liberals and conservatives are both hypocritical

[alphatarget1]

i can make a direct comparison between the alabama judge case (with the 10 commandments) and as well as the gay marriages happening in SF. both are violating the law and both sides are defiant on the issues. what happened to the progressives who wanted to throw out the 10 commandments (which was ILLEGAL btw) as well as the gay marriages (which is ILLEGAL).

if you want to legalize gay marriage, do it the legal way. we as a society CANNOT allow anarchy. It reminds me of college students who shouted down a speaker about affirmative action, stupid liberals

oh and don't get me started on conservative hypocrisy i have many examples that you liberals will bring up. just stop it, step back and throw your ideals away for a second, and see how hypocritical both sides are.

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
i can make a direct comparison between the alabama judge case (with the 10 commandments) and as well as the gay marriages happening in SF. both are violating the law and both sides are defiant on the issues. what happened to the progressives who wanted to throw out the 10 commandments (which was ILLEGAL btw) as well as the gay marriages (which is ILLEGAL).

if you want to legalize gay marriage, do it the legal way. we as a society CANNOT allow anarchy. It reminds me of college students who shouted down a speaker about affirmative action, stupid liberals

oh and don't get me started on conservative hypocrisy i have many examples that you liberals will bring up. just stop it, step back and throw your ideals away for a second, and see how hypocritical both sides are.

Where is the hypocracy? There is nothing hypocritical standing up for what you believe in. From either side, the causes they stand up for are noble and just in their eyes. Because their is opposition does not gender hypocracy.

You have a problem with civil disobedience? I applaud it. This country was founded on it. Boston Tea party ring a bell? No one is physically harmed in either case. Taking a stand to force a decision by a court is the American way. Did you shout hypocracy when the republicans took the 2000 election to the Supreme Court to decide who would be President?

Didn't think so.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
i can make a direct comparison between the alabama judge case (with the 10 commandments) and as well as the gay marriages happening in SF. both are violating the law and both sides are defiant on the issues. what happened to the progressives who wanted to throw out the 10 commandments (which was ILLEGAL btw) as well as the gay marriages (which is ILLEGAL).

if you want to legalize gay marriage, do it the legal way. we as a society CANNOT allow anarchy. It reminds me of college students who shouted down a speaker about affirmative action, stupid liberals

oh and don't get me started on conservative hypocrisy i have many examples that you liberals will bring up. just stop it, step back and throw your ideals away for a second, and see how hypocritical both sides are.

You know, I saw your sentiments in the other thread, I feel your mixing up two very different cases. At the most simplistic level, Judge Moore was ordered by the Alabama Supreme Court to remove the monument. He was given considerable leeway and time to do so, yet he was defiant in the face of this direct order. In California, you have judges REFUSING to issue restraining orders to bring the same-sex marriages to an end. There definitely is a judicial effort to allow the city's case to proceed against the state on the basis that denying same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.

Alphatarget, I don't see how you can compare these cases as apples to apples. They're clearly not, even beyond the one aspect I illustrated above.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
i can make a direct comparison between the alabama judge case (with the 10 commandments) and as well as the gay marriages happening in SF. both are violating the law and both sides are defiant on the issues. what happened to the progressives who wanted to throw out the 10 commandments (which was ILLEGAL btw) as well as the gay marriages (which is ILLEGAL).

if you want to legalize gay marriage, do it the legal way. we as a society CANNOT allow anarchy. It reminds me of college students who shouted down a speaker about affirmative action, stupid liberals

oh and don't get me started on conservative hypocrisy i have many examples that you liberals will bring up. just stop it, step back and throw your ideals away for a second, and see how hypocritical both sides are.

You know, I saw your sentiments in the other thread, I feel your mixing up two very different cases. At the most simplistic level, Judge Moore was ordered by the Alabama Supreme Court to remove the monument. He was given considerable leeway and time to do so, yet he was defiant in the face of this direct order. In California, you have judges REFUSING to issue restraining orders to bring the same-sex marriages to an end. There definitely is a judicial effort to allow the city's case to proceed against the state on the basis that denying same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.

Alphatarget, I don't see how you can compare these cases as apples to apples. They're clearly not, even beyond the one aspect I illustrated above.

im not comparing them as apples to apples. the fact is that they're both done in the violation of the law.

and clearly someone here thinks the law is nothing and applauds civil disobedience. we're a nation that's governed by law. you can't do whatever you want.

