[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Prop 8 Ruling Today (Page 1 of 4)
Posted: 5/26/2009 7:42:46 AM EDT
| Anyone want to guess how the judges are going to rule on this? Gotta love the people voting and getting turned down by the courts.... |
|
Quoted:
Anyone want to guess how the judges are going to rule on this? Gotta love the people voting and getting turned down by the courts.... All depends on whose sacred cow is being gored. If "the people" voted for strict gun control and the Supreme Court turned it down based on the 2nd, we'd all be cheering. |
|
This is such a mindblowing travesty that I don't have any faith in gov't whatsoever.
Does this mean that , say, a southern state that happens to vote in a Democrat Governer can have the vote vetoed in the state supreme court? "Uh, no. this type of measure is only for liberals" 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone want to guess how the judges are going to rule on this? Gotta love the people voting and getting turned down by the courts.... All depends on whose sacred cow is being gored. If "the people" voted for strict gun control and the Supreme Court turned it down based on the 2nd, we'd all be cheering. What you have to understand is the voters of CA voted to amend their state constitution. They already voted once to ban gay marriage but it was struck down. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone want to guess how the judges are going to rule on this? Gotta love the people voting and getting turned down by the courts.... All depends on whose sacred cow is being gored. If "the people" voted for strict gun control and the Supreme Court turned it down based on the 2nd, we'd all be cheering. What you have to understand is the voters of CA voted to amend their state constitution. They already voted once to ban gay marriage but it was struck down. I understand that - but if they had voted to amend their constitution to legalize slavery - we'd WANT the court to overturn it. So there's not necessarily anything wrong with the principle of courts overturning popular votes. I completely agree that in this particular case, it will be total bullshit if the court does so - I'm just saying that there's nothing wrong with the principle of the courts being able to overturn "mob rule", based on nothing more than what the majority wants. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone want to guess how the judges are going to rule on this? Gotta love the people voting and getting turned down by the courts.... All depends on whose sacred cow is being gored. If "the people" voted for strict gun control and the Supreme Court turned it down based on the 2nd, we'd all be cheering. And where in the Consitution does it gurantee the "right to bugger another man" shall not be infriged? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone want to guess how the judges are going to rule on this? Gotta love the people voting and getting turned down by the courts.... All depends on whose sacred cow is being gored. If "the people" voted for strict gun control and the Supreme Court turned it down based on the 2nd, we'd all be cheering. Well, "the people" didn't vote for gun control. |
|
I can certainly see how the first law was overturned, the CA constitution has been pretty broadly interpreted in terms of fairness and equal protection.
I really don't see how they can overturn a constitutional ammendment, though, unless it would bring CA into conflict with established federal code. |
|
Quoted:
Anyone want to guess how the judges are going to rule on this? Gotta love the people voting and getting turned down by the courts.... Thats how it goes today, if you don't like the outcome, bring it before the judiciary, again and again and again, untill hopefully things go your way. |
|
Quoted:
Upheld same sex marriage ban. CA Supreme CT, 6-1 decision http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7677819&page=1 That's alot bigger margin than I expected. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Upheld same sex marriage ban. CA Supreme CT, 6-1 decision http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7677819&page=1 That's alot bigger margin than I expected. Bigger than I expected as well. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone want to guess how the judges are going to rule on this? Gotta love the people voting and getting turned down by the courts.... All depends on whose sacred cow is being gored. If "the people" voted for strict gun control and the Supreme Court turned it down based on the 2nd, we'd all be cheering. What you have to understand is the voters of CA voted to amend their state constitution. They already voted once to ban gay marriage but it was struck down. I understand that - but if they had voted to amend their constitution to legalize slavery - we'd WANT the court to overturn it. So there's not necessarily anything wrong with the principle of courts overturning popular votes. I completely agree that in this particular case, it will be total bullshit if the court does so - I'm just saying that there's nothing wrong with the principle of the courts being able to overturn "mob rule", based on nothing more than what the majority wants. Personally, I wouldn't give a shit. I would, however, choose not to move to that state and I would choose to avoid and products or services made or based in CA. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone want to guess how the judges are going to rule on this? Gotta love the people voting and getting turned down by the courts.... All depends on whose sacred cow is being gored. If "the people" voted for strict gun control and the Supreme Court turned it down based on the 2nd, we'd all be cheering. What you have to understand is the voters of CA voted to amend their state constitution. They already voted once to ban gay marriage but it was struck down. I understand that - but if they had voted to amend their constitution to legalize slavery - we'd WANT the court to overturn it. So there's not necessarily anything wrong with the principle of courts overturning popular votes. I completely agree that in this particular case, it will be total bullshit if the court does so - I'm just saying that there's nothing wrong with the principle of the courts being able to overturn "mob rule", based on nothing more than what the majority wants. Your argument is a red herring, you realize. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Anyone want to guess how the judges are going to rule on this? Gotta love the people voting and getting turned down by the courts.... All depends on whose sacred cow is being gored. If "the people" voted for strict gun control and the Supreme Court turned it down based on the 2nd, we'd all be cheering. Exactly. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone want to guess how the judges are going to rule on this? Gotta love the people voting and getting turned down by the courts.... All depends on whose sacred cow is being gored. If "the people" voted for strict gun control and the Supreme Court turned it down based on the 2nd, we'd all be cheering. Historically the people's vote counts for shit in California. Take for example the issue of illegal immigration. Prop 209 was overwhelmingly approved by the people. It cut off all social assistance for those who could not provide proof of legal resident status. The courts threw it out. A similar later prop was also ruled to be unconstitutional. The whole "gay marriage" thing has been voted on twice. The first time it was in fact invalidated by the courts. I fully expect the second time to go down in flames too. eta And that's what I get for sleeping in. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone want to guess how the judges are going to rule on this? Gotta love the people voting and getting turned down by the courts.... All depends on whose sacred cow is being gored. If "the people" voted for strict gun control and the Supreme Court turned it down based on the 2nd, we'd all be cheering. Exactly. Except the two situations are not legally comparable at all. And I mean in no way. A state cannot pass a state constitutional amendment that overrides a federal constitutional amendment which applies against the states. It has been argued for decades that the 2nd applies against the states––this is the direction the courts and the Court are moving towards. There is no such federal protection regarding marriage. Therefore, the argument raised by some in this thread is a red herring. It works if you look at it from an emotional perspective, but not a legal one. |
|
Quoted:
I don't thing government should be in the marriage business at all, but if they're going to be involved then the same rights should apply to all the citizens of this country. If straight couples can marry then gay couples should have the same right. Everyone already has the same right. Anyone can marry a member of the opposite gender, of no relation, who is of age, not presently married, and able to give consent. |
|
I'm seeing a lot of amateur commentators and pundits saying that the grandfathering of about 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place during the interval between the last court decision that legalized it, and this one, constitutes a violation of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution.
