|
On March 03 2013 16:16 Aveng3r wrote:
so after reading the discussion in this thread, I cant help but ask this question: who is ever hurt by gay marriage? honestly. present to me a reasonable argument over someone sustaining actual harm as a result of gay marriage. I bet that it cant be done.
Obama and his army of homosexual immigrant FEMA agents will come to your house, make you to eat contraception pills, take your banana bacon ice cream, force you into a gay marriage and then two dudes will have sex on your couch.
|
On March 03 2013 16:16 Aveng3r wrote:
so after reading the discussion in this thread, I cant help but ask this question: who is ever hurt by gay marriage? honestly. present to me a reasonable argument over someone sustaining actual harm as a result of gay marriage. I bet that it cant be done.
It's undeniable there are conservatives out there who know their husbands or wives are gay but are scared that normalizing it would lead them "astray", leaving them widowed or for the non-married ones, leaving them with very few options. I think this explains most of the panic we see when sexuality is open for liberation, and at times I think even those who are lying to themselves want their community to keep them shackled because of their self-hate.
|
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts...
|
On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts...
Not when those votes violate a fundamental right.
|
On March 05 2013 06:08 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 16:16 Aveng3r wrote:
so after reading the discussion in this thread, I cant help but ask this question: who is ever hurt by gay marriage? honestly. present to me a reasonable argument over someone sustaining actual harm as a result of gay marriage. I bet that it cant be done. It's undeniable there are conservatives out there who know their husbands or wives are gay but are scared that normalizing it would lead them "astray", leaving them widowed or for the non-married ones, leaving them with very few options. I think this explains most of the panic we see when sexuality is open for liberation, and at times I think even those who are lying to themselves want their community to keep them shackled because of their self-hate.
You gave me quite the chuckle, there. I won't pretend that the idea isn't possible. It's probably "a thing." But, that it "explains most of the panic;" you are one crazy dude.
|
On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts...
It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter.
We need to protect minorities from majorities
States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying.
|
On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter. We need to protect minorities from majorities States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying.
you realize that what is happening here is that the majority (federal gov't) is telling the minority (state gov't) what to do. prop 8 was a constitutional amendment. california's constitution says there is no such thing as (nor a fundamental right to) gay marriage. the only way that constitutional amendment can be overturned is if the federal government says that its constitution is more important than the state's constitution. originally, obama agreed that state's rights should prevail--then he flip-flopped and is now asking the federal gov't to shit on state's rights. whether you agree with gay marriage or not, at least realize the implications of what is happening here. please think about what you're saying.
|
On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter.We need to protect minorities from majorities
States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying.
which is funny because that action would, in itself, be a violation of the federal constitution.
where in the constitution does it guarantee the right to gay marriage?
|
On March 05 2013 07:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter.We need to protect minorities from majorities
States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying. which is funny because that action would, in itself, be a violation of the federal constitution. where in the constitution does it guarantee the right to gay marriage?
Which action?
|
I don't think Obama backs anything. I think he just want to appeal to bleeding heart liberals so they get tricked again. Obama hasn't done a dam thing to make this country better and I doubt he ever will.
|
On March 05 2013 07:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter.We need to protect minorities from majorities
States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying. which is funny because that action would, in itself, be a violation of the federal constitution. where in the constitution does it guarantee the right to gay marriage?
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Same reasoning would apply here. But it's going to be up to the Supreme court to decide.
|
Great, our world is going in the right direction.
|
On March 05 2013 07:06 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 07:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter.We need to protect minorities from majorities
States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying. which is funny because that action would, in itself, be a violation of the federal constitution. where in the constitution does it guarantee the right to gay marriage? Which action?
well, for one, there is no real allowance in the Constitution for the courts to decide on this matter, but more importantly:
Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
of course, this is a very originalist argument, so I don't expect many people here to take it well, but whatever.
|
On March 05 2013 07:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 07:06 Roe wrote:On March 05 2013 07:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter.We need to protect minorities from majorities
States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying. which is funny because that action would, in itself, be a violation of the federal constitution. where in the constitution does it guarantee the right to gay marriage? Which action? well, for one, there is no real allowance in the Constitution for the courts to decide on this matter, but more importantly: Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." of course, this is a very originalist argument, so I don't expect many people here to take it well, but whatever.
Courts have gained more power over time, I'm talking about the courts current function in our government not their original function. It's really hard to argue against me on this considering they have been acting as I stated throughout the 20th century.
