California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted

[thethingthatlurks]

Idiot.

Didn't say to kill because there different where the logic in that ?

*sigh* dude, give it a rest already. If you really do have to troll, at least make sure you write in proper English, 'cuz that shit ain't affirmin' your argument.

 

[MoeTheMonk]

Once again, one judge overrules the will of the people. What a great world this is.

I bet you were just as upset when those damn judges said slavery and segregation and anti-miscegenation laws were wrong.
Damn activist judges and their refusal to stomp on the rights of the minority because the majority feels like it.

Well, as long as you and that judge think your way is better, go ahead and ignore the majority of the state, they're stupid anyways. It's just such a relief to know that one judge's opinion is instantly worth more than most of the state.

Yeah. I probably also have crazy ideas like blacks not being property or racial segregation is a bad idea even if the majority would vote for it.
I'm soooooooo sorry.

The issue is not what's important, what matters is that a single judge can overrule the majority with one swing of the gavel.
If those stupid, misguided, close-minded, bigoted idiots want themselves a gay-marriage ban, then they should have it without worrying that ONE judge with contrary opinion is their equal in terms of the law.

Oh so you're a believer in direct democracy who would support executing people who happened to be born with green eyes if the people supported the measure.
We're just gonna have to disagree.
America is a democratic-republic, not a direct democracy.

I'm not a believer in direct democracy, and I am well aware America is a republic. But I find it very strange if you believe it is right to have the will of the people overridden by one person.
And if the majority believed people with green eyes shouldn't be executed, while the minority did? Well, get ready for some executions, because apparently minority now rules.

No.
This isn't the minority ruling it's the minority's rights being protected.
I find it very strange you believe in the tyranny of the majority.

Giving an inordinate amount of power to a single person is beyond dangerous, and quite frankly I'd rather have laws decided by a vote of the people than by the opinions of a single person. But hey, the judge is clearly more enlightened than the people he serves, so why care about their opinions?
The majority is not an ugly word, no matter how much you try to dress it up. People will change eventually, and it will be allowed. But this ruling is just spitting in their faces. I believe gay-marriage should be allowed, but to do it in this manner simply makes people more firm in their beliefs, and angry that they are being ignored.

Which they are.

 

[Matt_LRR]

I'm American, and while I generally dislike the Federal government telling the states what to do, I support this, as it was a breach of the constitution. Now, what's more important, is that people need to realize that any definition or tax breaks for marriage, by any government under the U.S. flag, is unconstitutional.

Ahh its a dark day for democracy.
Even worse since this already happened and Prop 8 had to come along to fix it.

yeah, that whole defence of the constitution thing, real bad news for democracy.

-m

I thought the law was a bad idea, but I have one question to ask. You both say it's a breach of the Constitution: which part? I don't think the Constitution or any of its ammendments have anything to say about marriage whatsoever. In fact, to the contrary, the Tenth Ammendment pretty specifically states that any power not specifically granted to the federal government defaults to the states or to individuals.

Where does the Constitution specifically give the federal government the right to dictate to whom states can grant marriage contracts?

I'm not being facetious. I think the law was a bad law, but I think it was perfectly Constitutional, so unless a federal law is passed to supercede the state law or the constitution is ammended, it should've been allowed to stand. Please explain to me why I'm wrong. Otherwise, I have to view the argument that it was unconstitutional as a slightly less defensible position than, "They shouldn't be able to be married because Jesus says so." At least people who say that can cite their sources.

touche. By "any power" not specifically granted to the federal government, does this mean that any power imaginable not covered by the constitution is an allowable power for a state to have?

In a word? Yes.

That's kind of why the language is intentionally vague in many cases, and why our courts have such powerful roles. But I would think that if marriage was as fundamental a right as we would be lead to believe, the founders might have mentioned it at least once in the framing, or it would have been added as an ammendment.

Well, then. It looks like ban wasn't unconstitutional after all... Then I suppose what is needed here is a constitutional amendment, not a court case.

did you both somehow manage to completely miss this post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.223637-California-Gay-Marriage-Ban-Lifted?page=7#7535671], which took me an hour to write, and clearly describes what amendment was violated by the law and why?

If so, go read it.

-m

 

[Oilerfan92]

It would be cheaper to kill them, if i had my way that's what i would do .