Could not the same be said of the ban on Californians buying and registering standard AR-15 rifles and other firearms classified as "assault weapons" by the state? I've got mine because I bought them before the ban, and registered them. That's not fair to someone who wants to buy one and is willing to register it. Cognitive dissonance and irony are beautiful things. |
|
Quoted:
This will overturn because the judges overturned the people's will last time on this issue. Personally I could care less about this issue. To me it seems a waste of donations and energy fighting gay marriage. If you could care less this shows that you care at least a little bit. If you couldn't care less that would mean you don't care. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone want to guess how the judges are going to rule on this? Gotta love the people voting and getting turned down by the courts.... All depends on whose sacred cow is being gored. If "the people" voted for strict gun control and the Supreme Court turned it down based on the 2nd, we'd all be cheering. What you have to understand is the voters of CA voted to amend their state constitution. They already voted once to ban gay marriage but it was struck down. I understand that - but if they had voted to amend their constitution to legalize slavery - we'd WANT the court to overturn it. So there's not necessarily anything wrong with the principle of courts overturning popular votes. I completely agree that in this particular case, it will be total bullshit if the court does so - I'm just saying that there's nothing wrong with the principle of the courts being able to overturn "mob rule", based on nothing more than what the majority wants. No, wrong, silly... There is absolutely something wrong with what you propose. This was a constitutional amendment. State courts should NEVER be allowed to or have the power to disregard State constitutional amendments because they do not like them, if courts can do this it makes the constitution in question meaningless. Same goes for Federal Courts and the US Constitution. Picking a strawman like slavery makes it no less wrong headed. A constitution that can be changed at the whim of six or nine people is worthless, a real protection for no one, and the practice/concept that courts can change the constitution is a deadly danger to the Republic. |
|
Quoted:
I'm seeing a lot of amateur commentators and pundits saying that the grandfathering of about 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place during the interval between the last court decision that legalized it, and this one, constitutes a violation of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution. Could not the same be said of the ban on Californians buying and registering standard AR-15 rifles and other firearms classified as "assault weapons" by the state? I've got mine because I bought them before the ban, and registered them. That's not fair to someone who wants to buy one and is willing to register it. Cognitive dissonance and irony are beautiful things. Bingo. I've been thinking about this same thing all morning. -Gator |
|
My comments on a Prop 8 boo-hoo Facebook cryfest from my Step Sister: Her: Stupid prop 8 has got me upset all over again!=( Her Friend: That makes me so very sad! Just remember it takes a long time for change! It was only 41 years ago that interracial marriage became legal in the U.S! Citizens whothen opposed interracial marriages claimed they were blasphemous, un-American and un-natural! Sound familiar? Me: Get used to it. As long as people keep asking the government for permission for everything and turn to it like a Mother or Father while handing over their rights, this will continue This is a watch THIS hand, not the other game. Distract people with this and tear things apart while the masses are focused on an issue that shouldn't be an issue in a free society. Ironically, the very people fighting on both sides are tightening the noose around our collective necks, asking the Government permission to allow or ban something they should have NO power over thus ceding our freedoms as citizens. 20-30 years from now, we will look back and ask how could we be so stupid? Same thing happened in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. That generation is still trying to cover their mistakes with more patches to their failed equation. Oh well. Nice while it lasted. |
|
Quoted:
I'm seeing a lot of amateur commentators and pundits saying that the grandfathering of about 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place during the interval between the last court decision that legalized it, and this one, constitutes a violation of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution. Could not the same be said of the ban on Californians buying and registering standard AR-15 rifles and other firearms classified as "assault weapons" by the state? I've got mine because I bought them before the ban, and registered them. That's not fair to someone who wants to buy one and is willing to register it. Cognitive dissonance and irony are beautiful things. They would be wrong. There is no valid 14th Amendment question raised by this. |