|
On November 06 2008 05:10 poingy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 04:43 travis wrote:On November 06 2008 04:35 gchan wrote:On November 05 2008 20:19 D10 wrote:
d_so, there is nothing bad into giving gays the right to marriage, your church doesnt need to marry them, but let the guys marry for god sake, enough with division already.
Actually, the church would need to marry them if a gay couple went into church asking to be married. If the church refused them on the grounds of religion, they would lose their non-profit status (which is huge). wtf are you talking about are you just making stuff up? I am pretty sure you are. what you are saying doesn't even make any sense. I don't believe he's making stuff up; he's just repeating stuff that someone else made up already. I think the notion that churches would not have the right to refuse same sex couples stems from the yes on prop 8 campaign. In reality, a church is even capable of refusing to marry heterosexual couples if they aren't of the church's faith. I think the California Supreme Court ruling had even brushed upon the topic of religion by stating that religious officials wouldn't be forced to marry same sex couples. Whether for or against prop 8, I think a lot of people get the wrong idea of what it is or isn't. I don't even live in California, and I can bet there are people who voted on the proposition that are even less informed than I am.
That's not the way it is now, but people who supported Prop. 8 pushed the idea (which I think is misleading) that unless Prop. 8 passed, homosexuality would become so mainstream that if churches refused to marry homosexuals they would lose their non-profit status, just as if a church refused to marry and black and white couple because they didn't support biracial marriages would lose their non-profit status. I think it's a little misleading, but I can see where they're coming from.
|
so they banned it huh...
just a question r civil unions still allowed? and also if it is does it provide the same benefit a marriage does?
cus if it does.. then wat's the problem w/ getting civil union?
i mean if it doesn't i can see why the states can be sued for not giving ppl equal treatment
|
On November 06 2008 05:57 Blind wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 05:32 poingy wrote:On November 06 2008 05:10 SpiralArchitect wrote:All citizens of America deserve the right to express their love, gay, straight or otherwise. I think a more suitable solution would be to completely abolish state recognition of "marriage" and call it domestic partnership regardless of whether it's heterosexual or homosexual. Leave the word marriage for the conservative and religious to do whatever they want with it. Defining them all as domestic partnerships by law regardless of sexual orientation would guarantee equality from the state, and churches could maintain the "sanctity" of marriage. This.
Yeah, me and my Mormon ex-girlfriend (don't judge me) had a discussion about this. The biggest issue here for most religious people is not the rights that come with being a couple, but rather the term marriage, which is why this would be a great solution for both sides. People would get a civil union from the state and then get married at whichever church they chose (if at all), whether it be a gay, Protestant, Catholic, etc. church. I think this is ultimately unrealistic though, because the term marriage has become so mainstream.
|
United States20666 Posts
our county smashed it like 66-33
i abstained, i think.
|
^What happened to your FAIL!^
52 to 48 now we sue saying you cant overturn the California supreme count decision with such a small margin!
|
On November 06 2008 06:01 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
What was her reasoning behind voting for it? Not religious she said she voted for it because somehow "the schools" would have to explain to kids about gay marriage. I knew she was lying (a very devote christian thing to do btw). She's a preschool teacher. I'm not sure on how California schools work now a days, but I doubt teaching preschool kids about sexuality will ever be a problem for her or any other preschool teachers.
This probably isn't a case of your aunt lying to you. Again, it's probably a case of another voter misled by a campaign.
The original wording of the petition had used the argument that schools would be required to teach that same-sex marriage is the same as opposite-sex, but the court ruled that this was incorrect and said they could only use the argument if they reword it to say schools could require teachers to teach that same-sex marriage is the same as opposite-sex marriage.
It's pretty natural that the campaign took that and ran with it. It's no surprise that your aunt might think schools would have to explain same-sex marriage to kids.
On November 06 2008 06:21 IzzyCraft wrote:
52 to 48 now we sue saying you cant overturn the California supreme count decision with such a small margin!
I don't think this is a matter of "overturning" a supreme court decision. It's more like... the supreme court decided that within the context of the current constitution it's illegal to not recognize same-sex marriage.... and then the people decided to amend the constitution to make it legal.
