In theory couldn't the homosexual movement or whatever take this court and a get it struck down? Assuming it passes...
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,591
- 5
- 0
That is what happened the first time. Challenged in court
Then the bigot movement put it back on the ballot for this year.
They apparently do not believe in equal rights or that all people are created equal.
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 69,032
- 26,909
- 136
These measures serve two purposes. For bigots, it is a way to impose their bigotry on the target of their hate. For Republican politicians, it is a way to get out the vote. I expect to see at least one "culture war" proposition on just about every statewide ballot in every election moving forward. If it isn't gay bashing it will be abortion, english-only, religion, or flag burning, anything to get the haters to the polls.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Well..... aside from the advocates on both sides of marriage there IS a legal point that has yet to be addressed by the courts in CA. and SCOTUS.
That point, as I see it, is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Back in '54 when the court overturned Plessy in Brown v Topeka they reached out to get there. Rehnquist (a clerk in the court at the time) wrote a really interesting opinion... that Plessy was decided correctly and that the majority, in time, will decide what the rights of the minority are... that was the gist of it. Professors in Law argue still the right and wrong of Brown... Now here we are having some states OK marriage amongst Gay folks while the Federal law says that States can ignore a pro Gay state's law regarding marriage. This must be unified and done so in the next few years. IF Ca. Prop 8 passes or if it fails I've no doubt that the issue will be challenged from one side or another in some state or another and it will be granted Cert and SCOTUS will decide if Brown can be extended further to include this issue.
The interesting bits to me are in the approach the Justices ought to take to get to their activist or strict adherence positions. Sorta like the bigots found in this forum... they have a great argument founded in law but have not a clue to use it but, rather, they wish to invoke the one aspect that has no merit at all... The court will not be seen as a bigoted court but rather a group of noble folks tasked with providing or not the very protection we all demand... for and from each other... heheheheh - imo
That point, as I see it, is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Back in '54 when the court overturned Plessy in Brown v Topeka they reached out to get there. Rehnquist (a clerk in the court at the time) wrote a really interesting opinion... that Plessy was decided correctly and that the majority, in time, will decide what the rights of the minority are... that was the gist of it. Professors in Law argue still the right and wrong of Brown... Now here we are having some states OK marriage amongst Gay folks while the Federal law says that States can ignore a pro Gay state's law regarding marriage. This must be unified and done so in the next few years. IF Ca. Prop 8 passes or if it fails I've no doubt that the issue will be challenged from one side or another in some state or another and it will be granted Cert and SCOTUS will decide if Brown can be extended further to include this issue.
The interesting bits to me are in the approach the Justices ought to take to get to their activist or strict adherence positions. Sorta like the bigots found in this forum... they have a great argument founded in law but have not a clue to use it but, rather, they wish to invoke the one aspect that has no merit at all... The court will not be seen as a bigoted court but rather a group of noble folks tasked with providing or not the very protection we all demand... for and from each other... heheheheh - imo
Ok I have to post. His WHOLE basis starts with only 2% of gay people get married. It is only 2%.
I don't care if it is only two PEOPLE. They are still equal. Here is the problem, all you democrats and repukes miss a very simple concept. The government should not be endorsing lifestyles. Hetro marriage is a lifestyle the government has chosen to endorse. That creates inequality. Adding same-sex marriage will add another group to the endorsed government lifestyle. It is bullshit. Government shouldn't be endorsing any lifestyle and it is all driven by taxes.
Get rid of government sponsored marriage and the f'ing problem is solved. I am tired of the whining on both sides. When we add same-sex to the cool club of marriage there will be more groups of people that are left unequal to the cool kids. The same-sex group is just putting a tiny bandaid on the problem. We need to eliminate the true cause and that is government sponsored marriage.
I don't care if it is only two PEOPLE. They are still equal. Here is the problem, all you democrats and repukes miss a very simple concept. The government should not be endorsing lifestyles. Hetro marriage is a lifestyle the government has chosen to endorse. That creates inequality. Adding same-sex marriage will add another group to the endorsed government lifestyle. It is bullshit. Government shouldn't be endorsing any lifestyle and it is all driven by taxes.
