Republicans in Cali must be livid

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

That's the same argument that people use to claim that people aren't naturally born with a desire to hump the same sex. I disagree because I don't believe that sexual attraction is a choice. Heck, I'm far more sexually attracted to brunettes than blondes or redheads. I can't explain why. It's not some conscious decision I made. It's just the way it is.

What I'm saying is that being a choice or not has no real relevance to the determination of law. We make laws that say you can't have sex with children or animals because doing so is an affront to society. Blindly arguing the constitution as our only guide, both those things should be legal - equal protection for ALL. They are not legal though because our society simply won't accept it. Societal preference and acceptance DOES dictate laws, and particularly so when it comes to matters of sexual preferences.

That is simply false. We do not have laws against molesting children because society is too straight laced for it. (although it certainly doesn't hurt that society hates it) The legal argument to keep those in place is the irrevocable harm it causes to children, not that it's so shocking that your grandfather's monocle will pop out. Similarly bestiality is frequently prosecuted under cruelty to animals or animal abuse statutes, not "bestiality is shocking!" statutes.

So if society fully accepted those sexual proclivities we would still keep them illegal? In certain societies around the world, marriage/sex with what we in the west define as "children" is perfectly legal. If it were as simple as irrevocable harm then why haven't we all adopted identical, or at least very similar, legislation?

We may wave irrevocable harm about as a legal justification but if our society accepted sex with "children," as others still do, irrevocable harm would never come into play.

To tie both of your points together, the reason society is not accepting of pedophilia and the like is because it causes irreparable harm. You can't load the question by saying "what if society no longer felt pedophilia was taboo" when the very reason it is taboo is society's reaction to the harm it causes. For society to become fully accepting of pedophilia, you'd first have to remove the harm it causes to children.

I think if you asked people why they are against pedophilia or bestiality the answers you'd get would range from "It's disgusting." to "It ain't natural." Few would claim irrevocable harm. It could be argued that a dog licking peanut butter off some women's snatch does no harm to the animal, yet it's still illegal. It can be argued that that 14 year old girl was more than willing to engage in sex with that 26 year old guy and felt there was no harm at all, yet it's still illegal (at least in most states under most circumstances).

Until the majority moves past the opinion that gay marriage is either disgusting or unnatural, or any of the other stupid opinions the majority use to justify their bias, I don't think you'll see it approved by law in any widespread fashion. Once it is widely accepted, gay marriage won't be an issue, except to the few hard-cores in the disgruntled minority.

The thing is that it doesn't matter what Johnny Jackass on the street as to why pedophilia is illegal, He's wrong. As far as the whole bestiality thing goes, again it comes down to animal abuse. Sure you can find bestiality acts that probably don't harm the animal, but the law has not seen it necessary to draw such fine distinctions.

The same thing goes for 14 year olds. I'm sure there are 14 year olds out there that would deal just fine with a relationship with a 26 year old. Most wouldn't though. The law doesn't have the necessary accuracy to make those individual determinations, so it goes with what is the case for the vast majority.

I know that you're trying to say that the courts tend to follow public opinion in these sorts of matters, and I agree with you on that. I just think your point is best left at 'the court will wait for public opinion to move some before acting'... not the legal one you're trying to put forth.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
TLC: So if society fully accepted those sexual proclivities we would still keep them illegal?

M: Who cares? We don't.

TLC: In certain societies around the world, marriage/sex with what we in the west define as "children" is perfectly legal.

M: We are talking about out Constitution.

TLC: If it were as simple as irrevocable harm then why haven't we all adopted identical, or at least very similar, legislation?

M: Not everybody cares. We do.

TLC: We may wave irrevocable harm about as a legal justification but if our society accepted sex with "children," as others still do, irrevocable harm would never come into play.

M: Who cares, we are talking about what is and who we are.

In other words, TLC asks a lot of irrelevant questions and dances around the subject. Hmmmm, go figure.

Irrelevant? No. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in our beliefs and how they affect the laws of this nation. If you want to wear blinders and pretend this is purely about constitutionality, go right on ahead and do so. I'm demonstrating that making our laws just aren't that cut and dried.

