Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 54
  1. #1
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    CA Supreme Court revokes gay marriages

    Back around Feb 12, 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered officials to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples after he decided the marriage laws violated the equal protection rights of gays and lesbians under the state Constitution.

    Liberals supported it. Conservatives objected to it (nothing new there). However, this IMO, was another case of hypocrisy from the left. It's always "the law supports Separation of Church and State, we must abide by the law". However, when the law contradicts arbitrary philosophies...then it is acceptable to break said laws (apparently). Furthermore, I didn't hear the left standing up for "justice" when a Mayor decided that he was the authority to interpret Constitutional law. No, instead...because the decision was pro-liberal...he was supported.

    The CA Supreme Court finally put their foot down, and ruled unanimously yesterday that San Francisco officials exceeded their authority when they issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples in a controversial act of municipal disobedience six months ago. The justices separately ruled that the licenses were "void and of no legal effect".

    I agree with the CA Supreme Court's decision fully. Of important note: Chief Justice Ronald George, writing for the majority, made it clear the justices were not deciding the larger and more contentious issue of the constitutionality of state laws that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

    Of which, I agree with fully as well. In otherwords...whether or not marriage should, or must be redefined to include unions of same-sex couples, is not the issue here. Instead, the issue is: As it is currently defined, marriage does not include same-sex unions, and until it is...same-sex marriages are illegal. Also, a Mayor has no jurisdiction to interpret the law as he pleases. Even the President of the United States cannot do this.

    So...was the CA Supreme Court right or justified in their rulings? Or should they have left the marriages licenses "as is", fully legal? Should anything happen to the Mayor? What about the gay and lesbian couples whose hopes have just been trampled? Should their licenses have been kept legal, but any future licensing be stopped (which did stop, back in March btw)?


    fyi: Full story here
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CA Supreme Court revokes gay marriages

    While I strongly oppose bans on SSM's, I have to agree that a mayor exceeds his authority when he decides to ignore current laws.

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CA Supreme Court revokes gay marriages

    Only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution. A mayor definitely does not have this authority, and any unconstitutional marriages that were performed because of his actions are illegal, and a California court has apparently noticed this. This issue will continue to be argued at the city and state level until it is resolved unquestionably, which is why I support Bush's efforts to define marriage as between a man and a woman in the Constitution.

  4. #4
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    2,974
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CA Supreme Court revokes gay marriages

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning
    Only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution. A mayor definitely does not have this authority, and any unconstitutional marriages that were performed because of his actions are illegal, and a California court has apparently noticed this. This issue will continue to be argued at the city and state level until it is resolved unquestionably, which is why I support Bush's efforts to define marriage as between a man and a woman in the Constitution.
    The mayor had the best intentions, but went about it the wrong way. There is a proper way to get away with making things better, and authority figures manipulating the current laws is a very taboo practice. I commend the mayor, but would prefer he take his battle to the battlefield like the rest of SSM supporters.
    Fortunately, the darkest of darkness is not as terrible as we fear.
    Unfortunately, the lightest of light, all things good, are not so wonderful as we hope for them to be.
    What, then, is left, but various shades of grey neutrality? Where are the heroes and villains? All I see are people.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CA Supreme Court revokes gay marriages

    Quote Originally Posted by Fyshhed
    The mayor had the best intentions, but went about it the wrong way. There is a proper way to get away with making things better, and authority figures manipulating the current laws is a very taboo practice. I commend the mayor, but would prefer he take his battle to the battlefield like the rest of SSM supporters.
    Indeed, it seems he let his feelings take over.
    "The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent." 1984, By George Orwell. Part 2: Chapter 9.

  6. #6
    I've been given a "timeout"
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CA Supreme Court revokes gay marriages

    Man I have problems getting pages to fully load at this site! On this thread I get just to Kevin Browing's name with no text in the body of his post and nothing beyond that.

    Anyways back to the topic at hand. I do NOT agree with the CA Supreme court decision because the current law IS a violation of consittuional rights. When they made marriage an institution which granted special rights and benefits to couples who bonded together, they made this institution a SECULAR one. The only objections to gay marriage offered so far are RELIGIOUS ones. If two men or two women decide to monogamously bond together adn raise children and all that then they are entitled to visitation rights, tax breaks and all the rest of the bene's that other married couples get.