I'm not too familiar with law, but I think another amendment to the state constitution or something of the federal level would be required to overturn this new amendment?
|
there is no "perfect" system of government because humans are imperfect themselves. they can only be guided and communicated to. an increasing amount are becoming willing to listen
|
On November 06 2008 06:41 poingy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 06:21 IzzyCraft wrote:
52 to 48 now we sue saying you cant overturn the California supreme count decision with such a small margin! I don't think this is a matter of "overturning" a supreme court decision. It's more like... the supreme court decided that within the context of the current constitution it's illegal to not recognize same-sex marriage.... and then the people decided to amend the constitution to make it legal. I'm not too familiar with law, but I think another amendment to the state constitution or something of the federal level would be required to overturn this new amendment?
Yeah but overturning a decision is only allowed in the courts. Only way i know of overturning a case in court circuit is to have a case that decision conflicts with the other case decision.
"An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to the
Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the
proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution and is certified to
have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent in the
case of a statute, and 8 percent in the case of an amendment to the
Constitution, of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the
last gubernatorial election." =O
|
On November 06 2008 07:06 IzzyCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 06:41 poingy wrote:On November 06 2008 06:21 IzzyCraft wrote:
52 to 48 now we sue saying you cant overturn the California supreme count decision with such a small margin! I don't think this is a matter of "overturning" a supreme court decision. It's more like... the supreme court decided that within the context of the current constitution it's illegal to not recognize same-sex marriage.... and then the people decided to amend the constitution to make it legal. I'm not too familiar with law, but I think another amendment to the state constitution or something of the federal level would be required to overturn this new amendment? Yeah but overturning a decision is only allowed in the courts. Only way i know of overturning a case in court circuit is to have a case that decision conflicts with the other case decision. "An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to the Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution and is certified to have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent in the case of a statute, and 8 percent in the case of an amendment to the Constitution, of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election." =O
My point was that they weren't technically overturning the court decision. The court's decision stands based on the interpretation of the state constitution prior to the passing of the new amendment. Now that the new amendment has passed, the old interpretation no longer works because it's now explicitly denied in the constitution.
Not sure what the point of the quote you pasted was. The petition for amendment to the constitution for prop 8 did get the number of signatures necessary based on the number of votes in the last gubernatorial election, so the citizens of california were capable of voting to amend the constitution to make the court's ruling irrelevant.
Rather than saying it was overturned, I think it's more appropriate to say that the court's decision is now outdated as the constitution has changed since they last interpreted it in this matter.
|
wtf cali always passes the most hippie shit and yet when it actually matters we fail.
|
On November 06 2008 04:35 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2008 20:19 D10 wrote:
d_so, there is nothing bad into giving gays the right to marriage, your church doesnt need to marry them, but let the guys marry for god sake, enough with division already.
Actually, the church would need to marry them if a gay couple went into church asking to be married. If the church refused them on the grounds of religion, they would lose their non-profit status (which is huge).
Well, why not change that legislation then ?
|
On November 06 2008 07:16 poingy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 07:06 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 06 2008 06:41 poingy wrote:On November 06 2008 06:21 IzzyCraft wrote:
52 to 48 now we sue saying you cant overturn the California supreme count decision with such a small margin! I don't think this is a matter of "overturning" a supreme court decision. It's more like... the supreme court decided that within the context of the current constitution it's illegal to not recognize same-sex marriage.... and then the people decided to amend the constitution to make it legal. I'm not too familiar with law, but I think another amendment to the state constitution or something of the federal level would be required to overturn this new amendment? Yeah but overturning a decision is only allowed in the courts. Only way i know of overturning a case in court circuit is to have a case that decision conflicts with the other case decision. "An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to the Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution and is certified to have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent in the case of a statute, and 8 percent in the case of an amendment to the Constitution, of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election." =O My point was that they weren't technically overturning the court decision. The court's decision stands based on the interpretation of the state constitution prior to the passing of the new amendment. Now that the new amendment has passed, the old interpretation no longer works because it's now explicitly denied in the constitution. Not sure what the point of the quote you pasted was. The petition for amendment to the constitution for prop 8 did get the number of signatures necessary based on the number of votes in the last gubernatorial election, so the citizens of california were capable of voting to amend the constitution to make the court's ruling irrelevant. Rather than saying it was overturned, I think it's more appropriate to say that the court's decision is now outdated as the constitution has changed since they last interpreted it in this matter.
