Ca court overrules voters???

smart makes a comeback · #**121** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NAT

Firstly, marriage is indeed lacking from the US Constitution. However, there is that pesky old Establishment Clause, which states that government shall not make laws based solely on religious doctrines. And since 98% of the current opposition to equality of marriage for gays is religious in nature, oh well.

Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one.

Not to mention tha thorn in the side if the right, known as the 14th amendment...GAWD do they hate that !

NAT · #**122** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluedog

Even the "Supreme Court" of the United States issued the opinion that this nation was a "Christian Nation" in the fact that all states at the time continued reference to God and Christianity in their STATE CONSTITUTIONS. -- {Justice John Brewer, US Supreme Court, The Church of the Holy Trinity v. The United States, 1892} And the last time that I looked "We the people"/states are the government OR DO YOU as most liberals, flippantly dismiss the 10th article of our Bill of Rights....so by all means............

Now, since I am not quite so pressed for time. Working man and all that...

"Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)[1], was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding an employment contract between The Church of the Holy Trinity, New York and an English preacher.

Contracts to import labor were forbidden by the U.S. Code, and specifically by "An act to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its territories, and the District of Columbia." The court held that a minister was not a foreign laborer under the statute even though he was a foreigner.....

....This case is cited most often for its determination of how legislative intent can be determined. Justice Antonin Scalia has denounced the Holy Trinity decision as the "prototypical case" in which a judge follow the intent of the legislature rather than the text of the statute, and thus as being in opposition to his judicial philosophy of textualism....."
Holy Trinity Church v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And here is a complete copy of the entirety of that court case findings...
Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. (1892)

Feel free to point out where SCOTUS said anything about your God being in State Constitutions.

The Revisionist Junk History you people spew never fails to amaze me.

bluedog · #**123** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NAT

Now, since I am not quite so pressed for time. Working man and all that...

"Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)[1], was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding an employment contract between The Church of the Holy Trinity, New York and an English preacher.

Contracts to import labor were forbidden by the U.S. Code, and specifically by "An act to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its territories, and the District of Columbia." The court held that a minister was not a foreign laborer under the statute even though he was a foreigner.....

....This case is cited most often for its determination of how legislative intent can be determined. Justice Antonin Scalia has denounced the Holy Trinity decision as the "prototypical case" in which a judge follow the intent of the legislature rather than the text of the statute, and thus as being in opposition to his judicial philosophy of textualism....."
Holy Trinity Church v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And here is a complete copy of the entirety of that court case findings...
Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. (1892)

Feel free to point out where SCOTUS said anything about your God being in State Constitutions.

The Revisionist Junk History you people spew never fails to amaze me.

Do you believe that because it has taken you several days of "browsing" LEFT WING blog nonsense just looking for a little toe hole to insert your foot and hold the secular door open and keep "history actual" from slamming it on your foot, that this "childish" display of materialistic IDEOLOGY will do away with the first 200 years of American History? Does anyone really care what the constitutionally "illegal" modern courts have to say? They have forsaken the "standard" upon which the entire constitution and rule of law of this nation was drafted upon.....THE TRANSCENDING AUTHORITY OF THE CREATOR. It indeed is hard to have any power of judicial review on any constitutional intent when the "original" source from which these words were drafted (Blackstone's theory on law) is totally ignored. Thus, any decision of opinion made by the US Supreme Court is "moot" once this reference source was first ignored as it had 'clearly' established precedence previous, thus the entire system is "flawed" due to the apparent attempt to "evolve" away from the original intent made by the founders of this nation and proven very easily by HISTORY ACTUAL, and tradition of example such as placing the hand upon the bible, or the example of TRUSTING GOD presented on our currency. Nothing that you have presented "disproves" the actual history of this nation and as such YOU ARE STILL A SECULAR LIAR and proven as such. And "feel free" to crack open an actual HISTORY BOOK....one that does not have the address of the American Communist Lawyer Union's seal of approval PASTED upon its cover. BD

Cordelier · #**124** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 03:27 PM

Interesting thread... I do have several questions, though, and forgive me if they've been addressed earlier here (since my time is short, I don't really have time to read every post):

1. Does anyone here truly believe that voters should trump court decisions? If so, isn't that a recipe for tyranny of the majority? I've always figured that one of the fundamental reasons for the rule of law is to safeguard the rights of minorities... how can the courts perform this function if they are subserviant to the majority of voters?

2. If you're willing to give the Government the power to tell you who you can't marry, aren't you also implicitly giving them the power to tell you who you can marry? Is anyone comfortable with Government having that kind of power?

3. As far as the State vs. Religion debate is concerned, if a particular Church is opposed to gay marriage, how can the State compel them to perform gay marriages? Wouldn't that be a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment clause? By the same token, though, why should any Church oppose State recognition of gay civic marriages?

4. If a gay couple is married under the authority of the State of California, then what would be the Constitutional basis for any other State to bar recognition of that marriage? If Utah recogizes the marriage of a straight couple from Wyoming, then how could they Constitutionally deny recognition of the marriage of a gay couple from California?

smart makes a comeback · #**125** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Interesting thread... I do have several questions, though, and forgive me if they've been addressed earlier here (since my time is short, I don't really have time to read every post):

1. Does anyone here truly believe that voters should trump court decisions? If so, isn't that a recipe for tyranny of the majority? I've always figured that one of the fundamental reasons for the rule of law is to safeguard the rights of minorities... how can the courts perform this function if they are subserviant to the majority of voters?

No...and neither does the constitution

2. If you're willing to give the Government the power to tell you who you can't marry, aren't you also implicitly giving them the power to tell you who you can marry? Is anyone comfortable with Government having that kind of power?

The right wingers who CLAIM (lie) they want limited government,prove themselves liars on this issue

3. As far as the State vs. Religion debate is concerned, if a particular Church is opposed to gay marriage, how can the State compel them to perform gay marriages? Wouldn't that be a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment clause? By the same token, though, why should any Church oppose State recognition of gay civic marriages?

Churches do not have to marry anyone they choose not to, but there are civil marrages. It frankly, makes NO DIFFERENCE if churches recognize them or not.

4. If a gay couple is married under the authority of the State of California, then what would be the Constitutional basis for any other State to bar recognition of that marriage? If Utah recogizes the marriage of a straight couple from Wyoming, then how could they Constitutionally deny recognition of the marriage of a gay couple from California?

There is NO basis, the 14th amendment is clear on that, and it trumps the 10 amendment. It will however, be litigated, and the homophobe bigot christo fascists will lose

Cordelier · #**126** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

There is NO basis, the 14th amendment is clear on that, and it trumps the 10 amendment. It will however, be litigated, and the homophobe bigot christo fascists will lose

I don't think there's an inherent conflict between the 10th and 14th Amendments, though... I think the answer is found in the 9th Amendment - people have the right to privacy regarding the circumstances of their marriage. If marriage is a right freely granted to consenting adults, then what Constitutional provision gives the State the right to draw distinctions between straight and gay citizens in exercising that right?

Back Atcha · #**127** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 02:20 AM

Cord, I wish you had more time to post...

Always a pleasure to read your posts

NAT · #**128** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluedog

Do you believe that because it has taken you several days of "browsing" LEFT WING blog nonsense just looking for a little toe hole to insert your foot and hold the secular door open and keep "history actual" from slamming it on your foot, that this "childish" display of materialistic IDEOLOGY will do away with the first 200 years of American History? Does anyone really care what the constitutionally "illegal" modern courts have to say? They have forsaken the "standard" upon which the entire constitution and rule of law of this nation was drafted upon.....THE TRANSCENDING AUTHORITY OF THE CREATOR. It indeed is hard to have any power of judicial review on any constitutional intent when the "original" source from which these words were drafted (Blackstone's theory on law) is totally ignored. Thus, any decision of opinion made by the US Supreme Court is "moot" once this reference source was first ignored as it had 'clearly' established precedence previous, thus the entire system is "flawed" due to the apparent attempt to "evolve" away from the original intent made by the founders of this nation and proven very easily by HISTORY ACTUAL, and tradition of example such as placing the hand upon the bible, or the example of TRUSTING GOD presented on our currency. Nothing that you have presented "disproves" the actual history of this nation and as such YOU ARE STILL A SECULAR LIAR and proven as such. And "feel free" to crack open an actual HISTORY BOOK....one that does not have the address of the American Communist Lawyer Union's seal of approval PASTED upon its cover. BD

No, it didn't "take me several days...". It's called "working mega amounts of overtime to pay the bills".

Your complete lack of credibility shows as well. That's a wiki entry, hardly a "liberal blog". And I provided a link to the original court document as well.

Also, Blackstone was an English Jurist, his book was concerning English Common Law, and not US Law. And Brewer, the son of missionaries who graduated from a parochial college, was quoting an earlier OPINON, that of a local magistrate who found that the defendant could NOT be charged with blashemy in the US, and was instead charged with inciting a riot, fined, and released. And THAT, young man, is from memory. I could, of course, search for the specific court case, if you would like, as I DID ABOVE to provide you with an accurate entry. Of course you could then claim I was taking "several days of browsing liberal blogs" to your heart's content.

I love how you keep quoting the current motto too, the replacement shoved into place in the 1950's, and not our original Founder created one. Do you even have any idea what that original Motto was? I would be more than happy to educate you on that as well, and also our original Pledge of Allegience if you would like.

NAT · #**129** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

I don't think there's an inherent conflict between the 10th and 14th Amendments, though... I think the answer is found in the 9th Amendment - people have the right to privacy regarding the circumstances of their marriage. If marriage is a right freely granted to consenting adults, then what Constitutional provision gives the State the right to draw distinctions between straight and gay citizens in exercising that right?

And excellent point, thank you.