The State of Massachusetts has 'extended' the license to marry to Gay couples. In that context how does most of what you proffer relate? It seems to me one must determine within the narrow scope of the issue a few salient points. Is it legal to be homosexual? Are the 'sexual' acts of the male homosexual legal (assuming lesbians don't practice sodomy)? Are all the 'sexual' acts of heterosexuals legal or just some of them? Do Homosexual couples create a compelling issue to intervene to thwart it by the State? IOW, Is the States' society greatly harmed - more so than the issues of heterosexual couples - by the existence of Gay married couples? IF one cannot argue against Gay equality in marriage then one must accept it as a fundamental right and defend the Gay Rights issue... Introducing aspects that do not exist beyond the statistical norm for all of society is NOT relevant imo..

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Irrelevant? No. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in our beliefs and how they affect the laws of this nation. If you want to wear blinders and pretend this is purely about constitutionality, go right on ahead and do so. I'm demonstrating that making our laws just aren't that cut and dried.

Oh I KNOW that the anti-gay marriage folks are driven purely by irrationality and bigotry, I don't need anyone to tell me that. The issue of whether their bigoted actions in pushing this proposition still lies on whether it's constitutional to codify their bigotry. In other words, the basis for making our laws isn't as cut and dried as simply what the majority wants, because as this very topic demonstrates, they often want something discriminatory for their own irrational reasons. The constitution of California as well as of the United Sates protects us from such affronts.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
TLC: So if society fully accepted those sexual proclivities we would still keep them illegal?

M: Who cares? We don't.

TLC: In certain societies around the world, marriage/sex with what we in the west define as "children" is perfectly legal.

M: We are talking about out Constitution.

TLC: If it were as simple as irrevocable harm then why haven't we all adopted identical, or at least very similar, legislation?

M: Not everybody cares. We do.

TLC: We may wave irrevocable harm about as a legal justification but if our society accepted sex with "children," as others still do, irrevocable harm would never come into play.

M: Who cares, we are talking about what is and who we are.

In other words, TLC asks a lot of irrelevant questions and dances around the subject. Hmmmm, go figure.

Irrelevant? No. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in our beliefs and how they affect the laws of this nation. If you want to wear blinders and pretend this is purely about constitutionality, go right on ahead and do so. I'm demonstrating that making our laws just aren't that cut and dried.

The State of Massachusetts has 'extended' the license to marry to Gay couples. In that context how does most of what you proffer relate? It seems to me one must determine within the narrow scope of the issue a few salient points. Is it legal to be homosexual? Are the 'sexual' acts of the male homosexual legal (assuming lesbians don't practice sodomy)? Are all the 'sexual' acts of heterosexuals legal or just some of them? Do Homosexual couples create a compelling issue to intervene to thwart it by the State? IOW, Is the States' society greatly harmed - more so than the issues of heterosexual couples - by the existence of Gay married couples? IF one cannot argue against Gay equality in marriage then one must accept it as a fundamental right and defend the Gay Rights issue... Introducing aspects that do not exist beyond the statistical norm for all of society is NOT relevant imo..

I agree with you, personally, but we all know it's not that simple.

Before any of that can be determined there has to be a judge willing to take such a case on in the first place, or lawmakers willing to change a law or have a new one implemented. Many won't because those issues can mean the end of a career so they either avoid them or dance around them instead. Societal beliefs and public pressures have a huge influence on judicial and legislative decisions/processes. Ideally public opinion should not be influential in the legal process, but frequently it is, particularly when it's a highly devisive issue like gay marriage.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
TLC: So if society fully accepted those sexual proclivities we would still keep them illegal?

M: Who cares? We don't.

TLC: In certain societies around the world, marriage/sex with what we in the west define as "children" is perfectly legal.

M: We are talking about out Constitution.

TLC: If it were as simple as irrevocable harm then why haven't we all adopted identical, or at least very similar, legislation?

M: Not everybody cares. We do.

TLC: We may wave irrevocable harm about as a legal justification but if our society accepted sex with "children," as others still do, irrevocable harm would never come into play.

M: Who cares, we are talking about what is and who we are.

In other words, TLC asks a lot of irrelevant questions and dances around the subject. Hmmmm, go figure.

Irrelevant? No. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in our beliefs and how they affect the laws of this nation. If you want to wear blinders and pretend this is purely about constitutionality, go right on ahead and do so. I'm demonstrating that making our laws just aren't that cut and dried.

