California high court upholds gay marriage ban

reply to post by FMLuder



Regardless of your ramblings "THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE" prevailed, this has nothing to do with religion but more to the fact that a majority of Californians decided that gay marriage isn’t there thing. Now I think if other states had the choice as well and not there courts or legislatures they to would vote it down.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
What entitles everybody else to that right?

the will of the people.

Why should one group of people not be allowed the same thing as the others?

exactly, this is about what qualifies a relationship for special protection, is it love or is it the ability to produce a particular family unit?

Seems to be a matter of elitism or something.

it is, people see that particular arrangement as better.

And furthermore, I understand my word is not final, there are obviously other views and opinions that are just as valid as my own. I never claimed I had the "right" answer. I have the sensible one.

it isn't sensible, it boils down to "if they can have it why can't i". this isn't any more sensible from you than it is from a toddler that wants candy.

give me a good reason to protect gay unions over others without referring to what other people have.

Originally posted by MillionEyedMask

Uh... the fact that they're people?

so everyone should be entitled to special legal protection? if that's the case what makes it special?

reply to post by FMLuder


Umm, no . . . because you have the freedom to practice in religion you so choose, so it would not pass the Constitutional test.

What CA did passed the Constitutional check. The right was not enumerated in the Constitution, therefore, it was up the the state to decide. The state passed it to the people (whose Representatives, most likely would have voted the same way, since they are . . . Representatives).

And the people still cry about it.

If ya don't like it, vote people in who think like you, or move to a state that supports your views.

That easy.


[edit on 26/5/2009 by xxpigxx]

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by FMLuder

 

Regardless of your ramblings "THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE" prevailed, this has nothing to do with religion but more to the fact that a majority of Californians decided that gay marriage isn’t there thing. Now I think if other states had the choice as well and not there courts or legislatures they to would vote it down.

Well, as much as you may disregard 'my ramblings'... you're just repeating part of what I said. How about you take some of that 'Yes on prop 8' donation money of yours and get some English lessons; then re-read my reply...?

I have little doubt that people would vote the issue down. That was not my point. I stated that by the demoractic provess, referenda are ONLY to be used when an issue constitutes reform that affects the liberties of the entire demos. THIS IS NOT such an issue. Therefore, the use of a referendum was completely ludicrous, ademocratic and illibertarian.

In short, Mr. Schwarzenegger and his cronies pussied out and surrendered to mobocracy and pleb thuggery. That is NOT how a civilised, democratic/republican society works.

Oh, and I don't give a flying F about the consitution. (I'm British, and the US constitution is a sad rehash of extant English documents.) My concerns are for liberty for all men. I don't believe the US constitution is the be-all-and-end-all of that.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by FMLuder]

reply to post by pieman


It ISN'T special legal protection, it's simple equality. Just like it isn't special legal protection that allows blacks to go to the same schools as whites, or women to vote. And keep in mind there was just as much public outcry and indignation when these issues floated to the surface as well. It's the same old story.

reply to post by AnonymousMoose


"It is a good day for voters, but is also a bad day for a democracy in my opinion, with the majority, and a small majority at 52% taking away rights of a minority."

How does that statement make any sense? It was a good day for voters and a great day for democracy. A small majority isn’t the proper descriptive term to use here either. Millions and millions voiced their opinions and voted with their hearts. I am thrilled that the courts upheld the will of the people instead of bowing to the voices of the politically correct, who are in this case in the minority.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Rockstrongo37]

I would like to chime in on this one as being a resident of the state of California.
For starters, I will say I live in an alternative household, been there for over 8 years. When it comes to the issue of gay marriage, here is what I believe.
Marriage is a relgious aspect, and should not be in the body politcal. But while looking at this issue, I am reminded of several facts. It was not too long ago in this country when it was illegale for people of differing racial origin to marry or have children. At one time, it was illegale for people of differing religions to wed and have children. It was looked down on and a woman ostracised and ran out of time for having a child out of wedlock.
So I just view this as social growth. If I find that the conditions of California is no longer acceptable, we will move to another state where it can be.

reply to post by pieman


What other argument could you possibly want?

It's simply wrong to deny anybody the rights of a majority for a simple issue like who are you sleeping with don't you think?

People are stupid we know that. They voted George in twice, is that not proof enough for you?

These sort of things should not be left up, to the people. It doesn't effect the people as a whole so there is no reason to ask for their opinion. It's a legal issue, not a public one.

I don't know what other kind of argument I could give you other than it's the morally right decision. Whatever argument you want to make doesn't change the fact that there is a group of people being oppressed by the rest of society.

A group of people which poses no harm and want a simple solution to a problem that has been blow way out of proportion.

~Keeper

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by MillionEyedMask

Uh... the fact that they're people?

so everyone should be entitled to special legal protection? if that's the case what makes it special?