Actually now the constitution conflicts with the supreme count. What's gonna matter is what was first the court or the ballot.
|
On November 06 2008 05:41 Kennigit wrote:Many christians support gay marriage. Lame excuse.
Maybe he just straight up hate homosexuals? Apparently a lot of people do, the results showed it. I personally don't care if they get married or not, but serious question to some people on here, Do you guys really care that homosexuals can't get married? Like deeply care, just wondering.
|
On November 06 2008 07:21 mahnini wrote:
wtf cali always passes the most hippie shit and yet when it actually matters we fail.
Yeah I laughed when Prop. 2 passed and Prop. 8 failed. California is a freaking contradiction.
|
On November 06 2008 08:05 MetalMarine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 05:41 Kennigit wrote:On November 06 2008 05:22 MYM.Testie wrote:
jkilla is religious. Many christians support gay marriage. Lame excuse. Maybe he just straight up hate homosexuals? Apparently a lot of people do, the results showed it. I personally don't care if they get married or not, but serious question to some people on here, Do you guys really care that homosexuals can't get married? Like deeply care, just wondering.
I don't deeply care about anything we'd discuss here
so no I guess
|
On November 06 2008 07:49 IzzyCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 07:16 poingy wrote:On November 06 2008 07:06 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 06 2008 06:41 poingy wrote:On November 06 2008 06:21 IzzyCraft wrote:
52 to 48 now we sue saying you cant overturn the California supreme count decision with such a small margin! I don't think this is a matter of "overturning" a supreme court decision. It's more like... the supreme court decided that within the context of the current constitution it's illegal to not recognize same-sex marriage.... and then the people decided to amend the constitution to make it legal. I'm not too familiar with law, but I think another amendment to the state constitution or something of the federal level would be required to overturn this new amendment? Yeah but overturning a decision is only allowed in the courts. Only way i know of overturning a case in court circuit is to have a case that decision conflicts with the other case decision. "An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to the Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution and is certified to have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent in the case of a statute, and 8 percent in the case of an amendment to the Constitution, of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election." =O My point was that they weren't technically overturning the court decision. The court's decision stands based on the interpretation of the state constitution prior to the passing of the new amendment. Now that the new amendment has passed, the old interpretation no longer works because it's now explicitly denied in the constitution. Not sure what the point of the quote you pasted was. The petition for amendment to the constitution for prop 8 did get the number of signatures necessary based on the number of votes in the last gubernatorial election, so the citizens of california were capable of voting to amend the constitution to make the court's ruling irrelevant. Rather than saying it was overturned, I think it's more appropriate to say that the court's decision is now outdated as the constitution has changed since they last interpreted it in this matter. Actually now the constitution conflicts with the supreme count. What's gonna matter is what was first the court or the ballot.
It's the court's duty to interpret the law, not create it. Now the that constitution clearly states that gay marriages are not recognized, I don't believe the california state supreme court can do anything about it.
I'm pretty sure it would take a new amendment or something on the federal level to undo what was passed just now, and any type of federal recognition of same-sex marriage doesn't seem very likely any time soon.
