Gays can now marry in California

[TheDoctorIsIn]

Originally Posted by Donnyrotten

As i am not gay its a non issue.

That said, i dont want to remain passive on the issue at all. I am against it (GAY MARRIAGE), as are the majority of Americans. The fact is the minority on this issue screams by far the loudest, i for one dont care to see them drown out the majority because it doesnt care enough to scream back.

If the courts rule the intentions, even by the majority, to be discrimination, then it doesn't matter.

[Ignignokt]

Originally Posted by Donnyrotten

As i am not gay its a non issue.

That said, i dont want to remain passive on the issue at all. I am against it (GAY MARRIAGE), as are the majority of Americans. The fact is the minority on this issue screams by far the loudest, i for one dont care to see them drown out the majority because it doesnt care enough to scream back.

The majority of Alabamans were against black people attending public colleges there in the 1960s. Stupid activists courts overturning the will of the people!

[Donnyrotten]

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

The majority of Alabamans were against black people attending public colleges there in the 1960s. Stupid activists courts overturning the will of the people!

Apples and oranges...maybe the California court members need to read the Bible

[Ignignokt]

Originally Posted by Donnyrotten

Apples and oranges...maybe the California court members need to read the Bible

Apples and oranges? How so?

If the judges in the 1960s read the Bible they would have seen its promotion of slavery and not only ruled that blacks can't go to college, but also would have overturned the Emancipation Proclamation.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

Originally Posted by Donnyrotten

Apples and oranges...maybe the California court members need to read the Bible

Maybe they don't, considering religion is not law, unless we just converted to a theocracy

[Donnyrotten]

Originally Posted by TheDoctorIsIn

Maybe they don't, considering religion is not law, unless we just converted to a theocracy

There are two sides to every situation, i allow you yours, mine i have already laid out

[Ignignokt]

Originally Posted by Donnyrotten

There are two sides to every situation, i allow you yours, mine i have already laid out

I still want to know how you think this is "apples and oranges" vs other civil rights cases. And why you keep saying that 70% of California disagrees. Both are complete BS.

[Donnyrotten]

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

I still want to know how you think this is "apples and oranges" vs other civil rights cases. And why you keep saying that 70% of California disagrees. Both are complete BS.

Last night on CNN they said 70% of Californians opposed same sex marriage. I assume they got those figures from somewhere.

They also said this majority will vote in November to have the state Constitution amended, and render null and void this court ruling.

[danb]

Originally Posted by Redwingenator

The only issue I have is that 4 judges have ignored something that the majority of people in California voted against. The opinion of 4 people is more important than the opinion of the majority of people living in California. This sets a scary precedence for future rulings. What if 4 judges on the California supreme court decide they don't like big cars, talk radio, and religion?

It's called judicial tyranny. Modus operandi of the libs to force their values on people who don't want them

[Ignignokt]

Originally Posted by Donnyrotten

Last night on CNN they said 70% of Californians opposed same sex marriage. I assume they got those figures from somewhere.

They also said this majority will vote in November to have the state Constitution amended, and render null and void this court ruling.

No, they didn't say that, because it's not even close to the truth.

From a 2006 Field Poll:
Californians continue to oppose the idea of amending the
U.S. Constitution to define marriage as being only be-
tween a man and a woman. Statewide, 50% oppose this
idea, while 40% favor it.

Californians remain narrowly opposed to the idea of allow-
ing same-sex couples to marry. At present, 51% of this
state’s residents disapprove of having regular marriage
laws apply to these couples, while 43% approve.

http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline...Gay-Rights.pdf

It's gonna be a close election, but you are going to get every liberal in the state out to the polls because they know this is their best shot. People keep saying that this issue helps Republicans, but the crazy religious folks just don't exist here like they do in other states.

[Donnyrotten]

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

No, they didn't say that, because it's not even close to the truth.

From a 2006 Field Poll:
Californians continue to oppose the idea of amending the
U.S. Constitution to define marriage as being only be-
tween a man and a woman. Statewide, 50% oppose this
idea, while 40% favor it.