Why do you think its special rights? If my partner of 13 years passes away and I am not on the morgage but I have been paying 1/2 you think I should have no rights to stay in my home? If my better half passes away I should not have rights to her retirement? So, it should just be absorbed into, where? ... the government? If she were in an accident I should be allowed to be removed from her side by the whims of her mother?

Its all about 'legal' rights. We do have our bases covered on these things, but not everyone has the money to go as far as we have to secure our 'future'.

Its about the basic rights of a human being.

Hugs,
Dax

reply to post by FMLuder


Well, considering you are involved in a conversation about a state court that follows the constitution . . . in all respect . . . what the hell are you doing in this thread?

I mean, considering this is all about the constitution and what rights one should have . . . and you not giving a crap about the Constitution . . .

[edit on 26/5/2009 by xxpigxx]

Originally posted by AnonymousMoose

It is a good day for voters, but is also a bad day for a democracy in my opinion, with the majority, and a small majority at 52% taking away rights of a minority.

I'm sorry, but I find the above statement to be quite naive.

Because that is exactly how a democracy is supposed to work. A majority vote rules over a minority vote. There is nothing in the law that says (on issues like this) that it has to be more than a simple majority. And no one gets to say that their pet cause has to win (or lose) by more than a simple majority or it's wrong. Government 101 class, senior year in high school ...

Originally posted by FMLuder

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by FMLuder

 

Regardless of your ramblings "THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE" prevailed, this has nothing to do with religion but more to the fact that a majority of Californians decided that gay marriage isn’t there thing. Now I think if other states had the choice as well and not there courts or legislatures they to would vote it down.

In short, Mr. Schwarzenegger and his cronies pussied out and surrendered to mobocracy and pleb thuggery. That is NOT how a civilised, democratic/republican society works.

Oh, and I don't give a flying F about the consitution. (I'm British, and the US constitution is a sad rehash of extant English documents.) My concerns are for liberty for all men. I don't believe the US constitution is the be-all-and-end-all of that.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by FMLuder]

Well here in America, the constitution is the law of the land, plain and simple. In fact, isn’t it strange that here in America, you can be gay without fear of being arrested or put to death like in other countries. You should really concern yourself with your nations own matters, because the way its looking is merry-ole-England isn’t so merry. Maybe perhaps get rid of that parliamentary government of yours and replace it with one that may work out better for you.

And I reiterate my earlier point: I don't know where people are getting this notion of 'special legal protection' or 'special rights for minorities'...

This is not a 'special right' for gays; it is a liberty extended to ALL citizens that they may marry and couple as they see fit, irrespective of gender.

Originally posted by xxpigxx
reply to post by FMLuder

 

Well, considering you are involved in a conversation about a state court that follows the constitution . . . in all respect . . . what the hell are you doing in this thread?

I mean, considering this is all about the constitution and what rights one should have . . . and you not giving a crap about the Constitution . . .

[edit on 26/5/2009 by xxpigxx]

"My concerns are for liberty for all men." I think I have explained myself with ample clarity...

This is really sad... The constitution has always been used to uphold rights not deny them... if this holds up in the SOCTUS... which I seriously doubt... it would set a terrible and dangerous precedent for the nation.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by pieman

 

. . .These sort of things should not be left up, to the people. It doesn't effect the people as a whole so there is no reason to ask for their opinion. It's a legal issue, not a public one.

. . .

If any portion of their tax monies go to a gay couple, then the people need to have a say so. Period.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


While your historical facts are right, I do belive your assumption is wrong. I am greatful that different races in this nation can marry, however, children who are born out of wedlock and have no Father or two parents, are more likely to live poverety and continue to repeat the maddness that is. A child who is brought up in a loving home with two parents is more likely to suceed.

reply to post by xxpigxx


So, if they go to a gay person thats fine with you? Years ago someones taxes paid for my groceries...

Originally posted by centurion1211
I'm sorry, but I find the above statement to be quite naive.

Because that is exactly how a democracy is supposed to work. A majority vote rules over a minority vote. There is nothing in the law that says (on issues like this) that it has to be more than a simple majority. And no one gets to say that their pet cause has to win (or lose) by more than a simple majority or it's wrong. Government 101 class, senior year in high school ...

What you're saying is tantamount to saying "Majority rules. Case closed. Deal with it." Unfortunately this is the case. I say unfortunately not because I am against democracy. I'm not. However, it becomes a problem when there is a decision, like this one, that only affects the lives of a minority demographic (somewhere below 10% in this case), but which is voted on by everyone, including those who are stupefyingly ignorant and reliant on archaic justifications for their attitudes.

There was a time when the majority of people would have been against blacks and whites marrying. Today, it is obvious to virtually everyone that people of any two races should be allowed to marry one another. THIS IS THE SAME ISSUE. Might makes right in American democracy, but it should not. People are tried in our legal system by a jury of their peers, and biased jurors are selected out of the process. Perhaps our legislative system should take a hint from our judicial system.