Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:


No need to pass legislation...it wasn't us who were pushing an agenda in the first place.

The courts will act responsibly, again, and declare the prop 8 legistlation unconstitutional.

.........

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by whozit:
Left-Wing judges to the rescue!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:
if you want to call Judges who actually read the Constitution, left-wing, be my guest.

the last time a bill like this was struck down, it was by more Republican Judges than Democratic ones. Not sure what that says about your point, though it does say to me that some Republicans do respect the rule of law.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:
look up the 14th amendment,

look up the 9th amendment,

and then consider "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" for American consciousness.

And explain to me who's liberty is at stake by allowing gay marriage?

I can't think of any Constitutional Law off the top of my head that limits freedom "just because." All other laws can be parsed as "this liberty vs. this liberty..."my right to not wear a seatbelt vs. your right not to be in hock up to your eyeballs the first time you rear-end somebody" "right to life vs. your right to own your own agent orange...etc."

What are the battling liberties in this case that justifies banning gay marriage?

.........

I thought of one. Suicide is illegal...but allowing for the proper metric of the person choosing that course of action, I don't see how it's justifiable to outlaw it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:
look up the 14th amendment,

look up the 9th amendment,

and then consider "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" for American consciousness.

And explain to me who's liberty is at stake by allowing gay marriage?

I can't think of any Constitutional Law off the top of my head that limits freedom "just because." All other laws can be parsed as "this liberty vs. this liberty..."my right to not wear a seatbelt vs. your right not to be in hock up to your eyeballs the first time you rear-end somebody" "right to life vs. your right to own your own agent orange...etc."

What are the battling liberties in this case that justifies banning gay marriage?

.........

I thought of one. Suicide is illegal...but allowing for the proper metric of the person choosing that course of action, I don't see how it's justifiable to outlaw it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:

Explain to me who's liberty is at stake by allowing gay marriage?

---

Quote:

---

This is a republic, a union of states. There is no federal law preventing someone from moving to Vermont. Just icy cold weather and the loss of lazy days in San Fransico.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:



I also note in the musical that the negative focus is on the Mormans. No mention is made of the anti-gay black or muslim communities, all of whom voted in California. As will always be the case, the left picks on christians.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
I also note in the musical that the negative focus is on the Mormans. No mention is made of the anti-gay black or muslim communities, all of whom voted in California. As will always be the case, the left picks on christians.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:

If the 9th amendment doesn't apply here, I'd like you to give me one frikking example where that amendment does apply then, so I can figure out what the hell the difference is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:

And since you think it's a states rights issue, let me post part of the 14th amendment here, for your consideration.

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.

Is something hard to undertand here?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:


No need to pass legislation...it wasn't us who were pushing an agenda in the first place.

The courts will act responsibly, again, and declare the prop 8 legistlation unconstitutional.

.........

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I cannot see the declaration that 'Gay civil unions' are equal to 'Straight marriage' as being any different than saying "Nigger water fountains" are equal to "White water fountains."

Hey, they both provide water, so what's the big deal, right?

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:



.................

Rap, what do you mean the courts "tried that". They did what it is their job to do. The law was brought to them for review. They found the law in violation of the constitution. The courts didn't "try" anything.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:
Any broad rights endowed to us by the constitution cannot be stripped from us by state law. Federal law is the higher law.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:

The voice of the citizenship does't trump the 14th amendment

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:

Your bar for equal rights is astonishingly low if it only entails not doing phisical violence to said groups. Why do you see a need to make the definition of equal rights so narrow?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:

Any broad rights endowed to us by the constitution cannot be stripped from us by state law. Federal law is the higher law. States may not break those laws when making their own.
There are some inalianable rights, one of which is supposedly, liberty.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:
"my right to not wear a seatbelt vs. your right not to be in hock up to your eyeballs the first time you rear-end somebody"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:

Is your suggestion that any snub of the bill of rights by the staes is all perfectly legal because their own laws have yet to be updated

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:
Is your suggestion that any snub of the bill of rights by the staes is all perfectly legal because their own laws have yet to be updated,but that said update could be mandated by a court if a case were brought before a federal judge?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:
I think that seatbelts might be one that could be argued to me convincingly, if not for the example I made up on the fly..........
..............

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:

Explain to me who's liberty is at stake by allowing gay marriage?