What does this mean then ?

 

[Pariahwulfen]

Nope you just lost the game, as the only way to win is to choose not to play.[,/quote]

So true

awwww fail troll is fail

 

[lordbuxton]

It would be cheaper to kill them, if i had my way that's what i would do .

What does this mean then ?

It mean it would cost less to execute some one that to change there genetics.

And that i support the cheaper option.


I did not say why they should be shot did I ?

 

[ChazzBurger]

It would be cheaper to kill them, if i had my way that's what i would do .

What does this mean then ?

I think it means any rational argument he had is gone

 

[ReincarnatedFTP]

Once again, one judge overrules the will of the people. What a great world this is.

I bet you were just as upset when those damn judges said slavery and segregation and anti-miscegenation laws were wrong.
Damn activist judges and their refusal to stomp on the rights of the minority because the majority feels like it.

Well, as long as you and that judge think your way is better, go ahead and ignore the majority of the state, they're stupid anyways. It's just such a relief to know that one judge's opinion is instantly worth more than most of the state.

Yeah. I probably also have crazy ideas like blacks not being property or racial segregation is a bad idea even if the majority would vote for it.
I'm soooooooo sorry.

The issue is not what's important, what matters is that a single judge can overrule the majority with one swing of the gavel.
If those stupid, misguided, close-minded, bigoted idiots want themselves a gay-marriage ban, then they should have it without worrying that ONE judge with contrary opinion is their equal in terms of the law.

Oh so you're a believer in direct democracy who would support executing people who happened to be born with green eyes if the people supported the measure.
We're just gonna have to disagree.
America is a democratic-republic, not a direct democracy.

I'm not a believer in direct democracy, and I am well aware America is a republic. But I find it very strange if you believe it is right to have the will of the people overridden by one person.
And if the majority believed people with green eyes shouldn't be executed, while the minority did? Well, get ready for some executions, because apparently minority now rules.

No.
This isn't the minority ruling it's the minority's rights being protected.
I find it very strange you believe in the tyranny of the majority.

Giving an inordinate amount of power to a single person is beyond dangerous, and quite frankly I'd rather have laws decided by a vote of the people than by the opinions of a single person. But hey, the judge is clearly more enlightened than the people he serves, so why care about their opinions?
The majority is not an ugly word, no matter how much you try to dress it up. People will change eventually, and it will be allowed. But this ruling is just spitting in their faces. I believe gay-marriage should be allowed, but to do it in this manner simply makes people more firm in their beliefs, and angry that they are being ignored.

Which they are.

And they deserve to be ignored as much as they would deserve to be ignored if they voted for a proposition that said "The State of California will kill all black people".
The judge ruled based on previous laws and how the Constitution comes into play with the issue. Not how a bunch of backward assmunch bigots who should have no say in someone else's civil rights in the first place feel about the "icky gays".

 

[Seifen]

I still don't see why it would bother anyone where someone wants to put his/her love instruments into...but the same can be said about drugs, except that drugs actually effect things, like the economy, jail occupancy, intoxicated driving etc...and there is a reason to keep drugs illegal the government profits from it, how does the government profit from saying gay people can't get married?(besides tax breaks, which everyone should be able to benefit from, if they have a partner to commit to.)

Which brings me to my next point, STRAIGHT DUDES WHO HAVE NO ABILITY TO EVER LAND A CHICK, for whatever reason, but they have a buddy, who they could actually live with and benefit from being "married",taxwise. Currently I'm married to a female so I don't really consider myself in need of marrying my best bud for tax breaks, but why should people who are of opposite sex together, get tax breaks, but straight dudes who live together get squat?

 

[Heeman89]

I support equal rights for all but I'm personally disgusted by this, the people of California voted to make this legal and now it gets overturned, just goes to show that no matter what "We the People" say, if someone wants it legal, they'll find a way

 

[AgDr_ODST]

I believe gay marriage is wrong, that is just my opinion, Its just sounds like an oxymoron to me

Fair enough, care to elaborate?

