California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ba

[vraiblonde]

But the court overturned a referendum. This issue was voted on by the citizens of the state of California, BUT the state supreme court decides that the will of the people is not a valid argument in this case.

The citizens of a state cannot vote to take away the rights of other citizens. That's what the Constitution and Supreme Court are for - to keep the majority from oppressing the minority.

How about if Alabama votes for a ban on miscegenation? Would that vote stand up to constitutional scrutiny? Because this is pretty much the same thing.

 

[Toxick]

Yes it's a "victory" for state's rights, BUT the court overturned a referendum. So how is this a good thing?

That's the beauty of a Representive Republic, as opposed to a democracy. This way 20 wolves and 5 sheep are not voting on what to have for dinner.

Anyone in California who doesn't like it is totally free to move to Utah.







On the other hand, the thought of an exodus out of California - much like an exodus of lunatics from the asylum - is a mite scary thought.

 

[toppick08]

That's the beauty of a Representive Republic, as opposed to a democracy. This way 20 wolves and 5 sheep are not voting on what to have for dinner.

Anyone in California who doesn't like it is totally free to move to Utah.







On the other hand, the thought of an exodus out of California - much like an exodus of lunatics from the asylum - is a Might scary thought.

:fixed:

 

[Toxick]

:fixed:

indeed.

mite2
–noun
1. a contribution that is small but is all that a person can afford.
2. a very small sum of money.
3. a coin of very small value.
4. a very small object.
5. a very small creature.
–adverb
6. to a small extent; somewhat (often prec. by a): a mite selfish.


mite - Definitions from Dictionary.com



Never question my command of the English langwidge.

 

[toppick08]

indeed.

mite2
–noun
1. a contribution that is small but is all that a person can afford.
2. a very small sum of money.
3. a coin of very small value.
4. a very small object.
5. a very small creature.
–adverb
6. to a small extent; somewhat (often prec. by a): a mite selfish.


mite - Definitions from Dictionary.com



Never question my command of the English langwidge.

...It's what gets in dog's ears.......

I thought you were a linguist........

 

[Toxick]

...It's what gets in dog's ears.......

I know that. It also means "a smidgen", "an iota", "a tad" or "kinda-sorta".

I thought you were a linguist........

A cunning one, to be sure.

 

[Toxick]

What this be?

It be hot interracial luvvin.

 

[MissMissy]

JMO.....It should be banned in all states. I think we need to stop going by the laws made by people and look to the bible for our answers. The bible should be our law. For some reason America is getting out of that. It's horrible. and for whoever says it doesn't matter...we'll it does matter this is just one more thing taking us further from living as the way God wants us to live.

 

[puggymom]

JMO.....It should be banned in all states. I think we need to stop going by the laws made by people and look to the bible for our answers. The bible should be our law. For some reason America is getting out of that. It's horrible. and for whoever says it doesn't matter...we'll it does matter this is just one more thing taking us further from living as the way God wants us to live.

While it may be fine with you to live your life by the bible it is not OK with me as I do not believe the bible is anything more than a book of fables. Sorry I have no interest in our laws being based on a book or a god in which I have no belief.

 

[foodcritic]

Little history lesson

While it may be fine with you to live your life by the bible it is not OK with me as I do not believe the bible is anything more than a book of fables. Sorry I have no interest in our laws being based on a book or a god in which I have no belief.

Just a note for you ....Our system of goverment IS set up with the bible in mind. Not only do we have the law, which is fashioned out of the OT law, but we have judges that handle disputes. Read the OT and you will see Moses set up a system of judges ( could that be why there is a picture of Moses in the Supreme court receiving the law???). Thankfully our founding fathers had the wisdon they did and to add seperation of powers to our goverment. If you don't like religion in politics you could move to ......uumm.....Communist China.. You should feel right at home.

 

[puggymom]

Just a note for you ....Our system of goverment IS set up with the bible in mind. Not only do we have the law, which is fashioned out of the OT law, but we have judges that handle disputes. Read the OT and you will see Moses set up a system of judges ( could that be why there is a picture of Moses in the Supreme court receiving the law???). Thankfully our founding fathers had the wisdon they did and to add seperation of powers to our goverment. If you don't like religion in politics you could move to ......uumm.....Communist China.. You should feel right at home.

I lived there for a year while my husband was there building power plants. and have no interest in going back (other than for tourism, maybe). In fact I love the US and the whole idea of religious freedom--meaning you are free (and should be) to practice whatever religion you want and I am free to do the same.

 

[puggymom]

Just a note for you ....Our system of goverment IS set up with the bible in mind. Not only do we have the law, which is fashioned out of the OT law, but we have judges that handle disputes. Read the OT and you will see Moses set up a system of judges ( could that be why there is a picture of Moses in the Supreme court receiving the law???). Thankfully our founding fathers had the wisdon they did and to add seperation of powers to our goverment. If you don't like religion in politics you could move to ......uumm.....Communist China.. You should feel right at home.

And on that note you could move to umm let's say Saudi Arabia or some other country with strict religious law.

 

[foodcritic]

what are u talking about?

The citizens of a state cannot vote to take away the rights of other citizens. That's what the Constitution and Supreme Court are for - to keep the majority from oppressing the minority.

