Today may be The Day for California!

[bigrebnc1775]

The US Supreme Court is expected to make a ruling on whether to review the 9th Circuit's Decision on Prop H8 today. Let's hope it's a good one!

Maybe the supreme court should step in an overturn the last election vote of the majority. That is what happened with the vote of prop 8 .

So...you have no problem with the majority voting away the already established civil rights of a minority with no explanation or clear, valid, stated reason.

You're rights as an American are already protected your right to have a gay marriage is not protected. That is up too your state and it spoke loud and clear.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The US Supreme Court is expected to make a ruling on whether to review the 9th Circuit's Decision on Prop H8 today. Let's hope it's a good one!

Maybe the supreme court should step in an overturn the last election vote of the majority. That is what happened with the vote of prop 8 .

what a retarded comparison

you're just retarded.

 

[bodecea]

Maybe the supreme court should step in an overturn the last election vote of the majority. That is what happened with the vote of prop 8 .

So...you have no problem with the majority voting away the already established civil rights of a minority with no explanation or clear, valid, stated reason.

You're rights as an American are already protected your right to have a gay marriage is not protected. That is up too your state and it spoke loud and clear.

So...a state has the right to take away an already established right for a minority without reason?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So...you have no problem with the majority voting away the already established civil rights of a minority with no explanation or clear, valid, stated reason.

You're rights as an American are already protected your right to have a gay marriage is not protected. That is up too your state and it spoke loud and clear.

So...a state has the right to take away an already established right for a minority without reason?

There is no protection of right's to be immoral
A state when voted on by the people have a right to say how their state goes. When the majority of that state lose their say in the matter it becomes a tyranny of the minoeiry.

 

[bodecea]

You're rights as an American are already protected your right to have a gay marriage is not protected. That is up too your state and it spoke loud and clear.

So...a state has the right to take away an already established right for a minority without reason?

There is no protection of right's to be immoral
A state when voted on by the people have a right to say how their state goes. When the majority of that state lose their say in the matter it becomes a tyranny of the minoeiry.

So...a state has the right to take away an already established right for a minority without reason?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So...a state has the right to take away an already established right for a minority without reason?

There is no protection of right's to be immoral
A state when voted on by the people have a right to say how their state goes. When the majority of that state lose their say in the matter it becomes a tyranny of the minoeiry.

So...a state has the right to take away an already established right for a minority without reason?

There is no established right to gay marriage.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You're rights as an American are already protected your right to have a gay marriage is not protected. That is up too your state and it spoke loud and clear.

So...a state has the right to take away an already established right for a minority without reason?

There is no protection of right's to be immoral
A state when voted on by the people have a right to say how their state goes. When the majority of that state lose their say in the matter it becomes a tyranny of the minoeiry.

‘Morality’ is subjective, and not a valid reason to deny a class of persons equal access to the law.

The voters of California violated the due process rights of same-sex couples, in this case taking from them the right to marry absent just cause. Prop 8 also violates equal protection jurisprudence, where no state may deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.

 

[Mad Scientist]

There is no protection of right's to be immoral
A state when voted on by the people have a right to say how their state goes. When the majority of that state lose their say in the matter it becomes a tyranny of the minoeiry.

So...a state has the right to take away an already established right for a minority without reason?

There is no established right to gay marriage.

I'd like to see where bodecea says (or thinks) that's written.

If Gays said it's a Civil Liberty then I might go along with that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So...a state has the right to take away an already established right for a minority without reason?

There is no protection of right's to be immoral
A state when voted on by the people have a right to say how their state goes. When the majority of that state lose their say in the matter it becomes a tyranny of the minoeiry.

‘Morality’ is subjective, and not a valid reason to deny a class of persons equal access to the law.

The voters of California violated the due process rights of same-sex couples, in this case taking from them the right to marry absent just cause. Prop 8 also violates equal protection jurisprudence, where no state may deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.

There is no protected right for gay marriage.
If you want one have try to amendment the Constitution. But until then you have nothing.

 

[bodecea]

There is no protection of right's to be immoral
A state when voted on by the people have a right to say how their state goes. When the majority of that state lose their say in the matter it becomes a tyranny of the minoeiry.

So...a state has the right to take away an already established right for a minority without reason?

There is no established right to gay marriage.

Yes there was...in California. It was legal. We got married legally. Then that already established right was taken away by Prop H8 with no reasons given for taking that established legal right away. Do you support states being able to do that? Yes or no?

 

[bodecea]

So...a state has the right to take away an already established right for a minority without reason?

There is no established right to gay marriage.

I'd like to see where bodecea says (or thinks) that's written.

If Gays said it's a Civil Liberty then I might go along with that.

Marriage is a basic civil right. Even the Supreme Court has stated that in past rulings. However, the current argument is....Does a state, thru an election or whatever, have the right to take away an already established right from a group of citizens without stated and valid reasons? Yes or no. If you look at Prop H8, it gives no reasons for taking away the right of civil marriage for gay couples...a right that was already established by law.

 

[Si modo]

So...a state has the right to take away an already established right for a minority without reason?

There is no established right to gay marriage.

Yes there was...in California. It was legal. We got married legally. Then that already established right was taken away by Prop H8 with no reasons given for taking that established legal right away. Do you support states being able to do that? Yes or no?