[http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y171/warboss5/?action=view&current=its-a-trap.jpg]

hehe, sorry, couldn't help myself =P

Im with this guy, I think its wrong but I fear that if I elaborate the majority of you will unnecessarily start slamming, condeming, and or me for defending my beliefs and my reasons for having them

Yeah,I am against gay marriage to, I agree, I am not going to try and fight with these people.

good to know thier are others like minded people on this site

 

[lordbuxton]

There was never a point in life. The only reason we live is to try and be happy. We give to charity because we feel guilty. We eat bad food because we it releases endorphines. It realy is a never ending quest to fufil our minds wants and desires. I took a pragmatic aproach to this, humanity should try to better it's self. Also, if you had no emotion you wouldn't feel unhappy would you ?

My word, self-contradiction abound in this post!

There was never a point in life. The only reason we live is to try and be happy.

if you had no emotion you wouldn't feel unhappy would you ?

But you wouldn't feel happy either. Which, as you said, is the only reason we live.

humanity should try to better it's self.

But that just makes people unhappy. Which is the opposite of what we're trying to achieve, isn't it?

Yes if you had emotion. If not then you wouldn't care. No point in life either way.

 

[MGlBlaze]

Idiot.

Didn't say to kill because there different where the logic in that ?

An Ad Hominem fallacy followed by a grammatically incorrect sentence. Wow, this is just getting better and better...

By the way, you pretty much did say to kill them because they are 'different'. You just use 'genetically inferior' as a synonym for 'different', or at least you damn well seem to. What I'm seeing is that you consider anyone whose behaviour is not 'normal' or 'optimal' should be removed. It is views like this which prevent human advancement.

You'd be surprised what you can learn from those people you want to 'cure'.

It would be cheaper to kill them, if i had my way that's what i would do .

What does this mean then ?

It mean it would cost less to execute some one that to change there genetics.

And that i support the cheaper option.


I did not say why they should be shot did I ?

No, but clearly you don't value the lives of others.
That's it. I don't care if you try and claim otherwise now; I no longer consider you to be a human being.

 

[lordbuxton]

Im off now. good luck with this thread.

B

 

[Oilerfan92]

Im off now. good luck with this thread.

B

Let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

 

[ChazzBurger]

There was never a point in life. The only reason we live is to try and be happy. We give to charity because we feel guilty. We eat bad food because we it releases endorphines. It realy is a never ending quest to fufil our minds wants and desires. I took a pragmatic aproach to this, humanity should try to better it's self. Also, if you had no emotion you wouldn't feel unhappy would you ?

My word, self-contradiction abound in this post!

There was never a point in life. The only reason we live is to try and be happy.

if you had no emotion you wouldn't feel unhappy would you ?

But you wouldn't feel happy either. Which, as you said, is the only reason we live.

humanity should try to better it's self.

But that just makes people unhappy. Which is the opposite of what we're trying to achieve, isn't it?

Yes if you had emotion. If not then you wouldn't care. No point in life either way.

But if there was no emotion, and only logic, and there was no point in your existance, you would be destroyed. There is no point in your existance, yet you exist. Where's the logic in that?

 

[Matt_LRR]

Giving an inordinate amount of power to a single person is beyond dangerous, and quite frankly I'd rather have laws decided by a vote of the people than by the opinions of a single person. But hey, the judge is clearly more enlightened than the people he serves, so why care about their opinions?
The majority is not an ugly word, no matter how much you try to dress it up. People will change eventually, and it will be allowed. But this ruling is just spitting in their faces. I believe gay-marriage should be allowed, but to do it in this manner simply makes people more firm in their beliefs, and angry that they are being ignored.

Which they are.

do you have any idea how your government works, like, at all?

a law was enacted, and overturned. It was then taken to referendum, and passed again. It was then challenged in state court, and overturned on the basis that it is unconstitutional. That ruling will be appealed in federal appeals court. From there it will move to the supreme court, (assuming the court of appeals and the supreme court find sufficient reason to hear the case)

All said and done, the law will have been challenged twice in state court. Then appealed in federal appeals court, then taken to the federal supreme court - with judgments passed on it by nearly a dozen people.

This ruling is not the final word on this law, nor is this judge deciding the rule of law on his own opinions, at least not in any real permanent sense. He is setting precedent, and his findings will be considered in higher courts - but this dude doesn't ultimately decide constitutional law.

-m

 

[lordbuxton]

Yes if you had emotion. If not then you wouldn't care. No point in life either way.

The only reason we live is to try and be happy.

But if we had no emotion, you don't think we should live?

We shouldn't.


Bye all