 

[tallest1]

Yes, but America ain't america if people can't make a stand for what they believe in. If you want change - be it gay marriage or an integration of government or religious principles - you'd have a hard time doing so in a system built against such change. While I don't feel there should be sheer anarchy, you have to give credit to all the law breakers who gave us the freedoms and rights we have today.

 

[sandorski]

Won't comment on the specifics, but you are correct, there is hypocrisy on both sides. Both sides also engage in character assasination, use a variety of lame tactics, and are wrong/right on various issues.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

The issue of gay marriage is here to stay. It will not end, even with a constitutional amendment specifying what marriage is. They will keep bringing up this issue each and every year until they are recognized as "married" in the eyes of the law. Get over it conservatives, your not going to win the battle of gay marriages......you may hold it off for awhile but you cannot stop it.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
im not comparing them as apples to apples. the fact is that they're both done in the violation of the law.

and clearly someone here thinks the law is nothing and applauds civil disobedience. we're a nation that's governed by law. you can't do whatever you want.

Yes, you are. You're saying you cannot support one without supporting the other, when in reality each case has it's own unique legal ramifications. Like I said though, if what was going on in S.F. were illegal, the various judges weighing in would have issued a restraining order to stop the marriages. Instead, they're content to let it continue and let it be decided on (most likely) at the CA Supreme Court.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
im not comparing them as apples to apples. the fact is that they're both done in the violation of the law.

and clearly someone here thinks the law is nothing and applauds civil disobedience. we're a nation that's governed by law. you can't do whatever you want.

Yes, you are. You're saying you cannot support one without supporting the other, when in reality each case has it's own unique legal ramifications. Like I said though, if what was going on in S.F. were illegal, the various judges weighing in would have issued a restraining order to stop the marriages. Instead, they're content to let it continue and let it be decided on (most likely) at the CA Supreme Court.

Actually no - it would have just been a temp injuction anyway and again - it really doesn't matter because no one in California can accept that as "legal" since they don't use the appropriate forms. I'm sure this will go to the Cali Supreme Court even though the people of California have already spoken on this issue. Guess we need to courts to once again write law for us.

CkG

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

People who hold others to the law should not be allowed to break it themselves, no matter what the issue. That's not civil disobedience, I'm not sure what it is (a coup?), but these are government officials, not civilians, and it sets a very, VERY bad precedent.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Actually no - it would have just been a temp injuction anyway and again - it really doesn't matter because no one in California can accept that as "legal" since they don't use the appropriate forms. I'm sure this will go to the Cali Supreme Court even though the people of California have already spoken on this issue. Guess we need to courts to once again write law for us.

CkG

Where do you keep getting this crap about "forms?" You know, that's part of the reason we invaded Iraq too -- they didn't fill out the proper paperwork.

In any event, any law can be invalidated on the basis that it's unconstitutional whether it violates the CA State Constitution or the U.S. Constitution. It happens all the time, Cad. That's precisely what's happening here and it's the same thing that's happening in Massachusets. The courts aren't writing any laws here, they're simply responding to cases brought before them. That's the job of the judicial branch in case you've forgotten.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
People who hold others to the law should not be allowed to break it themselves, no matter what the issue. That's not civil disobedience, I'm not sure what it is (a coup?), but these are government officials, not civilians, and it sets a very, VERY bad precedent.

If what's going on in SF is truly "illegal" as you and some of the others suggest, where are the arrests? Why aren't these officials being charged?

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Actually no - it would have just been a temp injuction anyway and again - it really doesn't matter because no one in California can accept that as "legal" since they don't use the appropriate forms. I'm sure this will go to the Cali Supreme Court even though the people of California have already spoken on this issue. Guess we need to courts to once again write law for us.

CkG

Where do you keep getting this crap about "forms?" You know, that's part of the reason we invaded Iraq too -- they didn't fill out the proper paperwork.

In any event, any law can be invalidated on the basis that it's unconstitutional whether it violates the CA State Constitution or the U.S. Constitution. It happens all the time, Cad. That's precisely what's happening here and it's the same thing that's happening in Massachusets. The courts aren't writing any laws here, they're simply responding to cases brought before them. That's the job of the judicial branch in case you've forgotten.

EVEN if the law passed by prop 20 was unconstitutional, the court has to RULE on it first.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
People who hold others to the law should not be allowed to break it themselves, no matter what the issue. That's not civil disobedience, I'm not sure what it is (a coup?), but these are government officials, not civilians, and it sets a very, VERY bad precedent.

If what's going on in SF is truly "illegal" as you and some of the others suggest, where are the arrests? Why aren't these officials being charged?

because it wouldn't be politically correct to do so.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
People who hold others to the law should not be allowed to break it themselves, no matter what the issue. That's not civil disobedience, I'm not sure what it is (a coup?), but these are government officials, not civilians, and it sets a very, VERY bad precedent.

If what's going on in SF is truly "illegal" as you and some of the others suggest, where are the arrests? Why aren't these officials being charged?

People don't ever do illegal things without being arrested? First of all these guys are judges, so I'm sure they have enough clout that the first thing to happen to address this would absolutely not be arresting them. Second, I'm not sure what they are doing is illegal (in SF's case) as in there is a law specifically against what they are doing, but they are in fact operating outside the boundaries of the law. There are ways to change the law, written and interpreted, but it has to be changed rather than ignored.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Actually no - it would have just been a temp injuction anyway and again - it really doesn't matter because no one in California can accept that as "legal" since they don't use the appropriate forms. I'm sure this will go to the Cali Supreme Court even though the people of California have already spoken on this issue. Guess we need to courts to once again write law for us.

CkG

Where do you keep getting this crap about "forms?" You know, that's part of the reason we invaded Iraq too -- they didn't fill out the proper paperwork.

In any event, any law can be invalidated on the basis that it's unconstitutional whether it violates the CA State Constitution or the U.S. Constitution. It happens all the time, Cad. That's precisely what's happening here and it's the same thing that's happening in Massachusets. The courts aren't writing any laws here, they're simply responding to cases brought before them. That's the job of the judicial branch in case you've forgotten.

EVEN if the law passed by prop 20 was unconstitutional, the court has to RULE on it first.

It's CA Prop 22, actually and it reads: "SECTION 1. This act may be cited as the "California Defense of Marriage Act." SECTION 2. Section 308.5 is added to the Family Code, to read: 308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Interesting that it doesn't say they can't get married, only that it may not be valid/recognized. Yes, I fully realize that the CA Supreme Court would have to rule on way or another, but can you quote what law is being broken precisely? I doubt you can considering even the Atty General is scrambling around trying to figure out how to counter this and will most likely need to go obtain a judgement declaring SF in violation of state law.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Actually no - it would have just been a temp injuction anyway and again - it really doesn't matter because no one in California can accept that as "legal" since they don't use the appropriate forms. I'm sure this will go to the Cali Supreme Court even though the people of California have already spoken on this issue. Guess we need to courts to once again write law for us.

CkG

Where do you keep getting this crap about "forms?" You know, that's part of the reason we invaded Iraq too -- they didn't fill out the proper paperwork.

In any event, any law can be invalidated on the basis that it's unconstitutional whether it violates the CA State Constitution or the U.S. Constitution. It happens all the time, Cad. That's precisely what's happening here and it's the same thing that's happening in Massachusets. The courts aren't writing any laws here, they're simply responding to cases brought before them. That's the job of the judicial branch in case you've forgotten.

EVEN if the law passed by prop 20 was unconstitutional, the court has to RULE on it first.

I haven't really followed this issue, but in general, courts don't take it upon themselves to unilaterally declare a law unconstitutional. They respond to legal appeals, which usually means someone has "broken" the law in question. That's how the process works. In other words, the court does NOT rule on it first. That comes later. I imagine there may be exceptions, but it sounds like they are following the normal process in this case.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Actually no - it would have just been a temp injuction anyway and again - it really doesn't matter because no one in California can accept that as "legal" since they don't use the appropriate forms. I'm sure this will go to the Cali Supreme Court even though the people of California have already spoken on this issue. Guess we need to courts to once again write law for us.

CkG

Where do you keep getting this crap about "forms?" You know, that's part of the reason we invaded Iraq too -- they didn't fill out the proper paperwork.

In any event, any law can be invalidated on the basis that it's unconstitutional whether it violates the CA State Constitution or the U.S. Constitution. It happens all the time, Cad. That's precisely what's happening here and it's the same thing that's happening in Massachusets. The courts aren't writing any laws here, they're simply responding to cases brought before them. That's the job of the judicial branch in case you've forgotten.

EVEN if the law passed by prop 20 was unconstitutional, the court has to RULE on it first.

I haven't really followed this issue, but in general, courts don't take it upon themselves to unilaterally declare a law unconstitutional. They respond to legal appeals, which usually means someone has "broken" the law in question. That's how the process works. In other words, the court does NOT rule on it first. That comes later. I imagine there may be exceptions, but it sounds like they are following the normal process in this case.

