- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
What part of our Constitution makes it possible for a majority to vote away the benefits or rights of a section of the population?
What "equal protection"? What due process? Should we as a society protect everything?
Look, Constitution or not.. When the clear will of the people is so blatantly disregarded, you have trouble on your hands. Like it or not, the vote is important! When a single person so willfully denies the vote, without a compelling enough argument, as to why, you have the potential for trouble.
Most people don't understand the law, but there was nothing, inandofitself that this law nullified. I think it not hard to present an argument against the idea that homosexuality is immutable, and or innate. One of the two qualifiers previous, is required to prove a class of people.
Ok smart guy, how many other "groups" can fit this bill? Society, whether guided by laws or not, ultimately tolerate, or they do not. Notwithstanding this gay mariage issue, how does it look when a single judge overrules 7 million California votes?
Sheesh..
Tim-
One unelected judge can overturn the will of the people. A flaw in our system? I think so.
The very same that says you can't smoke dope.. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Those that equate homosexuality with that of gender, and slavery are so off base, it make my stomach boil. There is no evidence of that at all.
The deviants have won this battle from a queer judge... Go figure?
The fact is that the ballot initiative was approved as "CONSTITUTIONALY" valid. Hence the constitution was made crystal clear. It is not unconstitutional to define marriage between one man, ,and one woman. This judge is a queer fella that voted what one would expect a queer fellla to vote.
It ain't over!
By the way, those claiming that bigots lost, are themselves bigots. Or, they clearly do not know what a bigot, is!
Tim-
A "bigot" is someone who believes that THEY are entitled to certain rights and privileges while believing tha others are not entitled to those same rights and privileges.
I think its pretty clear who the Bigots are in this battle.
A "bigot" is someone who believes that THEY are entitled to certain rights and privileges while believing tha others are not entitled to those same rights and privileges.
I think its pretty clear who the Bigots are in this battle.
Same sex marriage is all about gender.Those that equate homosexuality with that of gender, and slavery are so off base, it make my stomach boil. There is no evidence of that at all.
It is unconstitutional to give a man a right a woman does not have and vice versa.The fact is that the ballot initiative was approved as "CONSTITUTIONALY" valid. Hence the constitution was made crystal clear. It is not unconstitutional to define marriage between one man, ,and one woman.
But you are predisposed to being male or female.Irrelevant.. Color and homosexuality have nothing in common! I am not "predisposed" to being black, or white...
It's 100% of society since 100% of us are male or female. (and the issue is SAME SEX marriage)The founders never made it an issue because it was unforseeable to allow gay marriage. How could they have known that gays would want to be married? How can 4% (at best) of the population affect society? Why should it? It's the "why should it" that has a test. That of immutablity, and innateness. Prove that, and you have a case, don't, and you have no leg to stand on.
One unelected judge can overturn the will of the people. A flaw in our system? I think so.
Please contact your High School and have them fire the Civics teacher immediately.
Thank you.
Also--just so you know--One Judge did his job. It's a process, an important one to make sure state laws and state constitutions don't violate the U.S. constitution. The amended CA constitution is currently in violation of the 14th Amendment. That's all.
The very same that says you can't smoke dope.. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Those that equate homosexuality with that of gender, and slavery are so off base, it make my stomach boil. There is no evidence of that at all.
The deviants have won this battle from a queer judge... Go figure?
The fact is that the ballot initiative was approved as "CONSTITUTIONALY" valid. Hence the constitution was made crystal clear. It is not unconstitutional to define marriage between one man, ,and one woman. This judge is a queer fella that voted what one would expect a queer fellla to vote.
It ain't over!
By the way, those claiming that bigots lost, are themselves bigots. Or, they clearly do not know what a bigot, is!
Tim-
For the liberals ---> Why have some of you, or in general many liberals, decried the rulings of judges in other states as wrong, unconstitutional, and erronious when they've ruled that such things ARE constitutional. Why did liberals by and large degrade such rulings, while simultaneously continually pointing to this going "See, see, a judge said so!" as some kind of proof that it is constitutional and that people should automatically accept it. More precisely, why do you think people should be held to a standard that liberals have not been holding to time, and time, and time again?
So? Be in the majority all you want. The majority cannot vote away equal protection of minority groups. :shrug:
GREAT to see you standing on the correct side of a topic.
Just curious as to why you are breaking ranks with the wingnuts though?
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
GREAT to see you standing on the correct side of a topic.
Just curious as to why you are breaking ranks with the wingnuts though?
I would never put Jall in with the right-wingnuts.
Scarecrow -
Due process was served, first when the ballot measure was approved, and secondly when the SCOCA held the vote constitutional. Next argument please?
Tim-
Scarecrow -
Due process was served, first when the ballot measure was approved, and secondly when the SCOCA held the vote constitutional. Next argument please?
Tim-
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?