Californians remain narrowly opposed to the idea of allow-
ing same-sex couples to marry. At present, 51% of this
state’s residents disapprove of having regular marriage
laws apply to these couples, while 43% approve.

http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline...Gay-Rights.pdf

It's gonna be a close election, but you are going to get every liberal in the state out to the polls because they know this is their best shot. People keep saying that this issue helps Republicans, but the crazy religious folks just don't exist here like they do in other states.

Your poll data is 2 years old.

Obviously if the court was in lock step with the voters, this would not have been news

[Ignignokt]

Originally Posted by Donnyrotten

Your poll data is 2 years old.

Obviously if the court was in lock step with the voters, this would not have been news

Actually it's news either way when the biggest state in the country brings forth a huge step in civil rights.

This will go to the polls in November, and I would give the decision about a 75/25 shot of holding up. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Donnyrotten]

In California, a 2000 voter referendum banned same-sex marriage, but state lawmakers have made two efforts to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both bills



From CNN

[sprtnbrn]

Originally Posted by danb

It's called judicial tyranny. Modus operandi of the libs to force their values on people who don't want them

So was it legislative tyranny when both chamber of the legislature passed the bill in favor of gay marriage twice?

[sprtnbrn]

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

Actually it's news either way when the biggest state in the country brings forth a huge step in civil rights.

This will go to the polls in November, and I would give the decision about a 75/25 shot of holding up. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Agreed on the first. Disagree on the 2nd, I'd say it's 50/50.

[Enrico Palazzo]

Originally Posted by danb

It's called judicial tyranny. Modus operandi of the libs to force their values on people who don't want them

yes, because the majority is always right. More than 70% of Americans opposed the overturning of the prohibition on whites marrying non-whites, in fact, in the argument in front of the court in Loving v. Virginia those arguing in favor of the ban cited.....Biblical law.

And you whining righties want the SCOTUS to overturn Roe v. Wade yet the majority of Americans OPPOSED making abortion illegal, so if the SCOTUS does go against the will of the people will you rant and roar about judicial tyrrany?

Oh yeah, a majority of people voted for Al Gore for President yet the SCOTUS overturned those results. Judicial tyrrany as well?

Your "majority rules" argument is feeble at best.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

Originally Posted by danb

It's called judicial tyranny. Modus operandi of the libs to force their values on people who don't want them

Actually it's called Representative Democracy, the same system that has this nation in a war against the will of the people.

[Donnyrotten]

Originally Posted by TheDoctorIsIn

Actually it's called Representative Democracy, the same system that has this nation in a war against the will of the people.

Difference here.....

In your above example (via Bush lying and misrepresenting the situation) the will of the people was behind the decision.

It wasnt until later, when the ether wore off, that people saw what the true situation was.

[Donnyrotten]

A constitutional amendment initiative specifying that marriage is only between a man and a woman is awaiting verification by the secretary of state's office after its sponsors said they had gathered enough signatures to place it on the statewide ballot. The parties cannot appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Herrera said, as federal courts do not have jurisdiction over the state laws. "This is the final say," he said.

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that although he agrees with some of the majority's conclusions, the court was overstepping its bounds in striking down the ban. Instead, he wrote, the issue should be left to the voters.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

Originally Posted by Donnyrotten

Difference here.....

In your above example (via Bush lying and misrepresenting the situation) the will of the people was behind the decision.

It wasnt until later, when the ether wore off, that people saw what the true situation was.

Most polls before the invasion were about 55-45 against the war.

Besides, it's moot as there is an overwhelming majority now asking for withdrawal, yet our elected officials are ignoring the will of the people.

[danb]

Originally Posted by sprtnbrn

So was it legislative tyranny when both chamber of the legislature passed the bill in favor of gay marriage twice?

Seeing that 60% of the people agreed to marriage being defined as between a man and a woman, then yes.

But there's another term for it, coined by Toqueville, democratic despotism.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

Originally Posted by danb

Seeing that 60% of the people agreed to marriage being defined as between a man and a woman, the yes.

But there's another term for it, coined by Toqueville, democratic despotism.

Is that the same as leaving a nation in a war against the will of its people??