Get rid of government sponsored marriage and the f'ing problem is solved. I am tired of the whining on both sides. When we add same-sex to the cool club of marriage there will be more groups of people that are left unequal to the cool kids. The same-sex group is just putting a tiny bandaid on the problem. We need to eliminate the true cause and that is government sponsored marriage.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 110,587
- 29,213
- 146
I frankly can't figure out which CA prop to vote YES on. (prop 8 being the no-brainer, of course).
Though, I think I'm leaning close to voting yes on prop 2; I'm not completely convinced that it will drive the egg farmers completely out. They've got what, 7 years? to get their shit together.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 110,587
- 29,213
- 146
ughh. :roll:
this is why bigots and the worst of the republicans shouldn't be left alone with numbers. They'll never understand how they work, or how the proper use of data depends on legitimate statistical correlation.
If the word is "too big" for them, they just smudge it our with a moist thumb and keep on going...
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 110,587
- 29,213
- 146
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
61% of California is full of bigotry -------->Proposition 22, which was passed in 2000 by an overwhelming margin of 61%, is better known as the California Defense of Marriage Act prohibiting same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, our state judges have overturned the will of the people
Two corrections (I removed your drivel after)
A) 61% of the people who voted, not 61% of Californian's big difference.
B) A primary role of the courts is to ensure laws which are unconstitutional are overturned. You do know people said the exact same thing when mixed race marriage laws were overturned years ago...
Those same judges that overturned segregation, granted universal suffrage, declared negroes "people"....
by today's standards: activist judges :roll:
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
You keep using the confused icon and I'm starting to believe you are really very confused. Obama's stance on gay marriage is designed to appeal to about half of the electorate who support him, and endorsing gay marriage would probably drive away about 25% of his votes, so he panders. The rest of his supporters aren't going to jump ship because of his position because they have no candidate more left than him to go.
His position on FISA for example was a compromise vote he made which pissed off about 80% of his base, so who exactly was he pandering to?
Now I'm sure you dont know what pandering means. His core liberal base is already going to vote for him anyway. He needs to pander to the center/right in order to get those votes as well.
Hence his position on gay marriage.
Maybe he isn't pandering but it is actually what he believes?
- Jun 23, 2004
- 5,463
- 8
- 81
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?f...printable&pageId=78829
and again......
http://www.letfreedomringusa.com/news/read/190
But I'm just a bigot!!
No wait........I'm a f*Ck*ing, prick bigot (that's the best kind) whose assholiness is only surpassed by my inability to understand #'s.
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
61% of California is full of bigotry -------->Proposition 22, which was passed in 2000 by an overwhelming margin of 61%, is better known as the California Defense of Marriage Act prohibiting same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, our state judges have overturned the will of the people
The one gay friend is still single. He actually battles with his homosexuality every day. His lover died back in '98......(someone I also knew).......of AIDS. We're still friends, nevertheless.
The gay coworker has asked me TWICE in the last year whether I could find a nice guy for her. She likens herself to Rosie O'Donnell. Gay, but still likes cute guys.....How DARE she!!)
Uncle lives in AZ now.
Bro lives in New York working for a magazine. We still hug and shake hands at family get togethers.
Will of the people would have kept slaves, segregation, women from voting, etc. The masses aren't smart and shouldn't be deciding anything ideally.
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,302
- 144
- 106
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?f...printable&pageId=78829
and again......
http://www.letfreedomringusa.com/news/read/190
But I'm just a bigot!!
No wait........I'm a f*Ck*ing, prick bigot (that's the best kind) whose assholiness is only surpassed by my inability to understand #'s.
those links are actually just one world net daily article.
I don't put alot of credit in this article.
I think you are looking to justify your bigotry. In which case, good luck with that.
also, it wasn't 61% of california that voted yes on Prop 22 it was 61% of california voters. Thats a big difference. And yes I am willing to bet that 61% of Cali voters have bigoted views when it comes to homosexuality.
- Jun 23, 2004
- 5,463
- 8
- 81
Where I come from (planet---f*c*ing, prick bigot.......w/ assholiness), if you don't vote.........you don't have a voice in political matters.
Therefore...............61% of California!!
Of course, I assume America won't be picking a president in November either, eh?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter