Ca court overrules voters???

bluedog · #**111** (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teak

The state supream court overturned a law that was contrary to the state constitution. They did their job. Now if the people really want to follow up on this they can try to place a measure to ammend the constitution on the Nov ballot. Only this time they should insure it a properly written.

As I said, if the State Court "opined" that marriage was of humanitarian concerns only based upon sexual preference, they indeed overstepped their bounds and defied the US Constitution. And it should be appealed to the next level...not re-written. Thus, it indeed is a Federal concern...not the fact of homosexual marriage, as the people have spoken and declared their intentions in regards to defining marriage and any redefining by means of only "court opinion" is a clear breech of Constitutional Law. As I, have often said, the most danger to our constitution comes from the ones that are "sworn" to uphold its "guaranteed rights".....the arbitrators of such, in the form of the self professed power of judicial review, as they define this power to constitute or change law by their opinion only. The proper cure for this "legal" impasse should come in the form of a state "constitutional" amendment...legalizing homosexual marriage, as no sitting judge has the power to incorporate their will upon the people, by opinion only, there must be a law that is being breeched. The only law being breeched was the "imagined" law that came from the bench, that found homosexual activity to be of humanitarian concern, but the people did not. These judges work for the people, and the people make the laws, and just how one could find a state constitutional breech after many decades of legal precedent coming before that defined marriage...is just beyond all logical reasoning, unless someone has a political agenda to fulfill via way of the bench instead of the mandated will of the people. BD

Teak · #**112** (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluedog

As I said, if the State Court "opined" that marriage was of humanitarian concerns only based upon sexual preference, they indeed overstepped their bounds and defied the US Constitution. And it should be appealed to the next level...not re-written. Thus, it indeed is a Federal concern...not the fact of homosexual marriage, as the people have spoken and declared their intentions in regards to defining marriage and any redefining by means of only "court opinion" is a clear breech of Constitutional Law. As I, have often said, the most danger to our constitution comes from the ones that are "sworn" to uphold its "guaranteed rights".....the arbitrators of such, in the form of the self professed power of judicial review, as they define this power to constitute or change law by their opinion only. The proper cure for this "legal" impasse should come in the form of a state "constitutional" amendment...legalizing homosexual marriage, as no sitting judge has the power to incorporate their will upon the people, by opinion only, there must be a law that is being breeched. The only law being breeched was the "imagined" law that came from the bench, that found homosexual activity to be of humanitarian concern, but the people did not. These judges work for the people, and the people make the laws, and just how one could find a state constitutional breech after many decades of legal precedent coming before that defined marriage...is just beyond all logical reasoning, unless someone has a political agenda to fulfill via way of the bench instead of the mandated will of the people. BD

Well, if thats your opinion, move to California, rent a place (so you well have standing) and file your appeal. Who knows you might get a hearing, in three or four years.

In the meantime, baring a stay by the California Supreme Court, marriage licenses will be available to same sex couples in about 90 days. BTW, California does not have a residency requirement to get married in the state.

Los Angeles County gearing up for same-sex marriage licenses - Los Angeles Times

bluedog · #**113** (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teak

Well, if thats your opinion, move to California, rent a place (so you well have standing) and file your appeal. Who knows you might get a hearing, in three or four years.

In the meantime, baring a stay by the California Supreme Court, marriage licenses will be available to same sex couples in about 90 days. BTW, California does not have a residency requirement to get married in the state.

Los Angeles County gearing up for same-sex marriage licenses - Los Angeles Times

That indeed is up to the people of that state...if indeed they simply want to be walked upon by a system of mandated socialism, that is their concern...if it does not reach the federal courts. But the concern will become 'national' concern soon enough as some joker is sure to move and request that another state recognize the status of his/her Ca. marriage, then it indeed will be my concern as once again the courts will attempt to manipulate the system and make law for the entire nation based solely on the opinion of some very liberally minded judges. Just as was done with Roe. V. Wade. And why the hell not, if you have a good horse ride it to death. As they have found a way to circumvent the will of "we the people". That is my concern...nothing more. As indeed there is nothing defining a "representative republic" if any set of judges are allowed to mandate social concerns from the bench. Why even go through the farce of having any legislative branch at all? As we have become nothing but a nation serving at the will of a "dictatorial judicial hierarchy", bought and paid for by the highest bider. BD

Teak · #**114** (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluedog

That indeed is up to the people of that state...if indeed they simply want to be walked upon by a system of mandated socialism, that is their concern...if it does not reach the federal courts. But the concern will become 'national' concern soon enough as some joker is sure to move and request that another state recognize the status of his/her Ca. marriage, then it indeed will be my concern as once again the court will attempt to manipulate the system and make law for the entire nation based solely on the opinion of some very liberally minded judges. Just as was done with Roe. V. Wade. And why the hell not, if you have a good horse ride it to death. As they have found a way to circumvent the will of "we the people". That is my concern...nothing more. BD

From what I understand there is already a case involving a Mass. same sex couple who moved and are now trying to get a divorce. The new state won't grant it, because they don't consider the couple married, and Mass. can't grant divorces to residents of another state.

