California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[shayd]

The people voted, the court overturned it and then they reversed their decision, deciding that judicial tyranny wasn't the best course of action in affecting liberal social change. It really is simple. The majority of people don't want it. Even our liberal president believes that a marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. When he was ordained, I mean elected, I thought everyone was going to agree with him about everything he believes. Do you mean to tell me the people who voted for him disagree with him about something? That sounds like treason.

Actually, the court didn't even rule on banning gay marriage itself. They just ruled that "limited" amendments, (Prop 8 proposed an amendment to the state Constitution defining marriage as between a man and woman) could be passed by a popular vote. This is as opposed to what the court defined as "wholesale revision" of the state constitution, which amounts to having a two-thirds vote of the state Legislature in order to pass the amendment.

As for your comments on Obama, two issues arise. First, dissenting from the Presidents views is far from treason. If there is some confusion on that, I'd suggest reading Article 3, Section 3 of the United States Constitution to clear it up. Secondly, his personal belief in what marriage should be defined as is irrelevant, the only thing that matters with respect to this issue is the Constitutionality of banning gay marriage, and quite simply it egregiously violates a number of clauses of the Constitution (namely the 14th Amendment). Wouldn't matter if every single person in the country voted to pass it. If it's unconstitutional, it has no place in our judicial system, and per the highest legal document in the United States, cannot be enforced.

Common sense prevailed in California.

Unfortuantely, common sense would have been to realize that this whole same-sex marriage ban issue is completely and utterly unconstitutional.

 

[Baill Inneraora]

From Ohio's Secretary of State

good read.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-brunner/whats-there-to-get-about_b_213585.html

 

[busenbust]

Good on California (would Arnie approve??

 

[Boothbabe]

i just keep posting to stir the pot to see your reactionary views.

.

 

[darkwarrior3007]

I don't see why gay marriage is even a problem when the same people that are against it are the same people who are getting divorces or cheating on their spouses. Where's the sanctity of marriage there?

 

[bodie54]

I don't see why gay marriage is even a problem when the same people that are against it are the same people who are getting divorces or cheating on their spouses. Where's the sanctity of marriage there?

You're asking those people to be logical and objective?

Come on dark, you should know better than that

 

[shayd]

I don't see why gay marriage is even a problem when the same people that are against it are the same people who are getting divorces or cheating on their spouses. Where's the sanctity of marriage there?

Good point.

It also strikes me that now is the first time in recorded history that Mormons have been in favor of "traditional marriage".
:1orglaugh

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

When discussing gay marriage, the term "equal rights" does not apply. Gay's have equal rights. They are free, as are straight people, to marry a member of the opposite sex. Equal.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0609/Justice_defends_DOMA.html?showall

A response I found at politico.com in reference to Nobama's flipflop on gay marriage. As twisted as this person's logic is....I can kind of understand it. Well, not really. I understand the sentiment behind the statement but the person posting didn't take into account that the people in question probably, no definitely aren't looking to marry someone of the opposite sex. Okay, now that I've looked at it again with a little more clarity, it doesn't make sense at all. But I'm all for his right to say it. But blurb is more about the current administration's stance on the issue and how he's waffled so egregiously since the campaign.

To me, it seems that certain groups, not just gay people, want not just equal rights but extra rights.

By that I'm referring to hate crime enhancement, among other issues. I'm not for it. A crime is a crime, no matter what the perceived reason may be. Sentencing for all violent offenders should be toughened to reflect our societies disgust with these crimes. It's another hot button topic that really gets me pretty upset. It is akin to saying that someone has a greater value to society because of their belief, heritage or sexual preference when instead we should be saying, "Enough of your shit, scumbag! Enjoy your life imprisonment without parole!"

Also by enacting hate enhancements politicians have unwittingly given these dipshit defendants the opportunity to evangelize their bigotry from the stand and perpetuate their beliefs by reaching out to sympathetic ears.