I understand that. I am saying that the job of the law to resolve inconsistencies and that is done on the basis of the constitution. Inconsistencies abound but we are bound by the rule of law. The courts determine what is legal and on what the determination will be made. We are arguing on what the determination will be made before it is settled. You have your opinion and I have mine. I am an advocate, as LR likes to tell me. Seems like you are too.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Irrelevant? No. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in our beliefs and how they affect the laws of this nation. If you want to wear blinders and pretend this is purely about constitutionality, go right on ahead and do so. I'm demonstrating that making our laws just aren't that cut and dried.

Oh I KNOW that the anti-gay marriage folks are driven purely by irrationality and bigotry, I don't need anyone to tell me that. The issue of whether their bigoted actions in pushing this proposition still lies on whether it's constitutional to codify their bigotry. In other words, the basis for making our laws isn't as cut and dried as simply what the majority wants, because as this very topic demonstrates, they often want something discriminatory for their own irrational reasons. The constitution of California as well as of the United Sates protects us from such affronts.

We'd like to think it does. But as has already been pointed out in this thread, racial equality didn't come along until many, many decades after the 14th Amendment was ratified. Why did it eventually change? It's because society eventually changed, not our Constitution. Irrationality and bigotry are frequently drivers of our legislation. Clearly that still hasn't changed.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Gay marriage is the last stand for the institution of marriage.

It used to be a life long bind that could only be absolved by the pope. Then it was a rare occurance where irreconcilable differences had to be proven in court. Then it was more commonplace. Now it can simply be annuled if you were drunk and/or stupid at the time, you can cheat on your husband/wife and have no legal repurcussions... Marriage has slowly gone from a doctrine to an annoyance, even a liability. Many women are now shedding the "purity" bullshit they have been spoonfed for 2000 years and pursuing careers instead of getting married at 17-20.

The man-woman marriage war is about a lot more than persecuting gays. It's about pushing marriage into total obscurity.

I think you're dreaming.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Irrelevant? No. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in our beliefs and how they affect the laws of this nation. If you want to wear blinders and pretend this is purely about constitutionality, go right on ahead and do so. I'm demonstrating that making our laws just aren't that cut and dried.

So, on principal you agree the gay marriage should be legal but regarding the law this should be upheld, even if it's unconstitutional?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Irrelevant? No. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in our beliefs and how they affect the laws of this nation. If you want to wear blinders and pretend this is purely about constitutionality, go right on ahead and do so. I'm demonstrating that making our laws just aren't that cut and dried.

Oh I KNOW that the anti-gay marriage folks are driven purely by irrationality and bigotry, I don't need anyone to tell me that. The issue of whether their bigoted actions in pushing this proposition still lies on whether it's constitutional to codify their bigotry. In other words, the basis for making our laws isn't as cut and dried as simply what the majority wants, because as this very topic demonstrates, they often want something discriminatory for their own irrational reasons. The constitution of California as well as of the United Sates protects us from such affronts.

We'd like to think it does. But as has already been pointed out in this thread, racial equality didn't come along until many, many decades after the 14th Amendment was ratified. Why did it eventually change? It's because society eventually changed, not our Constitution. Irrationality and bigotry are frequently drivers of our legislation. Clearly that still hasn't changed.

I think in many respects we're beyond that now and there are many who are ready to act immediately to prevent discrimination and bigotry from becoming law regardless of how much of a majority tries to pass it. In fact, the dems in the CA legislature are already sending it up to the Supreme Court.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
TLC: So if society fully accepted those sexual proclivities we would still keep them illegal?

M: Who cares? We don't.

TLC: In certain societies around the world, marriage/sex with what we in the west define as "children" is perfectly legal.

M: We are talking about out Constitution.

TLC: If it were as simple as irrevocable harm then why haven't we all adopted identical, or at least very similar, legislation?

M: Not everybody cares. We do.

TLC: We may wave irrevocable harm about as a legal justification but if our society accepted sex with "children," as others still do, irrevocable harm would never come into play.

M: Who cares, we are talking about what is and who we are.

In other words, TLC asks a lot of irrelevant questions and dances around the subject. Hmmmm, go figure.

Irrelevant? No. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in our beliefs and how they affect the laws of this nation. If you want to wear blinders and pretend this is purely about constitutionality, go right on ahead and do so. I'm demonstrating that making our laws just aren't that cut and dried.

