Judge Strikes Down Calif. Marriage Law

[conjur]

heh heh


How about a ship's captain?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: conjur
heh heh


How about a ship's captain?

YAAAAARRR! Married Ye Be! The top may kiss the bottom now. Arrrrrrrr.

 

[Eli]

Good.

It shouldn't be against the law in the first place, it is a violation of our constitution.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: conjur
heh heh


How about a ship's captain?

YAAAAARRR! Married Ye Be! The top may kiss the bottom now. Arrrrrrrr.

uhhhh :Q

 

[OutHouse]

what is the point in going to the polls and casting a vote. if some group doesnt like the outcome of the popular vote then all they have to do is find a judge that thinks like they do and rule in their favor.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Citrix
what is the point in going to the polls and casting a vote. if some group doesnt like the outcome of the popular vote then all they have to do is find a judge that thinks like they do and rule in their favor.

No. It means the group that put that measure on the ballot needs to go back to law school and try to write a proposal that's not unconstitutional. Although, I think they'll all be dead before they find a way to do that.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Eli
Good.

It shouldn't be against the law in the first place, it is a violation of our constitution.

Who's interpretation of the Consitution?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic
So much for democracy... who cares what the people vote, right?

That's why we're a Representative Republic with separate Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. It's to prevent the minority from being repressed by the majority.

That argument only applies when seeking to change something. This is about maintaining the status quo.

For the record, I'm with Queasy on this issue. Government does not belong in the business of regulating marriage. But, if they're going to allow gay marriage, then they need to legalize polygamy, polyandry, and all the others as well.

As it is, what's next? Forcing Catholic churches to perform the gay marriage ceremonies? Wouldn't surprise me if that happened. Revoking the tax-exempt charter of those churches that refuse to perform gay marriages? After all, we're talking about "repression" here, right? God forbid we forget that Gay Americans are the wealthiest demographic per capita on Earth, let's compare them to the plight of black slaves before the Emancipation, and destroy all who oppose us! :roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Eli
Good.

It shouldn't be against the law in the first place, it is a violation of our constitution.

No, it's not. The US Constitution makes no mention of marriage, therefore (under the 10th Amendment) marriage does not fall within the powers of the US government, and rights are transferred to the states and the people, respectively, to regulate it as they see fit.

You should read the document, Eli. I understand it's important

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Citrix
what is the point in going to the polls and casting a vote. if some group doesnt like the outcome of the popular vote then all they have to do is find a judge that thinks like they do and rule in their favor.

What's the point of having a constitution to limit government powers when people can just go to the polls and ask government to do whatever the hell they want them to?

 

[thomsbrain]

IIRC, everyone knew the law was unconstitutional when they passed it, not because of rights or anything like that, but simply because it included language that meant california will not recognize marriages performed in other states. the population passed it anyway because nothing makes people forget their political values like the opportunity to oppress someone. glad to see someone's finally calling the state on it. also good to see it's a republican -- for once a republican is actually standing up for the constitution and not just paying lip service to promote a completely different agenda.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic
So much for democracy... who cares what the people vote, right?

That's why we're a Representative Republic with separate Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. It's to prevent the minority from being repressed by the majority.

Amen. If the people suddenly voted to take the top 10 richest people in the country, strip all their wealth, and then divy it amongst the rest of it, that wouldn't be very fair.

The whole no-gay marriage thing is just oppression, and it's got no place in a progressive country.

Lot's of things don't have a place in a "progressive" country....and some of them are things we need to have.

Berkeley is as progressive as it gets. Would you let your wife and daughter walk alone around there? How about a conservative country town in Kansas? Now ask yourself if you really want to live in a "progressive" country.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic
So much for democracy... who cares what the people vote, right?

That's why we're a Representative Republic with separate Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. It's to prevent the minority from being repressed by the majority.

That argument only applies when seeking to change something. This is about maintaining the status quo.

For the record, I'm with Queasy on this issue. Government does not belong in the business of regulating marriage. But, if they're going to allow gay marriage, then they need to legalize polygamy, polyandry, and all the others as well.

As it is, what's next? Forcing Catholic churches to perform the gay marriage ceremonies? Wouldn't surprise me if that happened. Revoking the tax-exempt charter of those churches that refuse to perform gay marriages? After all, we're talking about "repression" here, right? God forbid we forget that Gay Americans are the wealthiest demographic per capita on Earth, let's compare them to the plight of black slaves before the Emancipation, and destroy all who oppose us! :roll:

Just because gay marriage might become legal doesn't mean the churches have to marry gays. Only that the gov't can't say they can't. That is all.

--

As far as tax-exempt status, tax them (altogether, not because they don't participate). Tax them like any other organization.

--

Alright then. Them damn gays! They're the wealthiest demographic per capita, that's not fair! They don't need the same rights as the rest of us. Let's put them in their place.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
IIRC, everyone knew the law was unconstitutional when they passed it, not because of rights or anything like that, but simply because it included language that meant california will not recognize marriages performed in other states. the population passed it anyway because nothing makes people forget their political values like the opportunity to oppress someone. glad to see someone's finally calling the state on it. also good to see it's a republican -- for once a republican is actually standing up for the constitution and not just paying lip service to promote a completely different agenda.

Which is why you always vote Yes on measures to increase other peoples' taxes right?