    This whole thing is a thinly disquised breech of the establishment clause.

    I say either take away the benefits of marriage altogether or grant them to any couple of consenting adults(notice I said "couple" not "orgy of polygamist mormons" or any such nonsense for you guys waiting on the slippery slope).

    When we made Christmas an "official holiday" we secularised it. That means that atheists, anti-christians, pagans(ironically since it was their holiday to begin with) adn teh rest all get to take that day off from work. Same should apply to marriage.

  7. #7
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,027
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CA Supreme Court revokes gay marriages

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning
    Only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution.
    A friend of mine (staunch rightwing conservative at that) would argue strenuously against this view, and insist that it is also the purview of Congress (and, I suspect, the duty of every citizen as well.)
    Faith is a vice.
    It is a substitute for courage.
    It is the abdication of Reason - the greatest attribute humans possess.
    It is the selling of one's soul for a happy lie.

  8. #8
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CA Supreme Court revokes gay marriages

    Sure, anyone can rant and rave, and suggest their opinion on how to intepret the law all they want. But they don't have the authority to. Only the Judicial branch of government can do that. The Mayor, is a part of the Executive branch, he has no authority. This prevents someone in authority (like the Prez) from saying: "I think the law means this, I have the power to DO this...so it shall be done". It's the party of checks and balances, ensuring that no one has "supreme power".


    Since the federal DOMA became law, 37 states have enacted a state DOMA. Californians enacted a DOMA in 2001 by a ballot initiative. It reads:

    Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

    It is, the law. After California's DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) became law, "The California Family Protection Act of 2001" (AB 1338) was introduced in the state Legislature. AB 1338 acknowledges that California's DOMA is law and limits marriage to opposite-sex couples. AB 1338 states in part:

    322. (a) A spouse in a civil union shall have all the same rights, protections, benefits, and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative or court rule, policy, common law, or any other provision or source of law, that are granted to a spouse in a civil marriage.

    AB 1338 does not permit persons of the same sex to obtain a marriage license, marry or be legally recognized as married spouses. It creates a "civil union" license and permits those qualified to join in a civil union to be legally recognized as civil union spouses with all of the rights and benefits of marriage.

    In otherwords, the argument that "gays should have the same rights as everyone else", falls flat. THEY DO HAVE THESE RIGHTS! But it is called CIVIL UNION, not marriage, because the law differentiates between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships.

    Again: Same rights, different name as to what the union is called. Marriage for hetero, civil union for homo. The issue on the table isn't about rights, or legal status, or any of that nonsense. Gays have that (in CA and a few other states) already. The real issue, is simply REDIFINING the definition of marriage, so there is no difference on paper between a gay or hetero couple. It's about RECOGNITION and the desire that others ACCEPT them. And it's being FORCED upon the people of this country, by an extreme minority who abuse the legal system. That, is wrong.

    The decision by the Supreme Court was correct. They saw that the authority of a single man in the executive branch, backed by special interest groups, was being abused. It was against the will of the people. Last I checked...America was a democracy. That means something. Thankfully, the CA Supreme Court understood what it was. It's "power to the people", not to the select few who wish to impose their views upon the vast majority. We have enough dictatorships in the world...we don't need to make America one.

    btw, this isn't religious vs secular. This is socieital. Also, using Christmas as an analogy is fallacious. Marriage provides status and rights, holidays provide time off from work, presents and feasting, they do not involve rights. Furthermore, since this issue concerns California...rights aren't even an issue. Civil unions are legal, protected, and provide the same rights as marriages in CA. Thus, the CA Sup. Ct. did its job. The Mayor, the special interest groups, and the radical left, attempted to abuse the system...shame on them.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; August 14th, 2004 at 01:14 AM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  9. #9
    I've been given a "timeout"
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CA Supreme Court revokes gay marriages

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    Sure, anyone can rant and rave, and suggest their opinion on how to intepret the law all they want. But they don't have the authority to. Only the Judicial branch of government can do that. The Mayor, is a part of the Executive branch, he has no authority. This prevents someone in authority (like the Prez) from saying: "I think the law means this, I have the power to DO this...so it shall be done". It's the party of checks and balances, ensuring that no one has "supreme power".
    Point taken.


    Since the federal DOMA became law, 37 states have enacted a state DOMA. Californians enacted a DOMA in 2001 by a ballot initiative. It reads:

    Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

    It is, the law. After California's DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) became law, "The California Family Protection Act of 2001" (AB 1338) was introduced in the state Legislature. AB 1338 acknowledges that California's DOMA is law and limits marriage to opposite-sex couples. AB 1338 states in part:


    322. (a) A spouse in a civil union shall have all the same rights, protections, benefits, and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative or court rule, policy, common law, or any other provision or source of law, that are granted to a spouse in a civil marriage.

    AB 1338 does not permit persons of the same sex to obtain a marriage license, marry or be legally recognized as married spouses. It creates a "civil union" license and permits those qualified to join in a civil union to be legally recognized as civil union spouses with all of the rights and benefits of marriage.

    In otherwords, the argument that "gays should have the same rights as everyone else", falls flat. THEY DO HAVE THESE RIGHTS! But it is called CIVIL UNION, not marriage, because the law differentiates between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships.
    You are correct in regards to Californians having these rights. I live in Washington state where gays are NOT granted equal rights. Here if a gay man is dying of cancer, his "spouse" cannot visit him the same way an opposite sex spouse could. If the man dies, his estate and belongings do not default to his partner and if his partern is the only one with a medical insurance plan, the dying(or sick or injured) man will not be covered as a'wife' would have been.
    Of course this does not pertain to CA as you have demonstrated so I concede this point adn will remember to keep out of threads which specifically adress the laws of that state .



    Again: Same rights, different name as to what the union is called. Marriage for hetero, civil union for homo. The issue on the table isn't about rights, or legal status, or any of that nonsense. Gays have that (in CA and a few other states) already. The real issue, is simply REDIFINING the definition of marriage, so there is no difference on paper between a gay or hetero couple. It's about RECOGNITION and the desire that others ACCEPT them. And it's being FORCED upon the people of this country, by an extreme minority who abuse the legal system. That, is wrong.
    As an aside, how does this play out in the big picture? I mean say a gay woman is filling out important paperwork and is asked for her marital status? Usually "civilly unionized" is not an option(just Married, Single, Divorced, Widow). And when asked about the size of one's family adn all that other stuff?

    The decision by the Supreme Court was correct. They saw that the authority of a single man in the executive branch, backed by special interest groups, was being abused. It was against the will of the people. Last I checked...America was a democracy. That means something. Thankfully, the CA Supreme Court understood what it was. It's "power to the people", not to the select few who wish to impose their views upon the vast majority. We have enough dictatorships in the world...we don't need to make America one.
    Agreed but I find it strange that you are opposed to America becoming a dictatorship and yet you are a conservative christian? I do not mean that as a cheap insult but I mean, are'nt you guys the ones who changed our pledge to include the words "Under God" and fight to keep this sort of exclusionary language in such? Aren't conservative christians the ones lamenting the prohibition of teacher-lead christian prayer in public schools?
    It seems to me that most people are not so much against dictatorships as they are against dictatorships which they do not agree with.

    btw, this isn't religious vs secular. This is socieital. Also, using Christmas as an analogy is fallacious. Marriage provides status and rights, holidays provide time off from work, presents and feasting, they do not involve rights.
    Sure they do. Everyone has the RIGHT to not work on christmas(& be paid overtime if they volunteer). If such a benefit was granted only to christians(not jews and atheists and muslims) then we would have a big problem. Also, public school employees, judges adn political officals can wish everyone a "Merry Christmas" or otherwise endorse the holiday without getting into trouble. If it were a "christian holiday" then we would have problems.


    Furthermore, since this issue concerns California...rights aren't even an issue. Civil unions are legal, protected, and provide the same rights as marriages in CA. Thus, the CA Sup. Ct. did its job. The Mayor, the special interest groups, and the radical left, attempted to abuse the system...shame on them.
    Agreed(except for the vitriol about the left and ridiculous scolding).