The State of Massachusetts has 'extended' the license to marry to Gay couples. In that context how does most of what you proffer relate? It seems to me one must determine within the narrow scope of the issue a few salient points. Is it legal to be homosexual? Are the 'sexual' acts of the male homosexual legal (assuming lesbians don't practice sodomy)? Are all the 'sexual' acts of heterosexuals legal or just some of them? Do Homosexual couples create a compelling issue to intervene to thwart it by the State? IOW, Is the States' society greatly harmed - more so than the issues of heterosexual couples - by the existence of Gay married couples? IF one cannot argue against Gay equality in marriage then one must accept it as a fundamental right and defend the Gay Rights issue... Introducing aspects that do not exist beyond the statistical norm for all of society is NOT relevant imo..

I agree with you, personally, but we all know it's not that simple.

Before any of that can be determined there has to be a judge willing to take such a case on in the first place, or lawmakers willing to change a law or have a new one implemented. Many won't because those issues can mean the end of a career so they either avoid them or dance around them instead. Societal beliefs and public pressures have a huge influence on judicial and legislative decisions/processes. Ideally public opinion should not be influential in the legal process, but frequently it is, particularly when it's a highly devisive issue like gay marriage.

Not so.... I've tried to point out in earlier that the Courts have said the right to Gay Marriage exists.... States must move to ban that right... OR in essence that is the case... EVERY move is some sort of BAN....

Fighting the ban is the issue now... as it always has been... SCOTUS said that states can elect to ban gay marriage... it is inferred, therefore, that SCOTUS said that it IS a fundamental right... hehehhehehe but one which if banned is ok.... sorta sick logic if you ask me... perhaps you'll read my amicus...

edit: not sure why but the last bit is not here..... ... they want their day in Legislature... they want the opportunity in there to be legislative... hehehehehehe make a name and stuff ... They will vote according to self preservation but it won't pass the hurdle... and Gay marriage will be permitted..

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Irrelevant? No. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in our beliefs and how they affect the laws of this nation. If you want to wear blinders and pretend this is purely about constitutionality, go right on ahead and do so. I'm demonstrating that making our laws just aren't that cut and dried.

So, on principal you agree the gay marriage should be legal but regarding the law this should be upheld, even if it's unconstitutional?

If its unconstitutional then the supreme court needs to determine that. At some point this country needs to decide what is enough when coming up with this ruling. Both sides knew the implications of this passing, nobody did anything about its constitutional ramifications before the vote. Is this some kind of ploy to get something passed you know the public won't accept?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Irrelevant? No. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in our beliefs and how they affect the laws of this nation. If you want to wear blinders and pretend this is purely about constitutionality, go right on ahead and do so. I'm demonstrating that making our laws just aren't that cut and dried.

So, on principal you agree the gay marriage should be legal but regarding the law this should be upheld, even if it's unconstitutional?

I completely agree that gay marriage should be legal and I don't agree with Prop 8 in the least. However, if it's found to be unconstituional they'll just toss it and find another way to outlaw gay marriage. Prop 8 isn't an endgame. It's just another battle in a war that going to stretch out for years to come.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Irrelevant? No. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in our beliefs and how they affect the laws of this nation. If you want to wear blinders and pretend this is purely about constitutionality, go right on ahead and do so. I'm demonstrating that making our laws just aren't that cut and dried.

So, on principal you agree the gay marriage should be legal but regarding the law this should be upheld, even if it's unconstitutional?

I completely agree that gay marriage should be legal and I don't agree with Prop 8 in the least. However, if it's found to be unconstituional they'll just toss it and find another way to outlaw gay marriage. Prop 8 isn't an endgame. It's just another battle in a war that going to stretch out for years to come.

You didn't answer my question, but anyway if is found unconstitutional I don't how the "pro-family" (whatever that means) groups would find away to keep gay marriage in the closet much longer; short of a revolution or amending the constitution.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The issue was not by political party; it was based on prejudice, bigotry and paranonia.

You can fool yourself into thinking Prop 8 passed because of those, but as someone who supports gay marriage I believe that Gavin Newsom's incredibly stupid statement "whether you like it or not" is the most directly responsible for this turn of events. His arrogance and self-righteousness probably set back the cause for several years.

