Ca court overrules voters???

My Winter Storm · #**301** (**permalink**) 06-17-2008, 04:55 AM

I support the courts ruling. There is no reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry.
There is no reason why the word 'marriage' cannot be shared amongst heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.
There is no reason to deny same sex couples equal rights as heterosexual, married couples.

Lets face it - if homosexual couples are permitted to marry, nothing will change. Heterosexual marriages will be become less meaningful, nor will they be threatened. Fear of homosexual marriage is nothing short of irrational.

naturemomma · #**302** (**permalink**) 06-17-2008, 07:52 AM

I agree with you, that they should have those rights,,,, The problem is that the court should not be interfering with the votes of citizens. Today it's about gay rights, (which I support btw), but will it be about tomorrow?

Uncensored2008 · #**303** (**permalink**) 06-17-2008, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by My Winter Storm

I support the courts ruling. There is no reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry.

That isn't the point.

If you want homosexual marriage, then have the elected members of the assembly and senate draft a bill and pass it - and get Ahhhhnold to sign it.

Since it overrides a legal referendum passed by the public - there will be significant repercussions - but that is the LEGAL way to achieve your goals.

What the court did is not legal - they dictated law from the bench. Dictatorship is more expedient than liberty - but there is a price.

Towelie · #**304** (**permalink**) 06-21-2008, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

Marriage is a unique institution in that the sacrament of marriage is given by the church but the legal rights and entitlements are given by the state. This makes it so the decision has to be made on the local level; counties give marriage liscences.

Actually, there's a whole slew of federal benefits that come with a marriage contract, too. Which is why marriage isn't entirely a 'state's rights' issue.

Towelie · #**305** (**permalink**) 06-21-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturemomma

I agree with you, that they should have those rights,,,, The problem is that the court should not be interfering with the votes of citizens.

Equal protection can't be put up for a vote. It's guaranteed all Americans. The court's job is to see to it that all Americans have access to the same rights and protections. If they're excluding people based on their sexual orientation, they're not honoring 'equal protection.'

Loa · #**306** (**permalink**) 06-21-2008, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncensored2008

That isn't the point.

If you want homosexual marriage, then have the elected members of the assembly and senate draft a bill and pass it - and get Ahhhhnold to sign it.

Since it overrides a legal referendum passed by the public - there will be significant repercussions - but that is the LEGAL way to achieve your goals.

What the court did is not legal - they dictated law from the bench. Dictatorship is more expedient than liberty - but there is a price.

Following your logic, you guys could potentially get together and demand black people shouldn't be allowed to marry.

You know, should the majority want so.

That's ok.

Right?

smart makes a comeback · #**307** (**permalink**) 06-21-2008, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loa

Following your logic, you guys could potentially get together and demand black people shouldn't be allowed to marry.

You know, should the majority want so.

That's ok.

Right?

Some will just never get it

If the courts did not have the power of judicial review over both legislation and ballot resolution, THAT would be the end of America as we know it, and had it not been done in the past, this would be a very different country today,.,,,and NOT a better one

Hunter55 · #**308** (**permalink**) 07-24-2008, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loa

Following your logic, you guys could potentially get together and demand black people shouldn't be allowed to marry.

You know, should the majority want so.

That's ok.

Right?

That already happened... and surprise, surprise.... California was the first state to have a challenge made to the laws prohibiting interracial laws, and determine that it was wrong. It was only in 1969 when the SCOTUS heard and judged in a similar manner re: Loving V the Commonwealth of Virginia.

At various locations across this nation, laws were enacted that made it illegal for interracial marriages between whites and native Americans, whites and Hispanics, whites and Asiatics, and of course, whites and African Americans.

See any commonality in the entire grouping..... Yeah, seems that Hitler's concerns about a master race were being practiced right here in the 'land of the free' LONG before his Brown Shirt Party was formed.

In South Carolina, there was a law on the books as late as the end of the 1990s forbidding black and white marriages. When it was placed on the ballot to have the law removed (remember, the SCOTUS had declared such laws null and void almost 30 years earlier); almost 40% of the vote wanted the law kept. That quite positively supports the concept of a SCOTUS to oversee legislative actions.

Perhaps some of you should consider what its like to be marginalized because you're different. Should we have laws that forbid the use of the left hand merely because MOST of the population is right handed? The majority of people have dark hair... should there be laws denying equal rights to those who have blonde or red hair?

Uncensored2008 · #**309** (**permalink**) 07-24-2008, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hunter55

That already happened... and surprise, surprise.... California was the first state to have a challenge made to the laws prohibiting interracial laws, and determine that it was wrong. It was only in 1969 when the SCOTUS heard and judged in a similar manner re: Loving V the Commonwealth of Virginia.

So you're saying that homosexuality is a race? An innate genetic reality passed from one generation to another?

I guess one can be honest and rational - or they can be leftists....

Hunter55 · #**310** (**permalink**) 07-24-2008, 04:41 PM

Nope... never said or even suggested that homosexuality is a racial issue. It is however a civil rights issue.

As the bumper sticker reads... "If you oppose gay marriage, don't marry someone who's gay!"