| Author |
Topic:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California! [Locked] |
Jezza_Belle  Title: =^.^=
Posts: 2,771
Registered: 2001-2-24 02:29:30
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California! |
silvadel2 posted:
Aerlinthian posted:
I look forward to the government getting out of the marriage business so that polygamy and polyandry is no longer criminalized.
Well isnt it discrimination against islam to not allow 4 wives? This certainly opens the door for that argument.
I don't see why there is so much discrimination on who we should and shouldn't love, as long as the people are of age, not being bought/sold... I don't see a problem with multiple marriages.
-----signature-----
( - Y - ) These ones are not real, just FYI.
Follow my progress... http://tweetlbug.deviantart.com/
|
FineYoungCannibals Title: Top of the food chain
Posts: 1,620
Registered: 2003-7-14 19:17:12
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California! |
why would you want 4 wives, i can barely handle one
-----signature-----
 FYC |
|
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California! |
FineYoungCannibals posted:
why would you want 4 wives, i can barely handle one
That's because your out of touch with your male roots. It sure isn't because you don't make enough money. Now go slap some ass like you mean it.
|
faefrost  Posts: 70
Registered: 2000-4-27 21:34:34
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California! |
Gaevren posted:
faefrost posted:
What astonishes me is how many think that this is a good thing?
For the record I do support gay marriage. The reasons to allow it outweigh the reasons against it. But it must come from the Legislature. There is no other way.
What happened here today was a federal court (with a long sordid history of similar behavior) overturned a states constitutionally protected sovereignty and created state law from the federal bench. They overturned legitimate state constitutional actions with absolutely no basis or precedent beyond "we think so". This is NOT how we are governed. Just because the outcome may be what a lot of people want does not in any way legitimize this process or this courts actions. The state of California and more directly the people of California had spoken on this issue. Right or wrong. It was within their sovereign rights to do so. Just as it was within New Yorks sovereign rights to choose to legislatively change the existing laws and allow such an evolution of societal mores.
Only if the state legislature does not run contrary to the US constitution and applicable federal laws.
If the state/people of California had voted to ban interracial marriage, that would have been unconstitutional as well, and the federal courts would have been well within their jurisdiction to say so.
All powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution are expressly and exclusively reserved for the states. The states do not have to ask permission of the feds unless it is clearly something defined in the constitution. Federal laws cannot typically supercede the state constitutions unless it is in an area that the feds are specifically and distinctly empowered to do so by the Federal constitution. This is further backed up by the new Congressional rules that mandate that every bill put before Congress must reference the specific constitutional powers that would permit or empower the law.
-----signature-----
" ou're not just a regular moron
You were designed to be a moron!"
|
Ah-Schoo Title: Fuzzy Caterpillar of Friendliness
Posts: 3,034
Registered: 2000-8-11 09:05:29
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California! |
Aerlinthian posted:
FineYoungCannibals posted:
why would you want 4 wives, i can barely handle one
That's because your out of touch with your male roots. It sure isn't because you don't make enough money. Now go slap some ass like you mean it.
*you're
-----signature-----
.
Opinion = fact. Anecdote = proof. Political label more important than either of those.
Welcome to ACF, where debate goes to die.
.
"fascist totalitarian secular progressive Zionist intellectually challenged Christian puppets." - Aerlinthina
|
FineYoungCannibals Title: Top of the food chain
Posts: 1,620
Registered: 2003-7-14 19:17:12
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California! |
Does this mean gays can drink from the same drinking fountain as normal people?
-----signature-----
FYC |
-Kiande-  Posts: 549
Registered: 2006-8-11 23:47:04
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California! |
Immortal_Haze posted:
So this is what the Mayans were talking about??
-----signature-----
Thunderdome
|
faefrost Posts: 70
Registered: 2000-4-27 21:34:34
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California! |
Second_Chance posted:
faefrost posted:
What astonishes me is how many think that this is a good thing?
For the record I do support gay marriage. The reasons to allow it outweigh the reasons against it. But it must come from the Legislature. There is no other way.
What happened here today was a federal court (with a long sordid history of similar behavior) overturned a states constitutionally protected sovereignty and created state law from the federal bench. They overturned legitimate state constitutional actions with absolutely no basis or precedent beyond "we think so". This is NOT how we are governed. Just because the outcome may be what a lot of people want does not in any way legitimize this process or this courts actions. The state of California and more directly the people of California had spoken on this issue. Right or wrong. It was within their sovereign rights to do so. Just as it was within New Yorks sovereign rights to choose to legislatively change the existing laws and allow such an evolution of societal mores.
Such a profanity theory. A state cannot violate your 14 amendment rights just because they want to and they have some states-appointed sovereign right to do so.
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.
“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different people differently,†Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the decision. “There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.â€
How does definitions of marriage deny anyone equal protections under the laws? What is the point of discrimination? The defining documentation at the federal level not only defines a limitation of marriage as 1 man and 1 woman, it in fact requires it as a condition of statehood in the union? Same sex marriage is a good idea whose time has probably come. This is not the same as it being a legal right that can be declared whole cloth out of thin air by a federal court.
-----signature-----
" ou're not just a regular moron
You were designed to be a moron!"
|
Kreezerast Posts: 40
Registered: 2001-12-20 07:56:23
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California! |
faefrost posted:
This is not the same as it being a legal right that can be declared whole cloth out of thin air by a federal court.
Strawman alert.
This is not what happened. What happened was that the court determined that a law declaring gay marriage illegal was unconstitutional.
They neither manufactured a right, nor created a new law. They simply declared a law unconstitutional which is their job.
-----signature-----
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr. Seuss
The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority. - Ralph W. Sockman
|
Gildash Posts: 515
Registered: 2001-4-26 16:26:13
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California! |
faefrost posted:
What astonishes me is how many think that this is a good thing?
For the record I do support gay marriage. The reasons to allow it outweigh the reasons against it. But it must come from the Legislature. There is no other way.
What happened here today was a federal court (with a long sordid history of similar behavior) overturned a states constitutionally protected sovereignty and created state law from the federal bench. They overturned legitimate state constitutional actions with absolutely no basis or precedent beyond "we think so". This is NOT how we are governed. Just because the outcome may be what a lot of people want does not in any way legitimize this process or this courts actions. The state of California and more directly the people of California had spoken on this issue. Right or wrong. It was within their sovereign rights to do so. Just as it was within New Yorks sovereign rights to choose to legislatively change the existing laws and allow such an evolution of societal mores.
Slavery.
Get my point?
-----signature-----
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams
|
|