Sorry, no. His exuberant expression that the bigots would have to deal with the change after his position was vindicated deserves less blame than the bigoted position.

If you aren't bigoted, his comment doesn't make you vote against gay marriage; you just say 'that was not a good comment'. It's the bigotry that's the problem.

Just because his comment was politically exploitable doesn't make it morally worse than the bigotry.

 

[Analogsoul]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Gay marriage is the last stand for the institution of marriage.

It used to be a life long bind that could only be absolved by the pope. Then it was a rare occurance where irreconcilable differences had to be proven in court. Then it was more commonplace. Now it can simply be annuled if you were drunk and/or stupid at the time, you can cheat on your husband/wife and have no legal repurcussions... Marriage has slowly gone from a doctrine to an annoyance, even a liability. Many women are now shedding the "purity" bullshit they have been spoonfed for 2000 years and pursuing careers instead of getting married at 17-20.

The man-woman marriage war is about a lot more than persecuting gays. It's about pushing marriage into total obscurity.

This isn't a "slippery slope" where allowing gays to marry will become the nail in the coffin for marriage. Times change and we live in a secular society and marriage in the United States reflects that. I think marriage should be changed to Civil Unions to avoid the religious baggage the term carries with it, but that's a separate issue. The bottom line is if a gay couple find love they should have the same rights as a straight couple to marry or whatever civil union type term is used.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: ICRS
The Governator has called for the courts to throw out Prop 8, saying it is in Violation of the Constitution of California.

Haven't the courts already done enough damage on the issue of gay marriage? If they hadn't tried to shoehorn this in via fiat a la Roe v. Wade, voters would have probably passed it via normal democratic processes before long. Doing it through the courts simply ensures it's going to endure as a culture war issue for years to come.

Disagree again. First of all, the court doesn't make its decisin, and should not, based on what's politically effective for one side or another. It issues rulings on the law.

I also disagree with your political assessment. There was a far bigger outcry against the court decision in Massachussetts, but over a couple years the opinion switched.

Haivng it legal is actually the most effective way to change public opinion - note that CA voters went from 61% in 2000 to 52% 6 months after the legalization.

Your suggested method for winning over public opinion, not having the courts make the ruling, hasn't had the effect you predict in the history of human society.

There were a lot of people in the 60's saying civil rights would eventually pass if they'd just stop pushing the issue. They were wrong, too.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Not so.... I've tried to point out in earlier that the Courts have said the right to Gay Marriage exists.... States must move to ban that right... OR in essence that is the case... EVERY move is some sort of BAN....

Fighting the ban is the issue now... as it always has been... SCOTUS said that states can elect to ban gay marriage... it is inferred, therefore, that SCOTUS said that it IS a fundamental right... hehehhehehe but one which if banned is ok.... sorta sick logic if you ask me... perhaps you'll read my amicus...

edit: not sure why but the last bit is not here..... ... they want their day in Legislature... they want the opportunity in there to be legislative... hehehehehehe make a name and stuff ... They will vote according to self preservation but it won't pass the hurdle... and Gay marriage will be permitted..

Sure it's a sick sort of logic. Kind of backs up what I said previously though. SCOTUS doesn't want to touch the issue. Instead of ruling on what should be a constitutional right, they throw it back to the States instead because they can dance around it instead of having to deal with it.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555
How did this pass? I mean... I just don't understand... I never hear of people on the news saying, "Gay marriage ain't right, yah hear?"

I don't hear it in the news...but I hear it in the streets and spoken under peoples' breaths all the time.

It's a sad sad thing.

 

[Lemon law]

I think TLC is almost totally wrong when he says " I completely agree that gay marriage should be legal and I don't agree with Prop 8 in the least. However, if it's found to be unconstituional they'll just toss it and find another way to outlaw gay marriage. Prop 8 isn't an endgame. It's just another battle in a war that going to stretch out for years to come.

While the battle for gay marriage will still continue to rage on, if and when SCOTUS weighs in and declares any gay marriage banning laws unconstitutional, it will become a total game changer just like Roe v Wade was with abortion and Brown v board of Education was with school segregation.