Seems what they're doing is helping this process along. They hand out these liscenses, some establishment refuses to recognize it, or some person takes the newlyweds to court, and boom it's appealed. I still don't agree with it what they're doing, there has to be a more above-board way to do this.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Actually no - it would have just been a temp injuction anyway and again - it really doesn't matter because no one in California can accept that as "legal" since they don't use the appropriate forms. I'm sure this will go to the Cali Supreme Court even though the people of California have already spoken on this issue. Guess we need to courts to once again write law for us.

CkG

Where do you keep getting this crap about "forms?" You know, that's part of the reason we invaded Iraq too -- they didn't fill out the proper paperwork.

In any event, any law can be invalidated on the basis that it's unconstitutional whether it violates the CA State Constitution or the U.S. Constitution. It happens all the time, Cad. That's precisely what's happening here and it's the same thing that's happening in Massachusets. The courts aren't writing any laws here, they're simply responding to cases brought before them. That's the job of the judicial branch in case you've forgotten.

EVEN if the law passed by prop 20 was unconstitutional, the court has to RULE on it first.

I haven't really followed this issue, but in general, courts don't take it upon themselves to unilaterally declare a law unconstitutional. They respond to legal appeals, which usually means someone has "broken" the law in question. That's how the process works. In other words, the court does NOT rule on it first. That comes later. I imagine there may be exceptions, but it sounds like they are following the normal process in this case.

Seems what they're doing is helping this process along. They hand out these liscenses, some establishment refuses to recognize it, or some person takes the newlyweds to court, and boom it's appealed. I still don't agree with it what they're doing, there has to be a more above-board way to do this.

exactly my sentiment. I don't study politics in college but i had a political science class last year and one judge was ruling on a doctor that assist patients to suicide (or some controversial issue of that sort). he said that we're a nation of law and you can't take matter into your own hands. that's all i'm saying folks. why can't we set these social issues aside for more important things for our nation and the next generation?

 

[Siddhartha]

I am not sure how these are "liberal" and "conservative" issues.

1. The "Ten Commandments" issue was the Christians pushing their religious beliefs onto other people. Basically they want a government based on their beliefs. The past has shown this to be a bad idea because people end up being murdered and persecuted because their beliefs do not agree with government supported religion.

2. The same sex marriage issue sounds too much like the majority suppressing a minority. I have asked why should homosexuals be oppressed and persecuted. The only answer I have gotten was that "I do not like how they act and what they do in the privacy of their homes". This sounds like bigotry to me.

Unless someone can convince me that people of the same sex getting married is a threat to society and Western Civilization I can not be against it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Liberals and Conservatives hold true and false views that become coherent and reconsiled at a higher level of understanding. Unfortunatley that includes self understanding which means means facing the truth about how you feel, so forget about that. You don't want to know how you feel. Trust me.

If truth were easy, everybody would know.

 

[XZeroII]

Yes, they both are. Look on these boards for proof. You will see ample evidence of it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Yes, they both are. Look on these boards for proof. You will see ample evidence of it.

People say they will believe things when they see them. But my experience tells me people see only what they already believe. Your prescription, therefore, is basically useless.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Actually no - it would have just been a temp injuction anyway and again - it really doesn't matter because no one in California can accept that as "legal" since they don't use the appropriate forms. I'm sure this will go to the Cali Supreme Court even though the people of California have already spoken on this issue. Guess we need to courts to once again write law for us.

CkG

Where do you keep getting this crap about "forms?" You know, that's part of the reason we invaded Iraq too -- they didn't fill out the proper paperwork.

The city changed the marriage forms.
The California state agency that records marriages said yesterday that forms that have been altered, which San Francisco has done on its homosexual "marriage" licenses, will not be registered.

Yep - as of right now they mean nothing more than something you'd pull out of a cereal box.

CkG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Actually no - it would have just been a temp injuction anyway and again - it really doesn't matter because no one in California can accept that as "legal" since they don't use the appropriate forms. I'm sure this will go to the Cali Supreme Court even though the people of California have already spoken on this issue. Guess we need to courts to once again write law for us.

CkG

Where do you keep getting this crap about "forms?" You know, that's part of the reason we invaded Iraq too -- they didn't fill out the proper paperwork.

The city changed the marriage forms.
The California state agency that records marriages said yesterday that forms that have been altered, which San Francisco has done on its homosexual "marriage" licenses, will not be registered.

Yep - as of right now they mean nothing more than something you'd pull out of a cereal box.

CkG

If the licenses are worthless then why is everybody all chagrined over these psuedo marriages? At most they are just ceremonial!