California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted

[MongoBaer]

How do you take away what one never had before? Not even in ancient Greece or Rome, where homosexuals were accepted and even promoted in some city states, were same sex couples allowed to marry.

Anyways does the minority have the right to take rights from the majority? Like the right to vote on an issue of law and have the winning vote become law? I think not.

Whilst prop 8 was active gay marriage was banned. Before the proposition gay marriage was allowed. Therefor, proposition 8 took the right of marriage away from people.

Your second sentence makes no sense. How is the minority taking rights away from the majority? The majority has no right to force their beliefs upon the minority when it comes to issues that do not affect them. Not only that, but the majority forced their beliefs upon the minority. They took established rights away from people.

Let's look at the polls a bit:

Yes: 52.24%
No: 47.76%

Are you suggesting that 52% of the population have the right to impose their beliefs upon the remaining 47%?

If there was a leagal vote: yes. Does one person (the judge) or 7 (SCotUS) have the right to decide national policy? Appearently Yes.

 

[Matt_LRR]

How do you take away what one never had before? Not even in ancient Greece or Rome, where homosexuals were accepted and even promoted in some city states, were same sex couples allowed to marry.

Anyways does the minority have the right to take rights from the majority? Like the right to vote on an issue of law and have the winning vote become law? I think not.

Whilst prop 8 was active gay marriage was banned. Before the proposition gay marriage was allowed. Therefor, proposition 8 took the right of marriage away from people.

Your second sentence makes no sense. How is the minority taking rights away from the majority? The majority has no right to force their beliefs upon the minority when it comes to issues that do not affect them. Not only that, but the majority forced their beliefs upon the minority. They took established rights away from people.

Let's look at the polls a bit:

Yes: 52.24%
No: 47.76%

Are you suggesting that 52% of the population have the right to impose their beliefs upon the remaining 47%?

If there was a leagal vote: yes. Does one person (the judge) or 7 (SCotUS) have the right to decide national policy? Appearently Yes.

You say that like it's new, or not entirely how the system was intended to work.

-m

 

[AndyFromMonday]

If there was a leagal vote: yes. Does one person (the judge) or 7 (SCotUS) have the right to decide national policy? Appearently Yes.

BUT THERE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A VOTE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Gay marriage affects no one besides the individuals who advocate it. To call for a vote for such a thing in the first place was insanity. The judge stepped in and rectified that. The majority does not get to decide what the minority does. Everybody has access to the same rights, no matter if you're in the majority or the minority when it comes to certain beliefs.

 

[MongoBaer]

@Matt_LRR
If that's the case, both sides (Right and Left wing causes) have perverted the system for their own use. When an individuals vote can be nullified via courts it underminds the belief that goverment is impartial.

@AndyFromMonday
No there would have been a vote. Maybe not this issue but a vote none the less. IMO it always boils down to someone DEMANDING that their beliefs/lifestyle/opinions/etc. be acknowledged by everyone regardsless of any objections of any kind. If the gay community really wanted married they can (civil services). The problem is they want to co-opt a religeous cermony and call it the same. The Churches and people of faith object to that and are being steamrollered into complance with the new social "norm".

 

[Matt_LRR]

@Matt_LRR
If that's the case, both sides (Right and Left wing causes) have perverted the system for their own use. When an individuals vote can be nullified via courts it underminds the belief that goverment is impartial.

Checks & balances, man.

You know, that whole, judiciary, legislaitive, and exeutive branch thing?

Also that whole representative democracy republic thing?

The popuilar vote is not, and never has been considered the end all and be all of american political voice. Sometimes people want to do shit en masse that's bad for the country, and that's where it's the government's job to step in and tell you all you're being fuckwits.

As happened in this ruling.

tl;dr: working as intended. not a bug.



-m

 

[MongoBaer]

@Matt_LRR
If that's the case, both sides (Right and Left wing causes) have perverted the system for their own use. When an individuals vote can be nullified via courts it underminds the belief that goverment is impartial.

