state hadn't notified the former issuing authorities the changes in time but that didn't stop them from hammering me with penalties and fines.

Fact is, they never should have issued licenses till the issue was resolved.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sorry but a city mayor doesn't over rule state law.

The Detroit Free Press reports that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom openly challenged California state law by allowing same-sex couples to legally marry. Previously, gay and lesbian couples were only allowed civil unions under California legislation. Mayor Newsom decided to allow the full rights of marriage after hearing President Bush oppose it during his State of the Union address on January 20, 2004.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom Allows Gay Marriage

 

[mudwhistle]

I wonder if anyone is going to issue an order for people to stop looking at same-sex couples and giggling about it?

Seems to me that is the issue here.

 

[bodecea]

I told you to stop lying there is no established right for queers to marry.
Same-sex couples won't be able to get married in California on Friday. But it's possible that they could be free to marry, legally, by sometime next week.

Source: Same Sex Marriage Could Be Legal in California In Just a Few Days | NBC 7 San Diego

If there is an established right for civil marriage, the state cannot deprive law-abiding, tax-paying citizens the right to marry also....without valid and stated reasons, especially if they had that right and then it was taken away. Where are those valid and stated reasons in Prop H8? They aren't there.

This is the basis of the legal argument in front of the Supreme Court.

To the bolded: I asked you this before, but WHERE does your (CA) constitutional state there must be "valid and stated reasons" to amend your constitution?

Where did you get that? Citation, please.

State Constitution - Table of Contents