disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Who cares? California Supreme Court already declared that they don't give a damn what the people think.
Yeah, a poll is "what people think" more than a voting referendum.
Spoken like a true "ZOMG GORE WUN DA WITE HOUZE" Democrat.
This IS what the people think......You are basing your knee-jerkism on an initiative that was almost 10 years old. Times change....whether you like it or not.
Perhaps I'm misreading what you wrote, but are you saying that because the law was 10 years old that it needed looking at again? And if so, what do you base that opinion on? I know you're a lawyer or something like that, so I'm honestly and intellectually curious...
.This latet poll was probably taken in the Peoples Republic of San Francisco..........
....
Not exactly. I was responding to the post that the California Supreme Court is "going against the will of the people". My response is that the "will of the people" changes over time. What may have been the "will of the people" 10 years ago, may not be the will of the people today. In fact, based on several polls in California over the last few weeks, it appears that it very likely is NOT the "Will of the people".
However, "the will of the people" is really not relevant in any event when you are talking about Constitutional issues. The Constitution was set up in order to protect certain fundamental rights and privileges against a "popular vote". In other words, "to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of a majority".
Not exactly. I was responding to the post that the California Supreme Court is "going against the will of the people". My response is that the "will of the people" changes over time. What may have been the "will of the people" 10 years ago, may not be the will of the people today. In fact, based on several polls in California over the last few weeks, it appears that it very likely is NOT the "Will of the people".
However, "the will of the people" is really not relevant in any event when you are talking about Constitutional issues. The Constitution was set up in order to protect certain fundamental rights and privileges against a "popular vote". In other words, "to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of a majority".
Polls don't determine the will of the people. Referenda do.
If they want gay marriage, bring it before the powers that be. Until then, you can have all the polls you want and it won't add up to piss.
You are forgetting that the California State Legislature (the representatives of the people) twice passed Gay Marriage bills only to have them vetoed by the Republican Governor....who incidentally said the matter should be determined BY THE COURT.
Have you heard one against a marriage between 3 or more people?You know, nobody asked me for my opinion on this issue, but I'm giving it anyway... :mrgreen:
I have yet to hear a reasonable argument AGAINST gay marriage...
And your forgetting that 61% of the people of California voted against gay marriage and they will do it again in November overturning the position of the activist judges............
You know, nobody asked me for my opinion on this issue, but I'm giving it anyway... :mrgreen:
I have yet to hear a reasonable argument AGAINST gay marriage and I'm a Republican... not neo-con, but Republican...
Sanctity of marriage and all that stuff? That doesn't really impress upon me. I would really like to hear a legitimate, reasonable, intelligent argument against gay marriage...
I just can't see the harm of, off the top of my head, homosexuals and their significant others getting married. Whenever I see articles in the paper about these states giving gay marriage the ok, it doesn't even phase me...
My views on homosexuality has evolved over the years of my life. I used to be a semi-homophobe who believed that homosexuality was 100% choice. Now, as I've grown up and become less of a jerk ass(less being the operative word from what people tell me), I believe that it's probably a little bit of both choice & the way a person was born.
People are people and as long as what makes them happy doesn't negatively affect other people, and gay marriage doesn't, then why the hell not? I guess that's pretty libertarian, huh?
Have you heard one against a marriage between 3 or more people?
You mean those Republican appointed conservative justices?
I guess the radical right is expanding the definition of their talking point "Activist Judges" to pretty much mean anybody who comes down with an opinion they disagree with....but that pretty much has always been the case now....hasn't it.
Have you heard one against a marriage between 3 or more people?
You mean those Republican appointed conservative justices?
I guess the radical right is expanding the definition of their talking point "Activist Judges" to pretty much mean anybody who comes down with an opinion they disagree with....but that pretty much has always been the case now....hasn't it.
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?