Obviously, that is a CA issue, not one for the SCOTUS.

I've always thought CA's referendum voting is whacked, but it IS CA.

Government needs to stay out of the marriage business.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So...a state has the right to take away an already established right for a minority without reason?

There is no established right to gay marriage.

Yes there was...in California. It was legal. We got married legally. Then that already established right was taken away by Prop H8 with no reasons given for taking that established legal right away. Do you support states being able to do that? Yes or no?

NO there is NO PROTECTED RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE.

 

[gallantwarrior]

The federal government acts like Santa to married couples, giving them all kinds of cash and prize gifts.

These cash and prizes are withheld from gay married couples. They are not given equal protection of the law.

Anti-gay people are resentful about the idea of not being the only ones to get presents from Santa any more. The feel specially entitled to these gifts.
.

I wonder how the upcoming elimination of those tax perks will affect the burning desire of gays to marry?

 

[gallantwarrior]

The will of the people.....like Segregation? Like not providing equal access to handicapped? Like Child Labor? like Slavery? like women as chattel?

Only 2 of those can be considered unconsitutional, and then only when perptuated by the government, segregation and slavery.

The others were eliminated via legislation, not judical fiat. Technically Slavery and segregation were eliminated by legislation as well, first by amendment, then by laws in wake of the court cases.

Rights are considered inalienable in this country. If the mob refuses to recognize these rights through the legislative branch, then the judicial branch has the DUTY to protect those rights.

This is exactly why we have three branches of government.

.

Unfortunately, too many people have confused "rights" with "privileges".

 

[USwings]

So...a state has the right to take away an already established right for a minority without reason?

There is no protection of right's to be immoral
A state when voted on by the people have a right to say how their state goes. When the majority of that state lose their say in the matter it becomes a tyranny of the minoeiry.

‘Morality’ is subjective, and not a valid reason to deny a class of persons equal access to the law.

The voters of California violated the due process rights of same-sex couples, in this case taking from them the right to marry absent just cause. Prop 8 also violates equal protection jurisprudence, where no state may deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.

When you say, "a minority" your being vague. There's a big difference between a racial minority, and a sexual orientation minority. One being sex is strictly regulated, so the idea that your being denied rights as a minority is not true. What you are doing is seeking rights for your sexual orientation. Marriage is also regulated. Same sex couples are not the same as heterosexual couples, in that mothers, fathers and bloodlines are traditionally, lawfully, and religiously held in esteem. You can seek rights as a sexual orientation minority, but even if the law said you are equal, you are not the same.

 

[USwings]

So...a state has the right to take away an already established right for a minority without reason?

There is no established right to gay marriage.

Yes there was...in California. It was legal. We got married legally. Then that already established right was taken away by Prop H8 with no reasons given for taking that established legal right away. Do you support states being able to do that? Yes or no?

A mayor in one city does not have the authority to decided the law of the state.

"The issue of same-sex marriage reemerged in 2004, when Mayor of San Francisco Gavin Newsom directed the city-county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The marriages were quickly annulled by the California Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the California legislature twice passed, and twice received vetos from governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on, bills that would have legalized same-sex marriages in the state."

The act of a rouge Mayor doesn't equal an established right.

 

[PredFan]

Both sides of this issue are equally stubborn. Neither are so much concerned with their point as they are about humiliating the other side. The answer to this is simple.

Let the religious keep the title "Marriage", and expand "Civil Unions" to include every right and priviledge that married people enjoy.

There, done. Of course neither side is willing to compromise on the issue. it doesn't satisfy their desire to stick it to the other side.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no protection of right's to be immoral
A state when voted on by the people have a right to say how their state goes. When the majority of that state lose their say in the matter it becomes a tyranny of the minoeiry.

‘Morality’ is subjective, and not a valid reason to deny a class of persons equal access to the law.

The voters of California violated the due process rights of same-sex couples, in this case taking from them the right to marry absent just cause. Prop 8 also violates equal protection jurisprudence, where no state may deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.

When you say, "a minority" your being vague. There's a big difference between a racial minority, and a sexual orientation minority. One being sex is strictly regulated, so the idea that your being denied rights as a minority is not true. What you are doing is seeking rights for your sexual orientation. Marriage is also regulated. Same sex couples are not the same as heterosexual couples, in that mothers, fathers and bloodlines are traditionally, lawfully, and religiously held in esteem. You can seek rights as a sexual orientation minority, but even if the law said you are equal, you are not the same.

No one is referring to a ‘minority,’ but a class of persons, in this case same-sex couples.

In Romer the Court was clear that to exclude a class of persons due to sexual orientation is un-Constitutional, a violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

The issue has nothing to do with the creation of a ‘new right,’ simply the consistent application of rights already in existence – in this case the right to marry and the right of equal protection of the law.

In the eyes of the law same sex couples are indeed the same as heterosexual couples, in that the state can not provide a compelling reason supported by evidence to exclude the former from marriage.

 

[bodecea]

There is no established right to gay marriage.

Yes there was...in California. It was legal. We got married legally. Then that already established right was taken away by Prop H8 with no reasons given for taking that established legal right away. Do you support states being able to do that? Yes or no?

NO there is NO PROTECTED RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE.

Yes there is..in every state that had or has legalized gay marriage. Your yelling doesn't change that fact.