Regardless, your argument is childish and illogical*. In the opinions of the pro-traditional marriage people, it is the gay crowd who is trying to oppress them, by taking away their sacred tradition of marriage.

* To clarify, it is blantantly childish and illogical to assume that just because someone disagrees with you on a particular issue, that they are a villain, or have vile intentions.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: TheBDB

He's not rewriting a law. He's declaring a law unconstitutional.

:thumbsup:

But how is it Unconstitutional then? Marriage is between man and woman. Not between man and man or woman and woman. He is basically creating his own def of marriage to apply here to call it unconstitutional then.

Care to point out where in the Constitution marriage is defined as between man and woman?

Notice the sound of crickets to this question

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ELP
Just because gay marriage might become legal doesn't mean the churches have to marry gays. Only that the gov't can't say they can't. That is all.

--

As far as tax-exempt status, tax them (altogether, not because they don't participate). Tax them like any other organization.

--

Alright then. Them damn gays! They're the wealthiest demographic per capita, that's not fair! They don't need the same rights as the rest of us. Let's put them in their place.

First, you deny my argument. Then, you substantiate it. And finally, you pretend it doesn't exist. Amazing.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: TheBDB

He's not rewriting a law. He's declaring a law unconstitutional.

:thumbsup:

But how is it Unconstitutional then? Marriage is between man and woman. Not between man and man or woman and woman. He is basically creating his own def of marriage to apply here to call it unconstitutional then.

Care to point out where in the Constitution marriage is defined as between man and woman?

Notice the sound of crickets to this question

I already answered this question, Dave. See above.

 

[Michael]

I'm pretty sure that the State judge was comparing against the State Constitution, not the Federal one. It would have been in a Federal court if that type of ruling was being sought.

Michael

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: TheBDB

He's not rewriting a law. He's declaring a law unconstitutional.

:thumbsup:

But how is it Unconstitutional then? Marriage is between man and woman. Not between man and man or woman and woman. He is basically creating his own def of marriage to apply here to call it unconstitutional then.

Care to point out where in the Constitution marriage is defined as between man and woman?

Notice the sound of crickets to this question

I already answered this question, Dave. See above.

You're chadder's proxy?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic
But, if they're going to allow gay marriage, then they need to legalize polygamy, polyandry, and all the others as well.

As it is, what's next? Forcing Catholic churches to perform the gay marriage ceremonies? Wouldn't surprise me if that happened. Revoking the tax-exempt charter of those churches that refuse to perform gay marriages? After all, we're talking about "repression" here, right? God forbid we forget that Gay Americans are the wealthiest demographic per capita on Earth, let's compare them to the plight of black slaves before the Emancipation, and destroy all who oppose us! :roll:

I assume you're trying to create a valid slippery slope argument here - it's quite a challenge, and you haven't done so effectively.

You need to show that there is no relevent dissimilarity between homosexual marriages, and your other proposed types. Unfortunately, only homosexual marriage, on that list, is between two adults, incapable of producing an inbred child. There is, therefore, a plateau in the slope.

As far as forcing churches to perform gay marriages, why, exactly would that occur? Protection of religious freedom is just as important as protection of freedom from religion, which is largely (though not exclusively) what the anti-gay marriage lobby is about. I think there would be a lot of support for churches, even from those of us who are not religious, and strongly support gay marriage rights - there is no reason that churches would or should be forced to perform homosexual marriages, just as they are not required to perform marriages between heterosexuals now (just try getting a Catholic or Jewish wedding if you aren't Catholic or Jewish).

 

[Vic]

Amendment X.
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.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Eli
Good.

It shouldn't be against the law in the first place, it is a violation of our constitution.

No, it's not. The US Constitution makes no mention of marriage, therefore (under the 10th Amendment) marriage does not fall within the powers of the US government, and rights are transferred to the states and the people, respectively, to regulate it as they see fit.

You should read the document, Eli. I understand it's important

Originally posted by: Michael
I'm pretty sure that the State judge was comparing against the State Constitution, not the Federal one. It would have been in a Federal court if that type of ruling was being sought.

OK fine. Federal Constitution trumps States, correct?

Federal Constitution says all PEOPLE are EQUAL.

Banning Gay PEOPLE makes them no longer EQUAL, end of story.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic
So much for democracy... who cares what the people vote, right?

That's why we're a Representative Republic with separate Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. It's to prevent the minority from being repressed by the majority.

That argument only applies when seeking to change something. This is about maintaining the status quo.

For the record, I'm with Queasy on this issue. Government does not belong in the business of regulating marriage. But, if they're going to allow gay marriage, then they need to legalize polygamy, polyandry, and all the others as well.

As it is, what's next? Forcing Catholic churches to perform the gay marriage ceremonies? Wouldn't surprise me if that happened. Revoking the tax-exempt charter of those churches that refuse to perform gay marriages? After all, we're talking about "repression" here, right? God forbid we forget that Gay Americans are the wealthiest demographic per capita on Earth, let's compare them to the plight of black slaves before the Emancipation, and destroy all who oppose us! :roll:

I nominate you as the worst poster of the 21st century. The number of logical fallaciies is just staggering.

 

[judasmachine]

I fail to see any sanctity in marriage left to protect. It hasn't been a religious affair until they made it one. Almost all cultures practiced marriage, whether they talked to god or not.

 

[totalcommand]

This is a great day. I'm proud to be in Massachusetts, and soon I will be proud to be in California.