How about if Alabama votes for a ban on miscegenation? Would that vote stand up to constitutional scrutiny? Because this is pretty much the same thing.

Please don't compare homosexual behavior to race....that is so flawed, many minorities find the comparison ridiculous.

The goverment has no more business sanctioning gay marriage then they do Polygamy...which last time I checked was Illegal. In fact the state of Utah had to ban the practice to gain entry in to the union. Apparently it was of some concern.....just a little.

If people want to enter in to private contracts for insurance or rights to estate etc...I could care less. The gov has no business sanctioning deviance ie marriage to 2 men or 2 woman, brothers, stisters, ..dogs, cats,or any other animal for that matter. Marriage is defined as a man and a woman.

 

[foodcritic]

just saying

Originally Posted by puggymom

While it may be fine with you to live your life by the bible it is not OK with me as I do not believe the bible is anything more than a book of fables. Sorry I have no interest in our laws being based on a book or a god in which I have no belief.

I lived there for a year while my husband was there building power plants. and have no interest in going back (other than for tourism, maybe). In fact I love the US and the whole idea of religious freedom--meaning you are free (and should be) to practice whatever religion you want and I am free to do the same.

apparently you love the county founded on fables......? Just another note. The religious freedom IN CONTEXT you are speaking of was the freedom to worship and attend the church of ones choice and that the gov would not prefer one church (denomination) over another. It had nothing to do with Islam or Hinduism or atheism for that matter. Over the years "religion" has been used to substitute "Christian".

 

[puggymom]

Originally Posted by puggymom

apparently you love the county founded on fables......? Just another note. The religious freedom IN CONTEXT you are speaking of was the freedom to worship and attend the church of ones choice and that the gov would not prefer one church (denomination) over another. It had nothing to do with Islam or Hinduism or atheism for that matter. Over the years "religion" has been used to substitute "Christian".

I believe that our founding fathers were Deists, or at least had a lot of Deist beliefs. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on the whole founding our our country debate.

 

[itsbob]

What Is Democracy? - Defining Democracy

I didn't know marriage was a 'right'

 

[Hessian]

well if the Bible is fables to you...

I believe that our founding fathers were Deists, or at least had a lot of Deist beliefs. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on the whole founding our our country debate.

then you believe a whopper right there.
As has been taught by post-modern and revisionist texts/professors since the 60's. They have selectively reinterpretted our founders original documents and then painted them with a broad brush: it is an outright lie.

Avoid the term "believe"...go find the facts, broadly read authors from multiple periods....then you can edit out the "believe" term and say "As was stated in....or we see a great example of that in..."

The majority of the citizens felt Slavery was allowable. A minority were opposed, and a sizeable portion were apathetic. Since the law allowed for it: it was maintained for decades....until the people felt differently: Then they revised the law and hundreds of thousands died. On what grounds did they change their thinking on slavery?...on the grounds that it was BIBLICALLY wrong. If we were Darwinists, we get to shrug our shoulders and say: the strong deserve to eliminate/dominate the weak.

We will have to wait for this generation to stumble, and fall before they say: "we have erred,...we were blinded by our own self worth and arrogance...we believed lies about who is the originator of our rights and have perverted the laws." Then...we will have proof that the scales have fallen off and those who championed wickedness and called it good will either plead for forgiveness or perish.

and law will be restored.

 

[puggymom]

then you believe a whopper right there.
As has been taught by post-modern and revisionist texts/professors since the 60's. They have selectively reinterpretted our founders original documents and then painted them with a broad brush: it is an outright lie.

Avoid the term "believe"...go find the facts, broadly read authors from multiple periods....then you can edit out the "believe" term and say "As was stated in....or we see a great example of that in..."

The majority of the citizens felt Slavery was allowable. A minority were opposed, and a sizeable portion were apathetic. Since the law allowed for it: it was maintained for decades....until the people felt differently: Then they revised the law and hundreds of thousands died. On what grounds did they change their thinking on slavery?...on the grounds that it was BIBLICALLY wrong. If we were Darwinists, we get to shrug our shoulders and say: the strong deserve to eliminate/dominate the weak.

We will have to wait for this generation to stumble, and fall before they say: "we have erred,...we were blinded by our own self worth and arrogance...we believed lies about who is the originator of our rights and have perverted the laws." Then...we will have proof that the scales have fallen off and those who championed wickedness and called it good will either plead for forgiveness or perish.

and law will be restored.

Wow. And here I thought the bible was used to justify slavery. I guess I was wrong.

 

[Hessian]

puggy,

do you know the difference between Biblical slavery laws (or indentureship) and chattel slavery of the mid 19th century America? The two have very distinct differences and the south was NOT following Biblical mandates.

Once again,....please read/research before spouting...it empowers your position.

 

[puggymom]

do you know the difference between Biblical slavery laws (or indentureship) and chattel slavery of the mid 19th century America? The two have very distinct differences and the south was NOT following Biblical mandates.

Once again,....please read/research before spouting...it empowers your position.

What kind of slavery the bible does or does not condone is not my point. My point is that people of the 19th century used the bible to justify slavery.