You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What will the California Supreme Court Rule on Prop 8?
- Thread starter Andy Q
- Start date
El Homre Hambre
New member
Prop 8 will stay,because it is voted by majority.The "married" sodomites will be annuled.No special laws,so-called iquality,marriages for gays,period.
There is such thing as Tyranny of the Majority...aren't you afraid that one day you may be oppressed by people who think they know what's best for you? Don't you believe that certain liberties are inherent and can't be rescinded by a vote? Be Careful saying that you know what's best for others or that your personal beliefs should be law.
glespaul12
New member
I hope the judges are personally enlightened enough to realize that voters can't take away others' rights. Whatever the judges may or may not feel about same gender marriage.
blue eyed baby
New member
Marriage is not a right,..
There are several reasons why a state can deny a marriage license,...
Incest being the most understood of course. So are there laws again bigamy and such as that,... so no,.. "marriage" is not a "right."
Also, you should understand (though no one ever talks about it) that the government has the right to define marriage as it sees fit to meet it's responsibilities in "promoting the general welfare" under Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
The government has the Constitutional right, for example to define marriage as it deems necessary to fit the "general welfare" neeRAB of the nation as it pertains to immigration and naturalization laws,.. (i.e. what will and will not be recognized as a marriage)
The definitions are in the U.S. code if anyone feels like looking it up,... I have to go,.. wife calling.
Incest being the most understood of course. So are there laws again bigamy and such as that,... so no,.. "marriage" is not a "right."
Also, you should understand (though no one ever talks about it) that the government has the right to define marriage as it sees fit to meet it's responsibilities in "promoting the general welfare" under Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
The government has the Constitutional right, for example to define marriage as it deems necessary to fit the "general welfare" neeRAB of the nation as it pertains to immigration and naturalization laws,.. (i.e. what will and will not be recognized as a marriage)
The definitions are in the U.S. code if anyone feels like looking it up,... I have to go,.. wife calling.
Naadirah R
New member
In all the cases you mention, a person is being harmed, deceived, or another person's rights infringed upon. Bigamy, incest, or in the case of immigration, I imagine you are referencing marriage fraud.
I don't see how two men or two women getting married infringes upon my rights in any way whatsoever. Or how any of those scenarios are in any way similar to same gender marriage between two adults who love each other and want to spend their lives together.
And many courts have ruled that marriage is a right more fundamental than even voting.
Not to mention that, when families already exist, without the protection of marriage, rights within the family are not protected. So you have a 14th Amendment issue, too.
The voters cannot just vote these things away.
I don't see how two men or two women getting married infringes upon my rights in any way whatsoever. Or how any of those scenarios are in any way similar to same gender marriage between two adults who love each other and want to spend their lives together.
And many courts have ruled that marriage is a right more fundamental than even voting.
Not to mention that, when families already exist, without the protection of marriage, rights within the family are not protected. So you have a 14th Amendment issue, too.
The voters cannot just vote these things away.
I really can't have this debate again,... if you are genuinely interest in how I deal with the issue,.. here's a link to my most recent comments and exchanges.
Starting with post #102
I'll be glad to answer any questions you might have after you read that conversation.
Starting with post #102
I'll be glad to answer any questions you might have after you read that conversation.
You're the one who challenged my statement, ChuzLife, by saying that marriage is not a right. And you are incorrect.
U.S. courts have ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. Bigamy and marriage fraud are both forms of deception, not examples of how marriage is not a right. And Incest is a basic taboo against sexual relationships between human beings already members of the same family, if not an example of outright rape, in the cases of parents and children, which is a criminal violation.
However, I understand that the power of logic and reason has overwhelmed you. Hence, you resort to these excuses and games.
U.S. courts have ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. Bigamy and marriage fraud are both forms of deception, not examples of how marriage is not a right. And Incest is a basic taboo against sexual relationships between human beings already members of the same family, if not an example of outright rape, in the cases of parents and children, which is a criminal violation.
However, I understand that the power of logic and reason has overwhelmed you. Hence, you resort to these excuses and games.
Hooker Stabber
New member
Separation of Church & State.
Supporters of Prop 8 keep stating over and over again how they want to protect the sanctity of marriage. That it's part of their religious culture. If it was a religious rite such as Baptism or Christening then I would agree. If gays were trying to change the structure of the church, then I agree the church should be ran how they see fit.