  10. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CA Supreme Court revokes gay marriages

    Quote Originally Posted by Galendir
    A friend of mine (staunch rightwing conservative at that) would argue strenuously against this view, and insist that it is also the purview of Congress (and, I suspect, the duty of every citizen as well.)
    Your friend is incorrect. From my understanding, the U.S. Congress is part of the legislative branch of government, and has the authority to create federal laws, but not to interpret their constitutionality. Federal courts can then interpret these laws, and state and local laws, but only the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say in whether a law at any governmental level is consistent with the U.S. Constitution. Regardless, he is definitely incorrect in saying that the Congress and individual citizens have the authority to interpret the Constitution.

  11. #11
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CA Supreme Court revokes gay marriages

    Quote Originally Posted by GodlessSkept
    As an aside, how does this play out in the big picture? I mean say a gay woman is filling out important paperwork and is asked for her marital status? Usually "civilly unionized" is not an option(just Married, Single, Divorced, Widow). And when asked about the size of one's family adn all that other stuff?
    I don't know. I'm now curious about this as well.


    Agreed but I find it strange that you are opposed to America becoming a dictatorship and yet you are a conservative christian? I do not mean that as a cheap insult but I mean, are'nt you guys the ones who changed our pledge to include the words "Under God" and fight to keep this sort of exclusionary language in such?
    Cultural tradition is not the same thing as right infringrement. Conservatives are not in favor of imposing upon the rights of others. If someone doesn't want to say the Pledge...don't. There is no law requiring it. Also, those teachers who INSIST that their children have to say it...should be disciplined. This is a free country...if a kid, or a parent of a kid does not want their child saying the Pledge...then the child shouldn't have to. If someone FORCES the child to say it...either through force or threat of punitive action...then a right is being violated at that time IMO. There is no influential, mainsteam conservative push to "force the Pledge" upon the people of the nation (by making them say or take it).

    Aren't conservative christians the ones lamenting the prohibition of teacher-lead christian prayer in public schools?
    No. The objection is that VOLUNTARY prayer, is not allowed. Choices are being taken away. No teacher was forcing anyone to pray. Those who did not wish to participate, do not have to. Those teachers who FORCE someone to participate...ARE violating rights and should be stopped.

    It's like the radical left coming in, and FORCING a high school football team to stop praying before the game. The team enjoyed a quick prayer (in this rural town) before every game. However, someone in the bleachers didn't like seeing it, controversy arose, and now such prayer is illegal on the field.

    The problem I have with the left...is that they SAY they are for equal rights extended to everyone. What that really means...is only the rights that the left believes you ought to have because THEY enjoy those rights...are the rights that you ought to have. If you do something the left doesn't like...then it ought to stop, because that action/belief doesn't align itself with leftist idealogy. THAT is right infringement.

    Sure they do. Everyone has the RIGHT to not work on christmas(& be paid overtime if they volunteer).
    No they don't. Since you use the word "right", it implies a legal right. Please support that. There is a difference between labor law, and company policy. Federal law (5 U.S.C. 6103) establishes the public holidays for federal employees. There are no federal or state labor laws concerning holidays that extend to the public.

    If such a benefit was granted only to christians(not jews and atheists and muslims) then we would have a big problem.
    Since this is a hypothetical that does not exist...there is no problem.

    Also, public school employees, judges adn political officals can wish everyone a "Merry Christmas" or otherwise endorse the holiday without getting into trouble. If it were a "christian holiday" then we would have problems.
    Hate to break it to you...but Christmas is still considered a Christian Holiday. For that reason, Jews, Muslims and many others, do not practice it.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; August 14th, 2004 at 04:24 PM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  12. #12
    I've been given a "timeout"
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CA Supreme Court revokes gay marriages

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis

    Cultural tradition is not the same thing as right infringrement. Conservatives are not in favor of imposing upon the rights of others. If someone doesn't want to say the Pledge...don't. There is no law requiring it.
    Not anymore, thanks to the liberals ;D.

    Your argumnent here would have merit if we were talking about adults and some voluntary activity. But we are not. We are talking about children as a captive audience. Children are subject to an enormous amount of peer pressure. The extent of this is such that even good, well behaved children will join in on the abuse of a less popular child just to avoid joining him. When the teacher says "Everyone rise for the Pledge of Allegiance" he is not asking for a show of hands of those who would like to do such a thing. To children this translates as an authoritative request which will have consequences if not agreed to.
    Furthermore children are most often indoctrinated by family adn friends to the notion that beleiving in God, praying and praising God is "Good behavior" while doing otherwise is "bad". Children are not capable of evaluating such existential claims yet adn atheist partents tend not to enfore any sort of "anti-religious" indoctrination to counter these outside pressures(a good thing).
    When one child abstains from saying the PoA you can bet your arse that that child is going to end up the "unpopular kid".




    Also, those teachers who INSIST that their children have to say it...should be disciplined. This is a free country...if a kid, or a parent of a kid does not want their child saying the Pledge...then the child shouldn't have to. If someone FORCES the child to say it...either through force or threat of punitive action...then a right is being violated at that time IMO. There is no influential, mainsteam conservative push to "force the Pledge" upon the people of the nation (by making them say or take it).
    You miss the point though. The Pledge is an affirmation of our loyaly to our nation. PERIOD. Adding "Under God" makes no more sense than adding "Against God" or "One Nation, having a distaste for jelly beans" or "One nation, of good white folk". It is an exclusionary device inserted into OUR pledge("our" meaning atheists, christians, buddhists, jews, muslims, pagans etc.) to affirm OUR patriotism as citizens. Not a christian pledge to affirm loyalty to God.


    No. The objection is that VOLUNTARY prayer, is not allowed.
    Where has this happened? Where is this school where the thought police prohibit students from praying that they pass tests or pray that they get into Standford or Yale?

    The only prayer that is discouraged or prohibited is the prayer which disrupts the class. SOmeone begging Allah to smite the unbelievers during a Calculus exam is a no-no.



    Choices are being taken away. No teacher was forcing anyone to pray.
    Au Contraire. Just decades ago teacher WERE forcing children to study the Bible, pray allowed adn other nastiness. That is what prompted O'Hair to embark on her 'crusade'.



    Those who did not wish to participate, do not have to. Those teachers who FORCE someone to participate...ARE violating rights and should be stopped.
    Those teachers who ENDORSE a specific religion, especially to a captive audience of pre-adolescent children should be stopped as well(and for the most part they have been). Your God has the ability to hear(and would already know anywya) your prayers without you forming a circle, joining hands and audibly speaking them(unless we atheists are right).

    It's like the radical left coming in, and FORCING a high school football team to stop praying before the game.
    No. it's like the law preventing a Muslim Coach ffrom requesting the team to pray to Allah with him before a game.



    The team enjoyed a quick prayer (in this rural town) before every game. However, someone in the bleachers didn't like seeing it, controversy arose, and now such prayer is illegal on the field.
    Which begs the question...how many of these HS football players would have even wanted to pray like this if not for the indoctrination they had endured up to this point? The reason why fundementalists prey upon children is because it is widely known that if you let a person devlope without such indoctrination, just learning to think critically, do math, read etc. adn then introduce a monotheistic faith to him, most of them will laugh as if you were telling them about Santa Claus. I will gaurantee that these football players were raised in christian households, told by their teachers to say the pledge(as I was) without being made aware that they did not have to(In the schools here in WA state it was even implied if not stated that anyone refusing to say the pledge was in BIG trouble!).

    When you brainwash someone to a certain viewpoint for the formative years of their life and then say they have a choice to dissent if they want, you are being disingenuous.

    The problem I have with the left...is that they SAY they are for equal rights extended to everyone. What that really means...is only the rights that the left believes you ought to have because THEY enjoy those rights...are the rights that you ought to have. If you do something the left doesn't like...then it ought to stop, because that action/belief doesn't align itself with leftist idealogy. THAT is right infringement.
    That is also a strawman. I could have sworn you were the resident authority on logical fallacies around here...? WHy are you unware of so many common ones?


    No they don't. Since you use the word "right", it implies a legal right. Please support that. There is a difference between labor law, and company policy. Federal law (5 U.S.C. 6103) establishes the public holidays for federal employees. There are no federal or state labor laws concerning holidays that extend to the public.
    I may be wrong here. Are you saying that businesses are not required to either allow employees the day off or pay them overtime for working that day?


    Since this is a hypothetical that does not exist...there is no problem.


