Page 2 of 4 [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

philosopherBoi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Aug 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,255

05 Mar 2009, 3:39 pm

gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
I don't think "legal" is the right word here, I think you mean is it constitutional.

Legal = within the law. A law cannot be in breach of the law, it makes no sense.
Constitutional = within the constitution. A law CAN be in breach of the constitution.

(While I'm on this, I wish we (the UK) had a constitution. We need one, our government is screwing us over big time.)

Anyway, back on topic...I believe prop 8 is unconstitutional, yeah. But that won't stop it being enforced, sadly.


Sorry just a bit scattered brain got my heart broken so I hardly know who I am. Anyways I think that all the protests and just generally pissed of GLBT people will do the job ^_^


_________________
When Jesus Christ said love thy neighbor he was not making a suggestion he was stating the law of god.


MrMisanthrope
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 340
Location: The Eastern Outskirts of the Daley Empire

05 Mar 2009, 3:39 pm

gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
I don't think "legal" is the right word here, I think you mean is it constitutional.

Legal = within the law. A law cannot be in breach of the law, it makes no sense.
Constitutional = within the constitution. A law CAN be in breach of the constitution.

(While I'm on this, I wish we (the UK) had a constitution. We need one, our government is screwing us over big time.)

Anyway, back on topic...I believe prop 8 is unconstitutional, yeah. But that won't stop it being enforced, sadly.

^^ Well stated.

FWIW, the Cali Supreme Court was reviewing this, and now has 90 days to decide the question of the Constitutionality of Prop 8.


_________________
Malum Prohibitum, Malum Habenae Regum Est.
I'm not Jesus. Stop punishing me for other people's sins.

True Liberty Expressed as Fiction: http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn


Descartes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2008
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,133
Location: Arlington, Texas

04 Aug 2010, 4:21 pm

Not anymore. It's just been struck down.

Actual case website:

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/

News site:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100804/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial



happymusic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,165
Location: still in ninja land

04 Aug 2010, 7:59 pm

Good. It was unconstitutional. Equal rights for everyone.

I say we outlaw marriage altogether for everyone. Screw it.



Zara
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,877
Location: Deep Dungeon, VA

04 Aug 2010, 8:33 pm

I'm kind of glad it got overturned. It was a useless law that only appealed to the anti-gay crowd.


_________________
Current obsessions: Miatas, Investing
Currently playing: Amnesia: The Dark Descent
Currently watching: SRW OG2: The Inspectors

Come check out my photography!
http://dmausf.deviantart.com/


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

04 Aug 2010, 10:33 pm

Not sure if this is over yet.

Quote:
Protect Marriage, the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored the ban, said it would immediately appeal the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"In America, we should uphold and respect the right of people to make policy changes through the democratic process, especially changes that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the founding of this country and beyond," said Jim Campbell, a lawyer on the defense team.

Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume immediately.

Judge Walker said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents of the ban pursue their appeal. He ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Friday on the issue.

The appeal would go first to the 9th Circuit then to the U.S. Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


MONIQUEIJ
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Oct 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,353

04 Aug 2010, 10:59 pm

I believe it should be illegal.


_________________
i have change for the better.


Horus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302
Location: A rock in the milky way

04 Aug 2010, 11:44 pm

happymusic wrote:
Good. It was unconstitutional. Equal rights for everyone.

I say we outlaw marriage altogether for everyone. Screw it.





I say we outlaw Judeo-Christianity altogether when we strident atheists become the majority.


By the standards of the opponents of gay marriage....that would be quite fair.



Horus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302
Location: A rock in the milky way

04 Aug 2010, 11:48 pm

MONIQUEIJ wrote:
I believe it should be illegal.




What should be illegal in your opinion MONIQUEJ?

Gay marriage or proposition 8?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Aug 2010, 4:32 am

Horus wrote:
happymusic wrote:
Good. It was unconstitutional. Equal rights for everyone.

I say we outlaw marriage altogether for everyone. Screw it.





I say we outlaw Judeo-Christianity altogether when we strident atheists become the majority.


By the standards of the opponents of gay marriage....that would be quite fair.


that is a dangerous attitude and within it are the seeds of tyranny. An atheist who would outlaw religious opinion by forceful means is not better than a religious person who would outlaw atheist thinking and practiced by forceful means.

ruveyn



Descartes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2008
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,133
Location: Arlington, Texas

05 Aug 2010, 4:34 am

ruveyn wrote:
that is a dangerous attitude and within it are the seeds of tyranny. An atheist who would outlaw religious opinion by forceful means is not better than a religious person who would outlaw atheist thinking and practiced by forceful means.

ruveyn


I think he was trying to make a point, being that the majority cannot vote away the fundamental rights of a minority.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,612

05 Aug 2010, 6:50 am

IMO, Prop 8 is legal.

The Constitution DOES NOT impart a "right" to marriage.

In fact, "marriage" is not an institution of the state. Never was intended to be.

So, there is the issue of if a state must recognize a "marriage" as legal or not.

Traditional marriage is given that status because it's always been so.

"Gay marriage" goes against that tradition.

The rule has been the state can choose to recognize a relationship as legal or not.

Courts are trying to force it by judicial decree...something courts DO NOT have the authority to do.

States are responding by the populace petitioning and voting for laws or constitutional amendments defining legal "marriage" as between one man and one woman (no bigamy either).

Courts can only knock those laws down by citing constitutional authority that makes them illegal. THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE. Courts are having to distort the meaning of the Constitution and amendments to attempt this.

If I marry, I have no intention to get a "marriage license." I do not need the state's permission to marry, and any "benefit" (sic) that piece of paper gives me can be reproduced by perfectly legal alternatives.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Aug 2010, 7:53 am

Descartes wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
that is a dangerous attitude and within it are the seeds of tyranny. An atheist who would outlaw religious opinion by forceful means is not better than a religious person who would outlaw atheist thinking and practiced by forceful means.

ruveyn


I think he was trying to make a point, being that the majority cannot vote away the fundamental rights of a minority.


He was?

ruveyn



Descartes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2008
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,133
Location: Arlington, Texas

05 Aug 2010, 8:31 am

ruveyn wrote:
He was?

ruveyn


That's the way I see it, at least. The only way to know for sure is if he comes back and verifies to us whether he was serious or not. :roll:



Horus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302
Location: A rock in the milky way

05 Aug 2010, 12:36 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Horus wrote:
happymusic wrote:
Good. It was unconstitutional. Equal rights for everyone.

I say we outlaw marriage altogether for everyone. Screw it.





I say we outlaw Judeo-Christianity altogether when we strident atheists become the majority.


By the standards of the opponents of gay marriage....that would be quite fair.


that is a dangerous attitude and within it are the seeds of tyranny. An atheist who would outlaw religious opinion by forceful means is not better than a religious person who would outlaw atheist thinking and practiced by forceful means.

ruveyn



I realize it is a dangerous attitude ruveyn.... you missed my point.


I was not saying it is MY attitude. Rather, I was saying it is the attitude of the opponents of gay marriage. If we were using their attitude as a standard, it would be quite fair to "outlaw" Judeo-Christianity once strident atheists become a majority.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Aug 2010, 12:42 pm

Horus wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Horus wrote:
happymusic wrote:
Good. It was unconstitutional. Equal rights for everyone.

I say we outlaw marriage altogether for everyone. Screw it.





I say we outlaw Judeo-Christianity altogether when we strident atheists become the majority.


By the standards of the opponents of gay marriage....that would be quite fair.


that is a dangerous attitude and within it are the seeds of tyranny. An atheist who would outlaw religious opinion by forceful means is not better than a religious person who would outlaw atheist thinking and practiced by forceful means.

ruveyn



I realize it is a dangerous attitude ruveyn.... you missed my point.


I was not saying it is MY attitude. Rather, I was saying it is the attitude of the opponents of gay marriage. If we were using their attitude as a standard, it would be quite fair to "outlaw" Judeo-Christianity once strident atheists become a majority.


Thank you for the correction. Missing the Point is one of my major hobbies.

ruveyn