Checks & balances, man.

You know, that whole, judiciary, legislaitive, and exeutive branch thing?

Also that whole representative democracy republic thing?

The popuilar vote is not, and never has been considered the end all and be all of american political voice. Sometimes people want to do shit en masse that's bad for the country, and that's where it's the government's job to step in and tell you all you're being fuckwits.

As happened in this ruling.

tl;dr: working as intended. not a bug.



-m

So are you saying the reverse isn't true? When the Gov. being fuckwits the people can't vote them out? If that's the case, the whole point behind the california voter initiatives is moot.

 

[Matt_LRR]

@Matt_LRR
If that's the case, both sides (Right and Left wing causes) have perverted the system for their own use. When an individuals vote can be nullified via courts it underminds the belief that goverment is impartial.

Checks & balances, man.

You know, that whole, judiciary, legislaitive, and exeutive branch thing?

Also that whole representative democracy republic thing?

The popuilar vote is not, and never has been considered the end all and be all of american political voice. Sometimes people want to do shit en masse that's bad for the country, and that's where it's the government's job to step in and tell you all you're being fuckwits.

As happened in this ruling.

tl;dr: working as intended. not a bug.



-m

So are you saying the reverse isn't true? When the Gov. being fuckwits the people can't vote them out? If that's the case, the whole point behind the california voter initiatives is moot.

the american people have means by which they are able to remove people from governmental positions, but popular vote isn't one of them - but then you don't elect based on popular vote, either.

However, the government is set up to check itself before it wrecks itself to make sure that it's not doing things wrong.

So, voters hold a referendum on the passing of a law.

They vote in favour, and the law is passed by the legislation.

The law is challeneged as being an illegal law under the constitution.

The judiciary looks at the law and compares it to the constitution an rules that it is ok, (in which case it stands) or that it violates the constitution (in which case it is struck down).

That ruling can then be appealed up to SCOTUS, wherein the ruling becomes final and federal precedent.

So, if the people vote to pass a legal law, they're good to go. If they vote to pass a seemingly illegal law, they're going to have to fight to prove that it's not illegal.

-m

edit: I'm a canadian and I know this. Why don't you?

 

[Moriarty70]

c'mon people I just wrote 2 paragraphs about straight people marrying each other and you have nothing to say?

dude, did you see my post on pg 7? I spent an hour on that *****, and no one even read it.

-m

I did, but it doesn't matter much since taht's only preaching to the choir. Doubbly so when you consider I too am sitting above the effected crowd facinated by the specticle below.

By above, I mean in Canada wearing my toque, drinking my syrup.

 

[blindthrall]

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.

In what way are tax breaks for married couples unconstitutional?

-m

Because it's blantantly preferential, and is merely an outgrowth of of tax-exempt churches, meant to subtly nudge the population away from atheism. I don't understand why people get tax breaks for children either, having kids doesn't need to be encouraged.

Unconstitutional may not be the right word, but it's sure as shit not fair.

OT, This is excellent German news. The only reason Prop 8 passed in the first place is because the Mormons, most of whom live in Utah, organized a smear campaign.

 

[Queen Michael]

I don't understand why people get tax breaks for children either, having kids doesn't need to be encouraged.

Having kids doesn't come cheap. If you don't have kids you don't need any money to pay for diapers and college.

 

[cerebus23]

lets see the average marriage cost something along the lines of $25,000 the average divorce $40,000. why we want to keep the bliss of marriage to ourselves is beyond me, let gays get married. let them get divorced why we feel it is such a great thing is beyond me.

hell i know two people that were commonlaw "married" for 15 years and they want to kill each other, all the stress, all the court battles, all the lies. throw open the gates let everyone and everything get married why keep all that fun and happiness to ourselves.

 

[blindthrall]

Snip, the post having to do with the judiciary being able to overturn unconstitutional laws

Excellent way to explain it. There is a further benefit to the judiciary-since they aren't elected, they don't have to worry about unpopular decisions getting them throw out of office. They are free from the tyranny of the majority, and can protect the minority without fear of reprisal.

Which is why Roe vs. Wade has stood for so long.

 

[MongoBaer]

@Matt_LRR

your aruging both sides. The popular vote is good enough to check the goverment but not enough for a law?

 

[Mista Stevo]

congarts california from emngland, i don't see why people are against gay marriage..if its unnatiral how can we do it and why can't people accept we don't all like the same things.well done california have a medal

 

[MongoBaer]

Snip, the post having to do with the judiciary being able to overturn unconstitutional laws

Excellent way to explain it. There is a further benefit to the judiciary-since they aren't elected, they don't have to worry about unpopular decisions getting them throw out of office. They are free from the tyranny of the majority, and can protect the minority without fear of reprisal.

Which is why Roe vs. Wade has stood for so long.

That being said, Who said it's "Good Law"? There's alot of old laws on the books that many lawyer point to for president. A "Good Law" could and has been used for precident for "Bad Law".

Also lifetime appointsments aren't always the best idea either. Anyone in California remember Judge Bird?

 

[blindthrall]

I don't understand why people get tax breaks for children either, having kids doesn't need to be encouraged.

Having kids doesn't come cheap. If you don't have kids you don't need any money to pay for diapers and college.

If you can't afford them, don't have them in the first place. Having a child without the means to support it is one of the most irresponsible things you can do, screwing up the child for life.

Also, these breaks encourage people to have children to allieviate tax problems. There's a couple in Allentown that have had forty children, and they don't work, since the government pays them. Why is this kind of behaviour encouraged? Rampant breeding will be the death of this species.

 

[Matt_LRR]

@Matt_LRR

your aruging both sides. The popular vote is good enough to check the goverment but not enough for a law?

No I'm not. I just said the american people DON'T check the government with popular vote. You can elect someone to replace someone you don't like, but elections are not run on popular vote.

-m

 

[MongoBaer]

yes and no. the only time I know that popular vote is secondary is during presidental elections. All other times I belive popular vote decides.

Anyone: if you know the real answer, please correct me.

 

[Queen Michael]

I don't understand why people get tax breaks for children either, having kids doesn't need to be encouraged.

Having kids doesn't come cheap. If you don't have kids you don't need any money to pay for diapers and college.

If you can't afford them, don't have them in the first place. Having a child without the means to support it is one of the most irresponsible things you can do, screwing up the child for life.

Also, these breaks encourage people to have children to allieviate tax problems. There's a couple in Allentown that have had forty children, and they don't work, since the government pays them. Why is this kind of behaviour encouraged? Rampant breeding will be the death of this species.

Um... That couple is an exception. In most cases, parents have less money with kids than they do without. And overpopulated countries do try to stop overpopulation. Like China, which banned having more than one kid some time ago. (Dunno if the law is still in effect.) You're saying people shouldn't have kids if they can't support said kids, but that's the beauty of it - thanks to government help, they can afford it. Sure, they might have been unable to afford kids otherwise, but you can never be completely sure about whether your economy's going to be okay in a year. So whether you have government support or not, you can never be sure you'll be able to raise your kids. It's always a gamble. And that forty-kid-family? Most people would say that having to raise forty kids is deterrant enough as it is. Which is why most couples don't have that many kids.

 

[Optimystic]

@Matt_LRR
If that's the case, both sides (Right and Left wing causes) have perverted the system for their own use. When an individuals vote can be nullified via courts it underminds the belief that goverment is impartial.

Checks & balances, man.

You know, that whole, judiciary, legislaitive, and exeutive branch thing?

Also that whole representative democracy republic thing?

The popuilar vote is not, and never has been considered the end all and be all of american political voice. Sometimes people want to do shit en masse that's bad for the country, and that's where it's the government's job to step in and tell you all you're being fuckwits.

As happened in this ruling.

tl;dr: working as intended. not a bug.

-m

You sir, are my idol. Please continue.
Toasting in an epic bread.