    Hate to break it to you...but Christmas is still considered a Christian Holiday. For that reason, Jews, Muslims and many others, do not practice it.
    But NOT in a legal sense. Christians consider it a christian holiday celebrating teh birth of Jesus. Pagans consider it winter soltice/Yule as per the orgins of said holiday and atheists consider it a day to indulge in the myth of Santa Claus and gift exchange.

    Employers do not or are not able to tell Muslims and Jews that they have to work that day while eveyone else takes the day off.

  13. #13
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    2,974
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CA Supreme Court revokes gay marriages

    I, for one, never said the pledge. I got yelled at once for it, then they found out I knew I didn;t have to. I told them it's just hollow words from everybody here, nobody means it when they say it. It's just useless patriotic indoctrination.
    Fortunately, the darkest of darkness is not as terrible as we fear.
    Unfortunately, the lightest of light, all things good, are not so wonderful as we hope for them to be.
    What, then, is left, but various shades of grey neutrality? Where are the heroes and villains? All I see are people.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Long Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,065
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CA Supreme Court revokes gay marriages

    Now thats just sad.
    Do or do not, there is no try. - Master Jedi Yoda
    He's Kermit on acid who happens to carry a big stick when pissed off. Big deal. - Apokalupsis
    Actually, didn't Frank Oz do Bert as well? We're cousins! - Withnail in reference to Bert and Yoda

  15. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    2,974
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CA Supreme Court revokes gay marriages

    Quote Originally Posted by RTShatto
    Now thats just sad.
    Did you mean it when you said it? Like actually understand what you were doing? Giving your loyalty to flag and country and thanking the Republic and God? :p
    Fortunately, the darkest of darkness is not as terrible as we fear.
    Unfortunately, the lightest of light, all things good, are not so wonderful as we hope for them to be.
    What, then, is left, but various shades of grey neutrality? Where are the heroes and villains? All I see are people.

  16. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    262
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CA Supreme Court revokes gay marriages

    See, this is why Canada is the greatest. We don't have crazy bible thumpers interfering with our law. Same sex marriage has been legal for a while now. Hell, we've even made same sex divorce legal. Our legal definition of marriage was changed from "the union of a man and a woman" to "the union of two persons".
    "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

  17. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,150
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CA Supreme Court revokes gay marriages

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    The Mayor, is a part of the Executive branch, he has no authority. This prevents someone in authority (like the Prez) from saying: "I think the law means this, I have the power to DO this...so it shall be done".
    No, Apok. The burden is on all of us to interpret the law, and make our actions conform to it. In the case of the Mayor, a President, or anybody, their actions must conform to the law; hence, they must make an interpretation of it in order to act.

    For major decisions, a legal team is typically consulted to further provide this interpretation.

    The Judicial branch has the sole power to decide whether or not an action conforms with the law, or whether or not a law conforms to the Constitution.

    Check and balances were not violated in this case. The mayor interpreted the law and acted. The court interpreteted the actions per the law, and made its ruling.
    Its turtles, all the way down.

  18. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CA Supreme Court revokes gay marriages

    Quote Originally Posted by Fyshhed
    Did you mean it when you said it? Like actually understand what you were doing? Giving your loyalty to flag and country and thanking the Republic and God? :p
    Absolutely. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." That is a basic statement of faith and patriotism that I hold dear. I never said it just because others were saying it.

  19. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CA Supreme Court revokes gay marriages

    Quote Originally Posted by Atticus
    See, this is why Canada is the greatest. We don't have crazy bible thumpers interfering with our law. Same sex marriage has been legal for a while now. Hell, we've even made same sex divorce legal. Our legal definition of marriage was changed from "the union of a man and a woman" to "the union of two persons".
    Moral apathy, and a desire for pleasure and superficial equality outweighing that for justice and moral principle, does not make a country great.

  20. #20
    I've been given a "timeout"
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CA Supreme Court revokes gay marriages

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning
    Absolutely. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." That is a basic statement of faith and patriotism that I hold dear. I never said it just because others were saying it.
    But would you have said it so proudly if the words "against God" were inserted back in 1954?

    The ONLY reasonable position for government on matters of religion is complete neutrality. No endorsement and no antagonism towards religions.

 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Gay marriages, right or wrong
    By firesdeath in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 229
    Last Post: June 24th, 2004, 11:40 PM
  2. The seeds of Genocide?
    By Withnail in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: June 9th, 2004, 08:51 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •