RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional

RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

ElizabethAnne -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 1:06:54 PM)
quote: As president Obama is sworn to uphold the constitution. If the supreme court rules that gay marriage is supported under the 14th amendment, I am sure Obama will support it, so what is the issue here? It hasn't gotten there as of now; and probably won't before the general election.

vincentML -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 1:34:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub That is the courts job...protect the minority from the majority when constitutional rights are involved No that isnt the SCOTUS' job. Their job is to interpret the Constiutionality of laws regardless of who's rights are perceived by the litigants as being trampled on. The majority has rights too, you know. We all fully support your right to self imposed ignorance As in Prop 8 the Majority exercises what it believes is in its interest through legislation or referendum. Thereafter, if there is an individual who believes he has been agrieved that individual has access to the Court for remedy. The Majority being the majority does not need the Court's protection. Neu?

vincentML -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 1:37:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ElizabethAnne quote: As president Obama is sworn to uphold the constitution. If the supreme court rules that gay marriage is supported under the 14th amendment, I am sure Obama will support it, so what is the issue here? It hasn't gotten there as of now; and probably won't before the general election. Obama has already taken the seemingly contradictory but politically straddled position that he is against gay marriage but is for marriage equality for gays. He smoked but he did not inhale.

tazzygirl -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 1:38:24 PM)
Has nothing to do with straddling a fence. His personal opinion vs his public one. The man is entitled to a personal opinion on issues, as long as he doesnt try and push them onto others.

thishereboi -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 1:39:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: ElizabethAnne quote: As president Obama is sworn to uphold the constitution. If the supreme court rules that gay marriage is supported under the 14th amendment, I am sure Obama will support it, so what is the issue here? It hasn't gotten there as of now; and probably won't before the general election. Obama has already taken the seemingly contradictory but politically straddled position that he is against gay marriage but is for marriage equality for gays. He smoked but he did not inhale. No, the first is diplomacy and the second is just a waste of some good pot.

vincentML -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 1:45:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 Sadly many only wish it to work that way when it supports their view. It's a real shame some jump to conclusions about another's view...As mine is clearly posted on previous gay marriage threads as being all for allowing homosexuals to marry and be happy. My problem stems from a federal judge trumping state's rights and laws. But like I said it's just a matter of time until the pendulum swings to the right, and some conservative federal judge will trump say for instance, California's marijuana laws. Fuks sakes man, there are 27 Amendments to the Constitution. Only the 10th speaks to State's Rights. The 14th speaks to Equal Protection for citizens and was proudly passed by Republicans. The 14h asserts the States shall provide Equal Protection. Yep, those good ol days of the right of States to regulate their negras as private property has been whittled away. Sob!

vincentML -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 1:46:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: ElizabethAnne quote: As president Obama is sworn to uphold the constitution. If the supreme court rules that gay marriage is supported under the 14th amendment, I am sure Obama will support it, so what is the issue here? It hasn't gotten there as of now; and probably won't before the general election. Obama has already taken the seemingly contradictory but politically straddled position that he is against gay marriage but is for marriage equality for gays. He smoked but he did not inhale. No, the first is diplomacy and the second is just a waste of some good pot. [:D] Well, you call it diplomacy, I call it politics, but basically we agree .... especially on the latter.

BitaTruble -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 1:47:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 The ruling A very compelling read. I love when my crystal ball works so well. Pretty much everything I said in the Prop 8 thread around May of last year was in that ruling and rightfully so. From the Prop 8 thread back in May '09 "Then what's going to happen is that two people who are of the same sex will go and try to get married in CA and be denied. With 18,000 same sex marriages lawful in CA, they will be able to make a strong case for appeal with citation of the 14th amendment. Once that happens, then Prop 8 will have to be repealed regardless of the current language. It's going to be a long process.. probably two or three years at least, but unless the 14th gets somehow overturned (and it won't) this issue will be defeated and same sex marriage will have to be allowed in CA." On to the 9th circuit! [:D]

vincentML -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 1:48:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Has nothing to do with straddling a fence. His personal opinion vs his public one. The man is entitled to a personal opinion on issues, as long as he doesnt try and push them onto others. His personal opinion was made quite public by his campaign manager this morning. I can't recall his name.

subrob1967 -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 1:49:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The will of the majority must bend before the rights of the minority. That's why we have a Constitution. Just where does it say homosexuals cannot get married again? A gay man has the exact same right to marry a lesbian female, as heterosexual couple does, they even get the same benefits, and tax breaks as heterosexuals do...Go figure. Nowhere that I'm aware of does it say you must actually love the person you're marrying in a civil marriage service. The 14th amendment is all about equal rights under the law, and as I see it, homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals, and what they want is to be treated special, which is inequality.

vincentML -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 1:52:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The will of the majority must bend before the rights of the minority. That's why we have a Constitution. Just where does it say homosexuals cannot get married again? A gay man has the exact same right to marry a lesbian female, as heterosexual couple does, they even get the same benefits, and tax breaks as heterosexuals do...Go figure. Nowhere that I'm aware of does it say you must actually love the person you're marrying in a civil marriage service. The 14th amendment is all about equal rights under the law, and as I see it, homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals, and what they want is to be treated special, which is inequality. Where did it say a black man had the right to marry a white woman until SCOTUS invoked the 14th A and overruled existing State laws that were prohibative?

tazzygirl -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 1:58:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Has nothing to do with straddling a fence. His personal opinion vs his public one. The man is entitled to a personal opinion on issues, as long as he doesnt try and push them onto others. His personal opinion was made quite public by his campaign manager this morning. I can't recall his name. Doesnt matter that his personal opinion was made public. It should be public. But its still his personal opinion. As long as he doesnt do anything to prevent the legal opinion of this country from operating as it should, he can make all the personal opinions he desires. Example. Lets say a man in office holds the belief that men are better at certain jobs, and should be paid more, than women. I would call him an idiot. But, as long as he doesnt try to implement policy to ensure this happens, or try to prevent policy that is in place against such happenings in the work place, its just his opinion.

laurell3 -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 2:07:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoiJen quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 So everyone is happy that one person can overrule the will of the majority of voters? The pendulum swings both ways, my friends. Our Constitution guarantees the rights of the minority in the face of oppression or discrimination from the majority. Our Constitution (in a not so legal term) overrides ANY law created by a majority when it it's in direct conflict with the Constitution. Our Constitution guarantees "liberty" for all and in some kinda related document there's some phrases like "inalienable rights", "pursuit of happiness", and "all men created equal". This judge wasn't "smashing" the majority vote, he was upholding the Constitution. What's your objection here? boi But he isn't according to the current law. That's the point. This judge is setting this case up to FORCE the issue with the Supreme Court. It's time for them to really recognize that this DOES need to be a protected class. It is time for them to interpret the constitution to include sexual orientation. It is time that our definition of equal protection includes our right to chose whom we marry regardless of gender. Your assumption that currently exists is completely false and it will be a very interesting case when it gets to the USSC because of that. By the way I would hope they bypass the 9th Circuit and petition the Supremes to pick it up without further appeal.

DomImus -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 2:14:28 PM)
Equal rights when it comes to marriage but special treatment if someone beats them up. Makes sense to me.

Jeffff -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 2:18:23 PM)
All hate crimes are stupid. That was political pandering. I wonder if those laws would stand?

BoiJen -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 2:18:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Just where does it say homosexuals cannot get married again? A gay man has the exact same right to marry a lesbian female, as heterosexual couple does, they even get the same benefits, and tax breaks as heterosexuals do...Go figure. Nowhere that I'm aware of does it say you must actually love the person you're marrying in a civil marriage service. The 14th amendment is all about equal rights under the law, and as I see it, homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals, and what they want is to be treated special, which is inequality. Actually, if you're gonna take this down to simply being a civil contract, denying a female to have that civil contract with another female BECAUSE she is female, is gender discrimination. Same for denying males to have THAT contact with another male BECAUSE he is male. How is expecting to given the equal right to form a civil contract without gender bias a "special" right? boi

tazzygirl -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 2:19:18 PM)
Special treatment?

slvemike4u -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 2:22:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus Equal rights when it comes to marriage but special treatment if someone beats them up. Makes sense to me. Actually it makes perfect sense....there is a group of assholes who would deny this class of citizen the right to marry.....in addiition there is another group of assholes(some hold membership in both groups,making them dual assholes....lol)who wish to beat them up solely because they are gay.Hence the necessity for the two "protections" Now what part was confusing you?

BoiJen -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 2:22:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus Equal rights when it comes to marriage but special treatment if someone beats them up. Makes sense to me. Most nurses trained to deal with rape cases are trained to deal with females, because females are targeted because of their gender. I think it was Iowa (one of the "I" states) that just instituted a law demanding that all rape kits be reviewed and stricter regulations be put in place so that the victims rights are protected. How is the law described above any different than a "hate crimes" law? How is the above law, meant to primarily benefit female victims of rape any different than a law meant to protect the rights of a person who is assaulted solely because of their perceived "sexual orientation"? Is the law described above a "special rights" law according to you? boi

ElizabethAnne -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 2:28:04 PM)
Eliminate the word marriage completely, it should be considered a civil union. Get the government out of our personal lives. If someone CHOOSES to have a religious ceremony that is their choice and their right.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875