And short of a change of mind by SCOTUS, it raises the bar to a full US constitutional amendment to overturn. And while pro lifers and school segregationists may be able to muster a raw majority in one State,
they cannot muster a 2/3 majority in all States. And while they may ineffectually try, jumping that bar is many a bridge too high, and thankfully keeps them out of public mischief meanwhile.

Roe v wade is a perhaps perfect example of why TLC misses the point. With the Roe v. Wade I agree with, I can watch with some amusement as the religious right hyperspastically tries to over turn it, but without Roe V. Wade I would not be able to turn around without seeing some righty tighty idiot in my face demanding my support. In other words, SCOTUS is basically the last word it takes a supermajority to overturn.
And takes the battle out of the streets and into courtrooms the emotional are ill equipped to confront.

 

[badnewcastle]

I wouldn't say Republican, but I would say the religious right in CA...

I'm republican and could care less which way it went.

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I think TLC is almost totally wrong when he says " I completely agree that gay marriage should be legal and I don't agree with Prop 8 in the least. However, if it's found to be unconstituional they'll just toss it and find another way to outlaw gay marriage. Prop 8 isn't an endgame. It's just another battle in a war that going to stretch out for years to come.

While the battle for gay marriage will still continue to rage on, if and when SCOTUS weighs in and declares any gay marriage banning laws unconstitutional, it will become a total game changer just like Roe v Wade was with abortion and Brown v board of Education was with school segregation.

And short of a change of mind by SCOTUS, it raises the bar to a full US constitutional amendment to overturn. And while pro lifers and school segregationists may be able to muster a raw majority in one State,
they cannot muster a 2/3 majority in all States. And while they may ineffectually try, jumping that bar is many a bridge too high, and thankfully keeps them out of public mischief meanwhile.

Roe v wade is a perhaps perfect example of why TLC misses the point. With the Roe v. Wade I agree with, I can watch with some amusement as the religious right hyperspastically tries to over turn it, but without Roe V. Wade I would not be able to turn around without seeing some righty tighty idiot in my face demanding my support. In other words, SCOTUS is basically the last word it takes a supermajority to overturn.
And takes the battle out of the streets and into courtrooms the emotional are ill equipped to confront.

What was the POINT of the vote? If it had passed, there would be a completely different reaction from Arnold and everybody would have moved on. Its like when one of your childen ask, Can I have this? and then when they hear no, they go ask your spouse. I have a huge problem with how this is being played. SCOTUS says lets the states deal with it. What does that mean? A popular vote, maybe it does. Since the nobody argued the legality of the vote and that is what the state did, they should honor it unless SCOTUS meant somethign different when they meant, leave it up to the states.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: ICRS
Topic: Republicans in Cali must be livid

Arnold's idea of a Republican was a good reason to leave.

 

[marincounty]

You know what is really funny...the next governor of California is likely to be....Gavin Newsom.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Not so.... I've tried to point out in earlier that the Courts have said the right to Gay Marriage exists.... States must move to ban that right... OR in essence that is the case... EVERY move is some sort of BAN....

Fighting the ban is the issue now... as it always has been... SCOTUS said that states can elect to ban gay marriage... it is inferred, therefore, that SCOTUS said that it IS a fundamental right... hehehhehehe but one which if banned is ok.... sorta sick logic if you ask me... perhaps you'll read my amicus...

edit: not sure why but the last bit is not here..... ... they want their day in Legislature... they want the opportunity in there to be legislative... hehehehehehe make a name and stuff ... They will vote according to self preservation but it won't pass the hurdle... and Gay marriage will be permitted..

Sure it's a sick sort of logic. Kind of backs up what I said previously though. SCOTUS doesn't want to touch the issue. Instead of ruling on what should be a constitutional right, they throw it back to the States instead because they can dance around it instead of having to deal with it.

I'd hate to agree that that is their mind set or the mind set of those on the bench at the time they ruled on Baker v Nelson... But, again I really do feel they must deal with the DoMA and how that conflicts with 'Full Faith and Credit Clause' but if as you say they are dancin.. they will decide on that in a very narrow manner... just saying that states must recognize the just laws of the various states.. a loss for gay marriage advocates, however.

I have this misguided notion (as Moonbeam tells me) that folks on the bench shroud themselves in a sorta armor and do decide cases based on settled law except where a compelling change is evident... Judicial Legislation is good and bad... depends where one sits, I guess..

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

i hope prop 8 burns in hell