|
On November 06 2008 09:01 poingy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 07:49 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 06 2008 07:16 poingy wrote:On November 06 2008 07:06 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 06 2008 06:41 poingy wrote:On November 06 2008 06:21 IzzyCraft wrote:
52 to 48 now we sue saying you cant overturn the California supreme count decision with such a small margin! I don't think this is a matter of "overturning" a supreme court decision. It's more like... the supreme court decided that within the context of the current constitution it's illegal to not recognize same-sex marriage.... and then the people decided to amend the constitution to make it legal. I'm not too familiar with law, but I think another amendment to the state constitution or something of the federal level would be required to overturn this new amendment? Yeah but overturning a decision is only allowed in the courts. Only way i know of overturning a case in court circuit is to have a case that decision conflicts with the other case decision. "An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to the Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution and is certified to have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent in the case of a statute, and 8 percent in the case of an amendment to the Constitution, of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election." =O My point was that they weren't technically overturning the court decision. The court's decision stands based on the interpretation of the state constitution prior to the passing of the new amendment. Now that the new amendment has passed, the old interpretation no longer works because it's now explicitly denied in the constitution. Not sure what the point of the quote you pasted was. The petition for amendment to the constitution for prop 8 did get the number of signatures necessary based on the number of votes in the last gubernatorial election, so the citizens of california were capable of voting to amend the constitution to make the court's ruling irrelevant. Rather than saying it was overturned, I think it's more appropriate to say that the court's decision is now outdated as the constitution has changed since they last interpreted it in this matter. Actually now the constitution conflicts with the supreme count. What's gonna matter is what was first the court or the ballot. It's the court's duty to interpret the law, not create it. Now the that constitution clearly states that gay marriages are not recognized, I don't believe the california state supreme court can do anything about it. I'm pretty sure it would take a new amendment or something on the federal level to undo what was passed just now, and any type of federal recognition of same-sex marriage doesn't seem very likely any time soon.
Yep...got it all right.
|
On November 06 2008 09:02 Centric wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 09:01 poingy wrote:On November 06 2008 07:49 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 06 2008 07:16 poingy wrote:On November 06 2008 07:06 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 06 2008 06:41 poingy wrote:On November 06 2008 06:21 IzzyCraft wrote:
52 to 48 now we sue saying you cant overturn the California supreme count decision with such a small margin! I don't think this is a matter of "overturning" a supreme court decision. It's more like... the supreme court decided that within the context of the current constitution it's illegal to not recognize same-sex marriage.... and then the people decided to amend the constitution to make it legal. I'm not too familiar with law, but I think another amendment to the state constitution or something of the federal level would be required to overturn this new amendment? Yeah but overturning a decision is only allowed in the courts. Only way i know of overturning a case in court circuit is to have a case that decision conflicts with the other case decision. "An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to the Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution and is certified to have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent in the case of a statute, and 8 percent in the case of an amendment to the Constitution, of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election." =O My point was that they weren't technically overturning the court decision. The court's decision stands based on the interpretation of the state constitution prior to the passing of the new amendment. Now that the new amendment has passed, the old interpretation no longer works because it's now explicitly denied in the constitution. Not sure what the point of the quote you pasted was. The petition for amendment to the constitution for prop 8 did get the number of signatures necessary based on the number of votes in the last gubernatorial election, so the citizens of california were capable of voting to amend the constitution to make the court's ruling irrelevant. Rather than saying it was overturned, I think it's more appropriate to say that the court's decision is now outdated as the constitution has changed since they last interpreted it in this matter. Actually now the constitution conflicts with the supreme count. What's gonna matter is what was first the court or the ballot. It's the court's duty to interpret the law, not create it. Now the that constitution clearly states that gay marriages are not recognized, I don't believe the california state supreme court can do anything about it. I'm pretty sure it would take a new amendment or something on the federal level to undo what was passed just now, and any type of federal recognition of same-sex marriage doesn't seem very likely any time soon. Yep...got it all right.
Because they can interpret law they can interpret that part of the constitution wrong =p. It's called Constitutional review.
|
On November 06 2008 09:11 IzzyCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 09:02 Centric wrote:On November 06 2008 09:01 poingy wrote:On November 06 2008 07:49 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 06 2008 07:16 poingy wrote:On November 06 2008 07:06 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 06 2008 06:41 poingy wrote:On November 06 2008 06:21 IzzyCraft wrote:
52 to 48 now we sue saying you cant overturn the California supreme count decision with such a small margin! I don't think this is a matter of "overturning" a supreme court decision. It's more like... the supreme court decided that within the context of the current constitution it's illegal to not recognize same-sex marriage.... and then the people decided to amend the constitution to make it legal. I'm not too familiar with law, but I think another amendment to the state constitution or something of the federal level would be required to overturn this new amendment? Yeah but overturning a decision is only allowed in the courts. Only way i know of overturning a case in court circuit is to have a case that decision conflicts with the other case decision. "An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to the Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution and is certified to have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent in the case of a statute, and 8 percent in the case of an amendment to the Constitution, of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election." =O My point was that they weren't technically overturning the court decision. The court's decision stands based on the interpretation of the state constitution prior to the passing of the new amendment. Now that the new amendment has passed, the old interpretation no longer works because it's now explicitly denied in the constitution. Not sure what the point of the quote you pasted was. The petition for amendment to the constitution for prop 8 did get the number of signatures necessary based on the number of votes in the last gubernatorial election, so the citizens of california were capable of voting to amend the constitution to make the court's ruling irrelevant. Rather than saying it was overturned, I think it's more appropriate to say that the court's decision is now outdated as the constitution has changed since they last interpreted it in this matter. Actually now the constitution conflicts with the supreme count. What's gonna matter is what was first the court or the ballot. It's the court's duty to interpret the law, not create it. Now the that constitution clearly states that gay marriages are not recognized, I don't believe the california state supreme court can do anything about it. I'm pretty sure it would take a new amendment or something on the federal level to undo what was passed just now, and any type of federal recognition of same-sex marriage doesn't seem very likely any time soon. Yep...got it all right. Because they can interpret law they can interpret that part of the constitution wrong =p. It's called Constitutional review.
Judges interpret laws in light of the constutition. They can't say the constitution is unconstitutional.
|
On November 06 2008 09:11 IzzyCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 09:02 Centric wrote:On November 06 2008 09:01 poingy wrote:On November 06 2008 07:49 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 06 2008 07:16 poingy wrote:On November 06 2008 07:06 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 06 2008 06:41 poingy wrote:On November 06 2008 06:21 IzzyCraft wrote:
52 to 48 now we sue saying you cant overturn the California supreme count decision with such a small margin! I don't think this is a matter of "overturning" a supreme court decision. It's more like... the supreme court decided that within the context of the current constitution it's illegal to not recognize same-sex marriage.... and then the people decided to amend the constitution to make it legal. I'm not too familiar with law, but I think another amendment to the state constitution or something of the federal level would be required to overturn this new amendment? Yeah but overturning a decision is only allowed in the courts. Only way i know of overturning a case in court circuit is to have a case that decision conflicts with the other case decision. "An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to the Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution and is certified to have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent in the case of a statute, and 8 percent in the case of an amendment to the Constitution, of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election." =O My point was that they weren't technically overturning the court decision. The court's decision stands based on the interpretation of the state constitution prior to the passing of the new amendment. Now that the new amendment has passed, the old interpretation no longer works because it's now explicitly denied in the constitution. Not sure what the point of the quote you pasted was. The petition for amendment to the constitution for prop 8 did get the number of signatures necessary based on the number of votes in the last gubernatorial election, so the citizens of california were capable of voting to amend the constitution to make the court's ruling irrelevant. Rather than saying it was overturned, I think it's more appropriate to say that the court's decision is now outdated as the constitution has changed since they last interpreted it in this matter. Actually now the constitution conflicts with the supreme count. What's gonna matter is what was first the court or the ballot. It's the court's duty to interpret the law, not create it. Now the that constitution clearly states that gay marriages are not recognized, I don't believe the california state supreme court can do anything about it. I'm pretty sure it would take a new amendment or something on the federal level to undo what was passed just now, and any type of federal recognition of same-sex marriage doesn't seem very likely any time soon. Yep...got it all right. Because they can interpret law they can interpret that part of the constitution wrong =p. It's called Constitutional review.
They can't just say an amendment is wrong because it's wrong. It'd be up the the federal supreme court to say it's wrong because it violates the national constitution (if it does).
In fact, when the supreme court rules on something, the judgment is pretty much final. The only ways the decision can be altered is through a new ruling or through a constitutional amendment; the latter of which is what actually happened in this case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
