Gay marriage ban struck down in california

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by 804brown, Feb 7, 2012.

  1. 804brown

    804brown Well-Known Member

  2. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    It's not the first time the will of the people (the vote) was ignored. The airport at El Toro was voted on by the people......it won, but the powers said, no we don't want that.
     
  3. 804brown

    804brown Well-Known Member

    WHat about the "will" of the people in good ol alabama, mississippi, etc in the 50s and 60s?? Fact is black people were denied equality in certain states. That is what the courts are for: to decide what laws are constitutional!! Referendums are fine to move things but not when it comes to denying people justice and equality. So you are comparing an airport with the right of a couple to get married??? Are you serious??
     
  4. texan

    texan Well-Known Member

    It amazes me that this occurs.
    Guess I am just not smart enough to understand. A referendum is put up. People vote, and Judges rule it wrong
    after the vote? Would they rule that way if it went their way?
    Why did they not rule on the referendum before the vote? Or is the State Attorney General
    useless in his or her advice? Not just California, but this has recently occured in other states. Texas and Oklahoma
    are examples.
     
  5. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    I'm saying, whatever I vote yes for gets switched to no....so what's the point?

    We've been over this road before. I think same sex couples should have every right that I have with my husband.....just don't call it marriage. Call it fusion, or anything else. So go get angry about something else.
     
  6. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    It makes no sense to wonder why the judges waited until after the referendum. Before the referendum, there was nothing to rule on. Only after the referendum could the courts decide that the referendum (whch had the force of law)infringed upon the rights of the homosexual community.
     
    Lasted edited by : Feb 7, 2012
  7. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Why can't "marriage" of all types be left to strictly religious ceremonies and recognition?
     
  8. 804brown

    804brown Well-Known Member

    Equality before the law. Nothing more . Nothing less.
     
  9. The Other Side

    The Other Side Well-Known Troll Troll

    What if by the same margin (51%) a law was passed in California that said that only whites could have a job? Would that be the new law without question? Would that be fair because the majority of people voted to pass it? Would that law be the right thing to do to society at large?

    Of course not, thats why we have courts to interpret laws and not voters.

    Voters DONT interpret laws, judges do.

    Dont look for this going to the supreme court either, they will not take this case. All the talking heads who supported this law will say they will appeal to the US Supreme court, but the high court will reject the case.

    Lets put it another way, hispanics, who are the dominant race in california now, decide to pass a law with 51% preventing white people from owning homes. Because they recieved a 51% majority, should that "new" law be challenged for interpretation by a court? Or should white people just accept the law and either rent or move out of state?

    Get serious folks.

    Peace

    TOS.
     
  10. MrFedEx

    MrFedEx Engorged Member

    Sorry, but to the Right you only get to be equal if you're White, Christian, and Conservative.
     
  11. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Then explain Charles Paine !! Alan West and others. I can't look more up because my cable is down....storm! No Yahoo page
     
  12. MrFedEx

    MrFedEx Engorged Member

    Exceptions to the rule. In general (note the general part), you're less equal in this country if you are of color and/or non-Christian.
     
  13. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    I don't know, I see people and governments bending over backwards to please Muslims........................and Christians get the shaft.
     
  14. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    weird. I'm a Christian and don't feel at all infringed upon. I had more to say on this, but it wreaked of self-serving hubris.
     
  15. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Well I'm Catholic and I see that gov't arm coming through the stained glass window and dictating what we must do.......That gov't arm cannot reach into Church or Temple and order them around.
     
  16. MrFedEx

    MrFedEx Engorged Member

    But it's OK if that same government arm repeals abortion, or supports charter schools, teaching Intelligent Design, or giving churches tax-free status. Oh, and it's OK if that same government arm prevents gay marriage too.
     
  17. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    They don't. But if the Catholic Church WANTS to be in the HEALTH INSURANCE field, then they get to play by the HEALTH INSURANCE rules.
     
  18. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    The gov't has no right to dictate to churches what they must do.......it's going to bite Obama in his narcissistic ass!!
     
  19. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    The government can regulate the INURANCE industry.
     
  20. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Religious Liberty!!