Ca court overrules voters???

Teak · #31 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BO Nafide

Here's the thing, if its not in the constitution, it's a state rights issue. The state and its' citizens get to decide how to handle that isssue. Marrage, for anyone isn't a constitutional right.

I know your a smart man TEAK, I think you can see the difference between stopping two people from seeking happiness (constitutional right) and stopping them from getting married. (privilage granted by statute)

What I see are a bunch of religious nazis dictating that different people have different rights in this country. That concept has beendefeated every time. It just takes a while for people to realize, and admit, they have been wrong.

You are the one who brought up the fact the constitution does not say gays have a right to marry. Now if you are so bent upon restricting people rights, change the constitution, either state or federal. Otherwise Calif. has joined Mass. in allowing same sex marriages, and I'll bet they won't be the last.

Carson · #32 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teak

What I see are a bunch of religious nazis dictating that different people have different rights in this country. That concept has beendefeated every time. It just takes a while for people to realize, and admit, they have been wrong.

You are the one who brought up the fact the constitution does not say gays have a right to marry. Now if you are so bent upon restricting people rights, change the constitution, either state or federal. Otherwise Calif. has joined Mass. in allowing same sex marriages, and I'll bet they won't be the last.

Where in the constitution does it state that an election can be overturned and go against the voters for little or no reason, I must have missed that part.

BO Nafide · #33 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teak

What I see are a bunch of religious nazis dictating that different people have different rights in this country. That concept has beendefeated every time. It just takes a while for people to realize, and admit, they have been wrong.

You know what, if I think about it real hard I could careless wether gays get married or not.

What I do care about is the government social engineering.

You are the one who brought up the fact the constitution does not say gays have a right to marry. Now if you are so bent upon restricting people rights, change the constitution, either state or federal. Otherwise Calif. has joined Mass. in allowing same sex marriages, and I'll bet they won't be the last.

California HAS NOT joined Massachussetts. They Voted NOT TO allow gay marriage. The people of Mass. Voted to allow gay marriage.

Teak · #34 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carson

Where in the constitution does it state that an election can be overturned and go against the voters for little or no reason, I must have missed that part.

Gee Carson, for someone who hates laws as much as you do I would have thought you would be well versed on tossing out those that are unconstitutional. Guess I was wrong. You better go back to the prison library and study up on "Judicial Review".

Teak · #35 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BO Nafide

California HAS NOT joined Massachussetts. They Voted NOT TO allow gay marriage. The people of Mass. Voted to allow gay marriage.

Well, they are going to have to do it again, if they can get a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Because what they voted for has been ruled unconstitutional, just like the laws that prohibited interracial marriages.

BTW, lacking a court ordered stay, in 90 days Calif. will join Mass.

Carson · #36 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teak

Gee Carson, for someone who hates laws as much as you do I would have thought you would be well versed on tossing out those that are unconstitutional. Guess I was wrong. You better go back to the prison library and study up on "Judicial Review".

I don't hate laws, I hate unjust laws. So you can't pull up that part of the constitution? Didn't think so. Why? Because it doesn't exist. Just admit it, our constitution is no longer worth the paper it's written on and this incident highlights that. BTW if you just wanna lower the conversation to an insult contest I can do that. That prison library shit the best ya got? Thats pathetic just like you.

Teak · #37 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carson

I don't hate laws, I hate unjust laws. So you can't pull up that part of the constitution? Didn't think so. Why? Because it doesn't exist. Just admit it, our constitution is no longer worth the paper it's written on and this incident highlights that. BTW if you just wanna lower the conversation to an insult contest I can do that. That prison library shit the best ya got? Thats pathetic just like you.

So you don't find laws restricting the rights of a law abiding segment of society to be unjust. Gee, I'm almost surprised.

wow · #38 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teak

So you don't find laws restricting the rights of a law abiding segment of society to be unjust. Gee, I'm almost surprised.

I would like a law that states all beautiful, blonde haired women that are taller than 5'7" be ordered to be my sex slave for life.

The people made their decision. What part of that do you not understand?

BO Nafide · #39 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teak

Well, they are going to have to do it again, if they can get a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Because what they voted for has been ruled unconstitutional.

And after they do that will the courts rule that the new rule is unconstitutional?

Really, I mean If its in the the constitution than its there for a reason. I'm good with that. But if it isn't, it isn't, and the people should be able to set the standards for their community. The California constitution says "gay people can get married." I haven't read it but I bet It doesn,t.