BUT
A marriage license, like any other license is a legally binding contract that can only be dissolved by court. A license is issued at a state office and can be performed in front of a magistrate or clerk. No religious involvement at all. Since I am not religious and personally do not believe in God, the church's argument, for me, is invalid.
The church cannot claim that they are a non-profit, religious organization and have separation of church and state but want to dictate state law when it comes to the general population. I refuse to have any religious organization partake in my life and have a hand in any ruling that affects my life.
The passing of Prop 8 by majority of voters proved 1 thing. The church has a huge following. This is about discrimination.
I'm also sick and tired of hearing people like Inga Barks on KMJ radio say things like, "Where would it end? What would keep a father from marrying his daughter, or a person from marrying their pet."
First of all, if a father and daughter want to get married, that's a straight person issue and since straights can already legally marry I'm sure by now that if there were those who wanted that kind of marriage, they would already be fighting for it.
And as far as protecting the sanctity of marriage....Remember about 10 years ago in Fresno, CA a woman was on the radio. She wanted to get married. She was waiting at the court house in gown and would marry the first man who showed up. Or around the same time, I remember seeing on the news in LA a woman wearing a wedding gown coming out of the court house, she married her pet rock.
The fact is, straights have more issues than gays. And as far as them also stating that marriage is about pro-creation and that 2 men cannot pro-create together, then what about the thousanRAB of men and women who are infertile and cannot conceive? Should they be denied marriage? Or seniors who find companionship later in life, obviously too old to conceive, should they too be denied? The whole argument by those who support prop 8 makes no sense to me. This is about our legal right to engage freely in a legally binding contract and being entitled to the same rights and benefits that everyone else enjoys by being legally able to join in that binding contract.
Supporters of Prop 8 keep stating over and over again how they want to protect the sanctity of marriage. That it's part of their religious culture. If it was a religious rite such as Baptism or Christening then I would agree. If gays were trying to change the structure of the church, then I agree the church should be ran how they see fit.
BUT
A marriage license, like any other license is a legally binding contract that can only be dissolved by court. A license is issued at a state office and can be performed in front of a magistrate or clerk. No religious involvement at all. Since I am not religious and personally do not believe in God, the church's argument, for me, is invalid.
The church cannot claim that they are a non-profit, religious organization and have separation of church and state but want to dictate state law when it comes to the general population. I refuse to have any religious organization partake in my life and have a hand in any ruling that affects my life.
The passing of Prop 8 by majority of voters proved 1 thing. The church has a huge following. This is about discrimination.
I'm also sick and tired of hearing people like Inga Barks on KMJ radio say things like, "Where would it end? What would keep a father from marrying his daughter, or a person from marrying their pet."
First of all, if a father and daughter want to get married, that's a straight person issue and since straights can already legally marry I'm sure by now that if there were those who wanted that kind of marriage, they would already be fighting for it.
And as far as protecting the sanctity of marriage....Remember about 10 years ago in Fresno, CA a woman was on the radio. She wanted to get married. She was waiting at the court house in gown and would marry the first man who showed up. Or around the same time, I remember seeing on the news in LA a woman wearing a wedding gown coming out of the court house, she married her pet rock.
The fact is, straights have more issues than gays. And as far as them also stating that marriage is about pro-creation and that 2 men cannot pro-create together, then what about the thousanRAB of men and women who are infertile and cannot conceive? Should they be denied marriage? Or seniors who find companionship later in life, obviously too old to conceive, should they too be denied? The whole argument by those who support prop 8 makes no sense to me. This is about our legal right to engage freely in a legally binding contract and being entitled to the same rights and benefits that everyone else enjoys by being legally able to join in that binding contract.
masterofninjas
New member
WRONG!
I could SCREAM it,.. but no-one cares to hear it,.. and the courts will just Fu-:xcensored the Constitution again (as they are want to do) and everything else will continue to be Fu-:xcensored-ed right along with it.
But the FACT is,... (article 1 section 8) the Constitution does give the government the right to define marriage as it deems necessary to meet the "General welfare" neeRAB of the nation. Specifically as it pertains to immigration and naturalization law,....
No one ever addresses those aspects when they demand "gay" marriage.
People are free to enter into any kind of legally binding "marriage" type contracts they want to,... religious or otherwise. But the Government is not charged with seeing that everyone has an equal access to the full panapoly of their rights.
The government is charged IN THE CONSTITUTION with promoting only the "GENERAL" welfare. NOT the f-:xcensored-ing immediate demanRAB and welfare of each and every individual.