Also,
14th amendment
And the
Full Faith and Credit Clause
And yes I know how the courts ruled in relation to Full Faith and Credit in relation to same sex marriage, but I fully expect them to change their ruling in relation to this within the next decade or two, times have changed.
|
On March 05 2013 06:47 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter. We need to protect minorities from majorities States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying. you realize that what is happening here is that the majority (federal gov't) is telling the minority (state gov't) what to do. prop 8 was a constitutional amendment. california's constitution says there is no such thing as (nor a fundamental right to) gay marriage. the only way that constitutional amendment can be overturned is if the federal government says that its constitution is more important than the state's constitution. originally, obama agreed that state's rights should prevail--then he flip-flopped and is now asking the federal gov't to shit on state's rights. whether you agree with gay marriage or not, at least realize the implications of what is happening here. please think about what you're saying.
I've re-thought about what I'm saying, and I can see where your going with your argument, but I don't buy it sorry.
|
On March 05 2013 06:47 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter. We need to protect minorities from majorities States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying. you realize that what is happening here is that the majority (federal gov't) is telling the minority (state gov't) what to do. prop 8 was a constitutional amendment. california's constitution says there is no such thing as (nor a fundamental right to) gay marriage. the only way that constitutional amendment can be overturned is if the federal government says that its constitution is more important than the state's constitution. originally, obama agreed that state's rights should prevail--then he flip-flopped and is now asking the federal gov't to shit on state's rights. whether you agree with gay marriage or not, at least realize the implications of what is happening here. please think about what you're saying.
The U.S. Constitution is more important that any state constitution and it always has been. There is no precedent in the discussion of states' rights that's being set with this. Just because the California state constitution doesn't adequately protect minority rights, it doesn't mean we should let Californians oppress minorities and deny them rights.
|
On March 05 2013 10:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 06:47 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter. We need to protect minorities from majorities States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying. you realize that what is happening here is that the majority (federal gov't) is telling the minority (state gov't) what to do. prop 8 was a constitutional amendment. california's constitution says there is no such thing as (nor a fundamental right to) gay marriage. the only way that constitutional amendment can be overturned is if the federal government says that its constitution is more important than the state's constitution. originally, obama agreed that state's rights should prevail--then he flip-flopped and is now asking the federal gov't to shit on state's rights. whether you agree with gay marriage or not, at least realize the implications of what is happening here. please think about what you're saying. The U.S. Constitution is more important that any state constitution and it always has been. There is no precedent in the discussion of states' rights that's being set with this. Just because the California state constitution doesn't adequately protect minority rights, it doesn't mean we should let Californians oppress minorities and deny them rights.
if you don't think this impacts or sets precedent for state's rights, you don't understand the issues.
|
Hell, its about damn time.
Seriously.
|
On March 05 2013 10:46 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 10:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 05 2013 06:47 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter. We need to protect minorities from majorities States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying. you realize that what is happening here is that the majority (federal gov't) is telling the minority (state gov't) what to do. prop 8 was a constitutional amendment. california's constitution says there is no such thing as (nor a fundamental right to) gay marriage. the only way that constitutional amendment can be overturned is if the federal government says that its constitution is more important than the state's constitution. originally, obama agreed that state's rights should prevail--then he flip-flopped and is now asking the federal gov't to shit on state's rights. whether you agree with gay marriage or not, at least realize the implications of what is happening here. please think about what you're saying. The U.S. Constitution is more important that any state constitution and it always has been. There is no precedent in the discussion of states' rights that's being set with this. Just because the California state constitution doesn't adequately protect minority rights, it doesn't mean we should let Californians oppress minorities and deny them rights. if you don't think this impacts or sets precedent for state's rights, you don't understand the issues.
Whatever the court's decision, it will be based on the idea that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that State Constitutions are only valid if they are consistent with the US Constitution. The SCOTUS will either find that California's constitution is consistent with the US Constitution or that it is not.
On the specific issue of marriage, it will set a precedent. "states rights"? not as much
|
On March 05 2013 10:54 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 10:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 05 2013 10:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 05 2013 06:47 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter. We need to protect minorities from majorities States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying. you realize that what is happening here is that the majority (federal gov't) is telling the minority (state gov't) what to do. prop 8 was a constitutional amendment. california's constitution says there is no such thing as (nor a fundamental right to) gay marriage. the only way that constitutional amendment can be overturned is if the federal government says that its constitution is more important than the state's constitution. originally, obama agreed that state's rights should prevail--then he flip-flopped and is now asking the federal gov't to shit on state's rights. whether you agree with gay marriage or not, at least realize the implications of what is happening here. please think about what you're saying. The U.S. Constitution is more important that any state constitution and it always has been. There is no precedent in the discussion of states' rights that's being set with this. Just because the California state constitution doesn't adequately protect minority rights, it doesn't mean we should let Californians oppress minorities and deny them rights. if you don't think this impacts or sets precedent for state's rights, you don't understand the issues. Whatever the court's decision, it will be based on the idea that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that State Constitutions are only valid if they are consistent with the US Constitution. The SCOTUS will either find that California's constitution is consistent with the US Constitution or that it is not. On the specific issue of marriage, it will set a precedent. "states rights"? not as much
federal constitution vs state constitution is a state's rights issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
