Hooray for homos in California

[Nimrod's Son]

I have nothing against gay marriage. I do believe however that a bunch of judges just decided to legislate their own morality in an attempt to overturn the will of a democratic people and went far beyond what the California constitution states.

Just because you want something to happen doesn't mean the constitution guarantees it

[maoi]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

I have nothing against gay marriage. I do believe however that a bunch of judges just decided to legislate their own morality

uh these judges were republicans.

[Debaser]

nimrod, you don't know anything outside of what the talky box tells you huh

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

I do believe however that a bunch of judges just decided to legislate their own morality

The judges did not overturn the legislature which have already voted twice for gay marriage. And if you read the decision, whether homosexuality is moral or not had nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Just because you want something to happen doesn't mean the constitution guarantees it

Read the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Secton 7 of California Constitution.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by maoi

uh these judges were republicans.

Not all of them were appointed by republican governors (which still doesn't make them republican) which still is not relevant to the issue

You should read the dissents, which are written by judges who clearly understand constitutional interpretation

[Debaser]

why don't you summarize these amazing dissents for us.

[Debaser]

I guess you have to read it first

[ravenguy2000]

the problem are these "san fransisco values" that have infiltrated the government

[maoi]

hehe@debaser

[ravenguy2000]

sorry if i fucked up your lol to debaser

[Debaser]

pre-emptive strike:

sully:
the court has not "created" a right to marriage for gay couples. It has argued that if the state has conceded that domestic partners should have, under state law, all the benefits and responsibilities of married couples, the designation of a separate and distinct category must be suspect, under strict scrutiny, to the inference that the designation is based on a desire to deny gay couples equal dignity and recognition. This is the same point I've made in the past; isn't constructing a separate and distinct category an example of pure animus? You have conceded the substance, but cannot concede the name. Since no heterosexual couple's rights would be affected in any way, what exactly is the rationale for maintaining the distinction? Except bias?


It would be better for all if the govt got out of the "marrying" business in the first place. Just issue "Civil Union" licenses to both heterosexual and homosexual couples and that's it. Then they can all go to whatever church they want for their own "marriage" ceremony. How about that? Would opponents of gay marriage freak out if all of the sudden they were classified as "civil unions" by the state? If they did, then I guess that would prove the civil unions weren't as good as marriage (which is not what they keep trying to tell gays).

[Caine Walker]

because the bible says so!

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Debaser

why don't you summarize these amazing dissents for us.

The lead dissent essentially said that his fellow judges were reading into the constitution that which is not there in an attempt to put an issue they agree with into law in order to overturn the will of the people.

My position on this is complicated:

• I voted against the "man/woman definition" in 2000
• Even though I voted against it and it passed, I am very much against these judges overturning it

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

The lead dissent essentially said that his fellow judges were reading into the constitution that which is not there in an attempt to put an issue they agree with into law in order to overturn the will of the people.

no, not really.

Heh, "lead" dissent huh? there was no "lead dissent" just two separate concurring & dissent opinions from 2 of the justices. From my perusal, Baxter basically said that the judges were violating the separation of powers by basing their decision on the california legislature's approval of marriage equality and thus indirectly giving the legislature power to amend the constitution. Corrigan blusters on about how Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships are good enough and the other judges are unfairly denigrating those options. Both dissenting judges don't mind gays marrying but think its too soon and should wait for public opinion to catch up.

"Will of the people?", "reading into the constitution that which is not there?" that's a big stretch. I didn't see anywhere (i could be wrong, I just skimmed over the 172 pages this weekend) any dissenter jumping in to defend prop 22.

just tell me what lame uninformed radio talk show host you are parroting here. The right wing were already squawking "activist judges!" before even reading the opinions (that's assuming if they plan to even read them).

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Not all of them were appointed by republican governors (which still doesn't make them republican) which still is not relevant to the issue

Way to play that down. Six of the seven are republican judges.

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

You should read the dissents, which are written by judges who clearly understand constitutional interpretation

Quit pretending that you read the dissents.

[sickbadthing]

sneaking over the border in groves

[maoi]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Way to play that down. Six of the seven are republican judges.

What is really refreshing is not only are they republicans, but their justification for their ruling is remarkably simple and clear (contrast Massachussett's ambiguous jcourt ruling for gay marriage). Chief Justice George wrote for the majority opinion:

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation...An individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

Can't argue with that.

[Aeroplane]

Originally Posted by maoi

will probably anger alot of people with the following...but it is how I feel....and its the truth

1. In the 60's...when the negroes marched and demanded their rights...they rioted, burned and murdered...we said "Someone should put a stop to this"...and we sat back...and now we have rap,gangs, BET, Miss Black America, generational welfare,ghettos, Oprah, NAACP, MLK gov paid day, and Obama heading for the White House.
2. When the mexicans began sneaking over the border in groves...we said "Someone should put a stop to this"...and we sat back...and now they march down the street demanding their rights, everything is bi-lingual, and we push 1 for English, Cinco de mayo is celebrated in our country, and the press says...we can't round up and deport 12 mil people.....
3. Now California has made gay marriage legal...and once again...we say "Someone should put a stop to this".....and we sit back...

I am not advocating a run on the banks as stated in another thread ( which would do NOTHING), nor am I advocating a mini army to declare war and begin shooting.....but if we don't organize ourselves, stand united, and defend our country ASAP....what are we going to have left to leave our children and grandchildren?
Our language is being taken from us, we can no longer have prayer in schools, we are forced to "embrace diversity", our flag is flown beside one from another country, and now marriage is made a mockery.
If we do not re-take our country, in 10 years or less, there will be nothing left to claim. God help us.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahaha.

[bonsor.]

Originally Posted by Aeroplane

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahaha.

I am really looking forward to the 'Hooray for homo's in Iowa' thread.

[jenga66]

All of you are homos.