Ahhhh.
It's clear that fewer and fewer people have even bothered to read the f-:xcensored- ing Constitution,... let alone let any of it sink in.
I'm about too tired to give a rat's azz about any of this cra-p any more. We aren't going to suddenly be screwed because gays can marry,... we are screwing ourselves (as a nation) because we too easily dismiss the significance and foundations that the country was built on in the first place.
GENERALLY speaking ("Generally" means for the vast majority of the population) our familes, our societies,... or NATION as a whole is best served by a family which begins with a single male and a single female relationship. A male role model and a female role model for the kiRAB that MAY- no WILL inheret this fuc:xcensored-ing planet.
GENERALLY speaking.
GENERAL WELFARE!
Is anyone grasping any of this?
:xbanghead
I could SCREAM it,.. but no-one cares to hear it,.. and the courts will just Fu-:xcensored the Constitution again (as they are want to do) and everything else will continue to be Fu-:xcensored-ed right along with it.
But the FACT is,... (article 1 section 8) the Constitution does give the government the right to define marriage as it deems necessary to meet the "General welfare" neeRAB of the nation. Specifically as it pertains to immigration and naturalization law,....
No one ever addresses those aspects when they demand "gay" marriage.
People are free to enter into any kind of legally binding "marriage" type contracts they want to,... religious or otherwise. But the Government is not charged with seeing that everyone has an equal access to the full panapoly of their rights.
The government is charged IN THE CONSTITUTION with promoting only the "GENERAL" welfare. NOT the f-:xcensored-ing immediate demanRAB and welfare of each and every individual.
Ahhhh.
It's clear that fewer and fewer people have even bothered to read the f-:xcensored- ing Constitution,... let alone let any of it sink in.
I'm about too tired to give a rat's azz about any of this cra-p any more. We aren't going to suddenly be screwed because gays can marry,... we are screwing ourselves (as a nation) because we too easily dismiss the significance and foundations that the country was built on in the first place.
GENERALLY speaking ("Generally" means for the vast majority of the population) our familes, our societies,... or NATION as a whole is best served by a family which begins with a single male and a single female relationship. A male role model and a female role model for the kiRAB that MAY- no WILL inheret this fuc:xcensored-ing planet.
GENERALLY speaking.
GENERAL WELFARE!
Is anyone grasping any of this?
:xbanghead
The Government licensing and recognition of your desired variety of "marriage" is not a right. So, there's nothing to protect other than the right for those who "meet the definition" set by the government under article 1 to "promote" the unions as it sees necessary to address the "general welfare" neeRAB of the nation for imigration, naturalization, etc.
I don't meet the government's requirements to do a lot of things (perform medical procedures for example),.. am I being denied "equal protection" because "while I have a right to become a doctor" I don't meet the governments requirements to be one yet?
Of course not.
I don't meet the government's requirements to do a lot of things (perform medical procedures for example),.. am I being denied "equal protection" because "while I have a right to become a doctor" I don't meet the governments requirements to be one yet?
Of course not.
Malibu 310
New member
I think that is the right choice to make. Keep what the people voted for, but don't invalidate the marriage licenses. The game has already been played, you can't just go back and erase what happened under another law. For example, say I received a traffic ticket for speeding and had to pay 100 dollars. The next day the fine was raised legally to 1000 dollars. I received the ticket when the fine was 100 dollars, and I would pay 100 not 1000 dollars.
For example, if abortion were made illegal, it would be wrong to persecute people who had abortions when it was legal. People should not be punished for something done in the past if that something was legal.
I now have a question to ask. Why can't I marry my mother?
For example, if abortion were made illegal, it would be wrong to persecute people who had abortions when it was legal. People should not be punished for something done in the past if that something was legal.
I now have a question to ask. Why can't I marry my mother?
mikeymagic
New member
Yes, the "Ex Post Facto" clause makes it illegal to charge someone for a crime that was committed before the passing of a law.
Same-sex marriage will cause no one harm. You forget that homosexuals and lesbians are also included in the "general welfare," and, therefore, are entitled to same rights as those who practice opposite-sex marital unions. Federal governments cannot infringe upon the "natural rights" of an individual or a group of individuals as written--and implicitly stated--in the constitution. This was first violated when the federal Defense of Marriage Act passed and circumvented the "Full Faith and Credit" clause, which stated: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, RecorRAB, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, RecorRAB and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." By actively participating and enacting a piece of legislation that only propagates the further alienation of a centralized group of Americans, which is primarily done on the basis of sexual orientation and one's desire to marry, the federal government has not only violated a clause already written in the constitution concerning how a state's proceedings and its laws are recognized in another state (more specifically a state's decision to grant same-sex marriages, i.e. Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut, or Maine), but it also segregates same-sex couples from their natural place of residence and forces them to venture across state lines to states that acknowledge same-sex marriages--in their symbolic "pursuit of happiness."
As such, I do find that this complicates the situation. Confrontations will continue to ensue amongst the states if an agreement as to what defines marriage is finally resolved, which can only be done at the federal level. It took people of black descent and white women hundreRAB of years to obtain their implied right to vote, as stated in the Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal." Keep in mind that the founders were intelligent men who wrote the constitution using ambiguous phrasings, leaving the responsibility for interpretation to future generations should they need to clarify or amend the constitution (with the "general welfare" of people in mind).
There are a multitude of solutions, but I find that the federal Supreme Court can rule on this case since it relates to American citizens who are either homosexuals or lesbians. Obviously same-sex couples are entitled to a right to marry because there is no other reason to deny them as such.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and should be expunged. If supporters and politicians are successful in overcoming this obstacle, it would enable same-sex couples the opportunity to marry in one state and have it recognized in another--or prompt the other states to honor these unions as legally binding. There is a parallel between same-sex marriages and abortions in that the controversy lies in whether or not they should be handled at the federal or state level. Since one concerns the "general welfare" of society and the other a human beings "natural right" to live and exist, both should logically be taken to the federal Supreme Court. It would, essentially, put an end to all the debate.
Same-sex marriage will cause no one harm. You forget that homosexuals and lesbians are also included in the "general welfare," and, therefore, are entitled to same rights as those who practice opposite-sex marital unions. Federal governments cannot infringe upon the "natural rights" of an individual or a group of individuals as written--and implicitly stated--in the constitution. This was first violated when the federal Defense of Marriage Act passed and circumvented the "Full Faith and Credit" clause, which stated: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, RecorRAB, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, RecorRAB and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." By actively participating and enacting a piece of legislation that only propagates the further alienation of a centralized group of Americans, which is primarily done on the basis of sexual orientation and one's desire to marry, the federal government has not only violated a clause already written in the constitution concerning how a state's proceedings and its laws are recognized in another state (more specifically a state's decision to grant same-sex marriages, i.e. Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut, or Maine), but it also segregates same-sex couples from their natural place of residence and forces them to venture across state lines to states that acknowledge same-sex marriages--in their symbolic "pursuit of happiness."
As such, I do find that this complicates the situation. Confrontations will continue to ensue amongst the states if an agreement as to what defines marriage is finally resolved, which can only be done at the federal level. It took people of black descent and white women hundreRAB of years to obtain their implied right to vote, as stated in the Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal." Keep in mind that the founders were intelligent men who wrote the constitution using ambiguous phrasings, leaving the responsibility for interpretation to future generations should they need to clarify or amend the constitution (with the "general welfare" of people in mind).
There are a multitude of solutions, but I find that the federal Supreme Court can rule on this case since it relates to American citizens who are either homosexuals or lesbians. Obviously same-sex couples are entitled to a right to marry because there is no other reason to deny them as such.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and should be expunged. If supporters and politicians are successful in overcoming this obstacle, it would enable same-sex couples the opportunity to marry in one state and have it recognized in another--or prompt the other states to honor these unions as legally binding. There is a parallel between same-sex marriages and abortions in that the controversy lies in whether or not they should be handled at the federal or state level. Since one concerns the "general welfare" of society and the other a human beings "natural right" to live and exist, both should logically be taken to the federal Supreme Court. It would, essentially, put an end to all the debate.
The government has the right and the discretion to define marriage as it sees fit for the making of laws (immigration, naturalization, etc- Article 8, section 1) I am confident that you agree the line has to be drawn somewhere as to what should and what should not be recognized by our government.
I'm sure there are many valid points to consider in all sorts of relationships and so called "marriages" as they can be oriented around the "general welfare." I don't discount those points nor their validity. I am in an inter-racial marriage myself. My wife is Bi-racial. Her folks were in a bi-racial marriage. I completely understand the angst felt by those who were once forbidden to marry someone they "loved" and felt they had a right to marry,.... but were not going to have their "marriages" recognized by a government which refused to recognize it.
I get that part.
But again, there are lines that inevitably have to be drawn. This is America. It's a land built on immigration,... any law which is intended to keep each immigrant within the bounRAB and confines of their own "kind" is in and of itself (to me),... "Anti-American."
That said;
a: The basic ingrediant of our society is the family nucleus.
b: Natural law has determined that the vast majority of humans is "heterosexual."
c: The most basic nucleus therefore which insures the survival of "family" is the one man one woman model.
d: At the most basic level, race doesn't matter as much as their sexuality does.
e: Therefore,. the most basic step to insure future society is to insure the basic "family" structure remains intact.
f: And seeing as how I am a minimalist where government is concerned,... I can accept no more than the most basic definition of "marriage" to support the most basic "family" and by default,... society itself. (minimalism)
g: "Gay marriage" can exist outside the relm of government recognition the same way inter-racial marriages always have.
h: Governmental Recognition is not a right.
I'm sure there are many valid points to consider in all sorts of relationships and so called "marriages" as they can be oriented around the "general welfare." I don't discount those points nor their validity. I am in an inter-racial marriage myself. My wife is Bi-racial. Her folks were in a bi-racial marriage. I completely understand the angst felt by those who were once forbidden to marry someone they "loved" and felt they had a right to marry,.... but were not going to have their "marriages" recognized by a government which refused to recognize it.
I get that part.
But again, there are lines that inevitably have to be drawn. This is America. It's a land built on immigration,... any law which is intended to keep each immigrant within the bounRAB and confines of their own "kind" is in and of itself (to me),... "Anti-American."
That said;
a: The basic ingrediant of our society is the family nucleus.
b: Natural law has determined that the vast majority of humans is "heterosexual."
c: The most basic nucleus therefore which insures the survival of "family" is the one man one woman model.
d: At the most basic level, race doesn't matter as much as their sexuality does.
e: Therefore,. the most basic step to insure future society is to insure the basic "family" structure remains intact.
f: And seeing as how I am a minimalist where government is concerned,... I can accept no more than the most basic definition of "marriage" to support the most basic "family" and by default,... society itself. (minimalism)
g: "Gay marriage" can exist outside the relm of government recognition the same way inter-racial marriages always have.
h: Governmental Recognition is not a right.
All of the things you listed from A to H are ideologies rendered from a biased standpoint that are far too classicist and traditional with religious connotations. I could go so far as to stereotype you as a right-winger. Keep in mind that a debate for- and against- same-sex marriages is doable, but the arguments you have listed are no where listed or defines what constitutes as the "basic structure" for a tactful society in the constitution (literally or implied). Ideological beliefs such these cannot be proven or supported to be the fundamental ingredients for a stable, cohesive "American" society, nor can it determine the effectiveness of individuals' livelihooRAB or their overall well-being. Neither does it support your assertion that the "man/woman model...ensures the survival of the family unit." Consider those who are widows, single parents, adopted, victims of molestation or domestic violence, etc.
Furthermore, when one interprets the constitution as a Supreme Court justice, he/she must interpret only what is written in the constitution with respect to contemporary circumstances. One case that acknowledges this understanding of how to interpret the constitution is evident in Trop v. Dulles, stating: "The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standarRAB of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."
Jefferson advocated a "Wall of Separation" between government and religion. As such, religious arguments for the "sanctity" of marriage cannot be taken into consideration; however, the legality of marriage is recognized by the state- and federal- levels government as a binding agreement between two individuals. Again, there is nothing to debase the notion that same-sex couples are eligible to marry and/or have their unions recognized by the states and federal government (filing income taxes to the IRS).
Furthermore, when one interprets the constitution as a Supreme Court justice, he/she must interpret only what is written in the constitution with respect to contemporary circumstances. One case that acknowledges this understanding of how to interpret the constitution is evident in Trop v. Dulles, stating: "The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standarRAB of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."
Jefferson advocated a "Wall of Separation" between government and religion. As such, religious arguments for the "sanctity" of marriage cannot be taken into consideration; however, the legality of marriage is recognized by the state- and federal- levels government as a binding agreement between two individuals. Again, there is nothing to debase the notion that same-sex couples are eligible to marry and/or have their unions recognized by the states and federal government (filing income taxes to the IRS).
FishAddict !
New member
Time is short,... roll tagline. and,...
2 worRAB
"Strict Constructionist"
2 worRAB
"Strict Constructionist"