---

Answer: There is no liberty at stake either way. The freedom of allowing 2 people to be together, regardless of sexual preference, should be the only issue. There is not 1 state in the 50 that denies liberty in this way. There are, however, locations in the broader world where you will be beheaded for being gay. In those places, you have a case.

The issue on this thread is the formal recognition of the state of California over who is "married". This is then related to how a couple can file taxes or pursue insurance.

It is therefore about money.

The two of you are arguing above about what the constitution means in relation to this issue...14th amendment....9th amendment....blah blah blah. There is only 1 amendment that applies on the federal level:

Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is why Prop 8 is a STATES ISSUE. And California wisely chose to deal with it in the form of a refrendum. Citizens voted. It's honestly the purest form of democracy out there, a straight vote tally. The other action would be to have debated it on the floor of the California General Assembly, the process of a Republic.

The sad thing that goes unreported is that the gay political forces in Cali were certain prop 8 would go their way, representing a final irreversable victory. But then the unexpected happened: A larger community of O supporters spoke. Now losers cry foul.

This is a republic, a union of states. There is no federal law preventing someone from moving to Vermont. Just icy cold weather and the loss of lazy days in San Fransico.





Do not fear me. Our's is a peaceful race and we must live in harmony.

---

Issues at a state level become a federal issue when civil rights are violated. This is a civil rights issue and therefore should he determined by the Suopreme Court.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain




“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:

Issues at a state level become a federal issue when civil rights are violated. This is a civil rights issue and therefore should he determined by the Suopreme Court.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:

Issues at a state level become a federal issue when civil rights are violated. This is a civil rights issue and therefore should he determined by the Suopreme Court.

---

And I'm sorry to disagree and continue to maintain it's a states issue. Since nobody is keeping anyone apart from anyone else, no civil rights have been violated. You cannot compare this to, say, Brown vs The Board of Education where african american children were being denied basic rights to an equal education. They are not the same things.

Disagree all you want, but this will end up in a California court and I will be proven right. I'm sorry but this is just the way it is.

Proper action of the homosexual community in Cali is to work towards General Assembly Debate and law passage. This is the way a republic works. If it proves to be a failure, it'll be because representatives vote per the opinions of their constitutes. Again, how a republic works. The opinion of a gay man in San Fransisco is just as valid as that of a Morman living in an East California Desert town.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:

Bluesuncompanyman, you have yet to tell us where you think the bar is set on equal rights. Don't equal rights mean equal? You keep saying "those things were out of line, violence is out of line, but this isn't."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:

I dont need to find that to make my point. You are not showing me how your defininition of what discrimination is, reconciles with the 14th amendment. According to the 14th amendment, any unequal treatment is discrimination, and unlawful. Thus saying, "you two can get married, but you two can't" is crossing that line.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Virginia apparently DIDN'T have the right to self-govern with its state anti-miscegenation* laws when the US Supreme Court overturned them in Loving v Virginia.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Virginia apparently DIDN'T have the right to self-govern with its state anti-miscegenation* laws when the US Supreme Court overturned them in Loving v Virginia.

---

*Sigh*


OK. Please try not to stir sediment into the water to cloud things. All that statement did was MAKE my case stronger.

I cited Brown vs Board as an example of how a state's attempt to violate the civil rights of Africian Americans was a VALID landmark case. In that case Brown v Board overturned the previous (and vile) Plessy v. Ferguson. Loving v. Virginia overturned in a similar manner Pace v. Alabama, and also declared unconstitutional Virginia's idiotic Racial Integrity Act of 1924.

If california passed a law forbidding homosexuals from co-habitating, I have no doubt there would be similar landmark cases.

So to review:
1954---Brown v. Board: Corrected Civil Rights Violations.
1967---Loving v. Virginia: Corrected Civil Rights Violations
2008---BSCM v. Rue and Righteous9 and Futuremrsfillion: No civil rights are violated.

---

You are being deliberately obtuse. The fact that Proposition 8 eliminates the right of same sex couples to marry makes it discriminatory and unconstitutional in the United States of America. California and any other state that does not allow Gays to MARRY is/are violating their civil rights. California can self govern all it wants as long as it's laws are not discriminatory. If they passed a law or created an amendment to the states constitution making it illegal for people in wheelchairs to marry would you get the point?

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain




“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi