Yep, it looks like this is going to pass. Those of you who supported it, I hope you feel good about yourselves.
Some people just wanted the right to marry the person they love, just like everyone else. And you took that away from them. I hope it feels good.
Some people already got legally married, and now their marriages appear to be in legal limbo. I hope it feels good.
You just wanted to screw over gay people (don't even bother to deny it), but you couldn't come out and say that, so you brayed about the "sanctity of marriage" instead. And it worked. I hope it feels good.
Hopefully the people of California will repeal this next time around. And hopefully they'll invalidate YOUR marriages while they're at it.
Granting sexual orientation the same status as race is an absurd argument of extremists.
Boy... somone doesnt behave the way you think they should and you get -all- pissy.
You need to blame the minorities -- specifically the blacks, hispanics and Asians - who supported this FAR more than the whites.
You also need to blame those that worked so hard to get out the minoirity vote.
Indeed we are celebrating! I'l make this simple.
Not about scwewing over gay people. Its about my Christian religion and morals.
It is absolutely clear about homosexuality in the Bible being an abomination he hates.
For your edification; courts do not LEGISLATE, they enforce the LAWS that are passed by the LEGISLATURE.
It seems strange to me, however, that a simple majority can pass a Constitutional Amendment. It kind of defeats the purpose of having a Constitution, doesn't it?
I would disagree. Such a system provides no protection to the rights of the minority, because everything becomes subject to the will of the majority.
Latinos will be the majority in California in a decade. What's to stop a proposition to be placed on the ballot that says "Only latino's can marry and vote". If all the latinos voted for it....they could take away the rights of everyone else.
Thanks for your honesty!
What's the topic?
Oh, right -- the people of CA chosing to override their Supreme Court.
They can't violate rights granted in the Federal Constitution. THAT is the protection.
Then why have a State Constitution at all?
Where in the Federal Constitution does it say that whites, blacks, asians have a right to marry?
Seems to me, if you can ban gay marriage by enacting a state constitutional amendment, you could pass an amendment that says only latinos have the right to marry in the state of California.
If you define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, the Federal Constitution gives all people the equal protection of the laws meaning that regardless of race, a man can marry a woman.
There is nothing in the Federal Constitution that defines marriage as "between a man and a woman". GWB tried unsuccessfully to amend the Constitution to add that. So if that is not in the Federal Constitution, a simple majority in the state of California could ban whites, blacks, asians and any other group from marriage.
Notice I said "If". The definition doesn't have to be in the Constitution. By design, the Federal COnstitution is general and outlines general rights. The definition of marriage is made by society, not by the Federal COnstitution. It seems like the voters of California (as well as other states) have let their voice be heard that they believe that in fact marriage is between a man and a woman.
"This is one issue that is not ethnic minority vs majority. It's those that believe we should live under a theocracy and those that don't."
Odd that someone would argue against a theoocracy while seemingly demanding to use a religious term in a manner that does not fit,
Historically speaking, the term marriage stands for the joining of a man and a woman in the eyes of God.
Why not use a non-religious term for a non-religious union?
Everyone; as being you and your cabal of uninformed ranters?
Roe vs. Wade was a similar adjudication where the right to an abortion was "divined" by a radical court.
How has that worked for the nation as a whole?
You can pretend that it was an honest "interpretation of "rights", but that is your OPINION and it doesn't wash with the FACTS.
There is not inferred "constitutional" right for same sex marriages in the State of California. Therefore, as I stated, it took an activist State Supreme Court, one of the most OVERULLED in the country that decided to legislate from the bench.
No, they changed the Constitution to prevent activist’s judges from going against the will of the citizens.
What does "common law" have to do with this case? I think you need to review the law:
The term "common law" is also used to mean the traditional, precedent-based element in the law of any common-law jurisdiction, as opposed to its statutory law or legislation.
This is about statutory law or legislation; there is nothing common law about it.
The judges chose to throw out legislation based on their activist interpretations of the States Constitution.
Another of your typical off topic rants.
The notion that your arguments above are correct is only for those who willingly suspend their disbelief; particularly when you cannot distinguish between “common law” and legislation.
The Supreme Court has forced Californians to modify their Constitution; do you obey only laws you agree with, or do you obey all the laws?
I mistook Goobie for Gibberish…..the names merge in these threads sometimes …. So sue me for making a mistake.
Good lord you can’t get more petty than this.
The people of California have spoken.........I said that if the people of California voted for gay marriage so be it.........This is the second time they have voted against it.........Lets see if activist judges again try and make law instead of interpreting it and over throw the will of the people...........
I don't think the courts will step in on this one. However, I do expect it will be back on the ballot in two years.
The State of California has shown a lot of progress since Prop 22 in 2000. Just like the civil rights movement of the 50's/60's, bigotry dies hard, but its just a matter of time.
Its got nothing to do with bigotry for most people......Like I said if the people of California vote to let gays, polygamists or any other group identified by their class get married so be it but not activist judges ...........
As marriage is NOT a constitutional issue; I find the outright modification of such a document to be highly inapropriate. The far right neo-nazi assholes responsible for this should lose the right to participate in politics.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?