So worrying about the Calif. issue is pretty much a moot point. Mass has already caused the problem you are worried about.

bluedog · #**115** (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teak

From what I understand there is already a case involving a Mass. same sex couple who moved and are now trying to get a divorce. The new state won't grant it, because they don't consider the couple married, and Mass. can't grant divorces to residents of another state.

So worrying about the Calif. issue is pretty much a moot point. Mass has already caused the problem you are worried about.

And indeed this where Ca. obtained the idea, as the state of Mass. performed the exact same legal trick as did Ca. Same sex marriage was allowed not by law but opinion of the state Supreme Court. Its like a house of cards, if no one challenges these self professed little dictators, we deserve nothing better. Yes I have called Mass. the great "broke back state" for quite a while. If one would look at their original state constitution, it would be hard to conclude that these are the descendants of the same people, as this state has fallen victim to the tax payer based "social dollar" with the "blue bloods" holding the purse strings at arms length to keep the masses at bay. BD

Teak · #**116** (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluedog

And indeed this where Ca. obtained the idea, as the state of Mass. performed the exact same legal trick as did Ca. Same sex marriage was allowed not by law but opinion of the state Supreme Court. Its like a house of cards, if no one challenges these self professed little dictators, we deserve nothing better. Yes I have called Mass. the great "broke back state" for quite a while. If one would look at their original state constitution, it would be hard to conclude that these are the descendants of the same people, as this state has fallen victim to the tax payer based "social dollar" with the "blue bloods" holding the purse strings at arms length to keep the masses at bay. BD

Calif. and Mass. are but the first. These restrictive marriage laws are starting to go the way of the mixed marriage laws. You're not going to be able to stop them, as they are just as unconstitutional as slavery, separate but equal, and the sodomy laws, and as foolish as the laws forbidding dancing, or opening a store on Sunday. All of which have been overturned, for good reasons.

smart makes a comeback · #**117** (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 10:04 PM

Always amused when the party of states rights and Government non intervention show what duplicidous liars they are

They (the right) clearly stand for neither

By the the way, brace yourself for the 14th amendment arguement, that ALL states muct recognize marrages in other states...even this SCOTUS will have no choice but to rule in it's favor

The Constitution, and the good guys,,,win again

Weeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

NAT · #**118** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluedog

You can personally "label" your ideology any way you want, your actions speak for themselves. If you are self delusional and believe that because you profess to being anything but liberal, your professed ideology molds perfectly with a very liberal materialistic life view and proves you wrong. The only thing that I am interested in is deflecting the "proven" lies that you have presented as pertaining to this nation's actual history. You are free to believe and act as you will, but you are not free to mold truth into a fashion that best suits your ideology, as there is only "one" truth and its exactly the same for you and "I". I simply called you on the fact of "parroting" the BIG LIBERAL LIE, that only came into existence at the turn of the twentieth century, as propagated by the same followers of the Darwinian cult and materialism, that have from that time forward attempted to remove all forms of religion from public life. BD

Bla bla bla. You fundies love judging other people while ignoring the skeletons in your own closets. How about cleaning out the bones before looking elsewhere.

And how about taking a basic American History 101 Class, sparky.
I know the truth of the matter, I know the lies you biblethumping theocracy wannabe's have shoved into history, and I laugh at you people as you whine and cry in your milk as this Nation returns to it's original roots.

E Pluribus Unum, baby.

NAT · #**119** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAIDER56

I have an idea,lets find a nice tropical island and invite all homosexuals to move there.then we can see how long it takes for them to die off..When that happens tell me again it is normal.

I've a better idea actually.
Let's take all the biblethumpin' fundies and put them on that island.
Then the rational human beings can get on with life.

NAT · #**120** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluedog

.........The constitution did not concern itself with marriage...why should the Federal Court system? What, are the States not capable of defining the will of its citizens in the form of elections? Or must "Big Brother" Government step in tell us exactly what we want? BD

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.