Constitutional Amendment introduced to ban same-sex marriage MOD ALERT

It's about jobs.....

 

the law in question was declared unconstitutional.

which prop 8 did.

the supreme court never made any such statement. you pulled that directly out of your ass.

right out of your ass.

nope. nobody has standing except the goverenor. and he agrees with the court.

and the supreme court just said that no voter in California has standing.

 

For a while I thought they were throwing out "Morrrissey"..... (he's popular in all kinds of faraway places!)....

 

Like the passage of the amendment under question, this is another thing that's never going to happen. Also it's factual soup made with all the wrong ingredients.

 

It should be about true witness bearing to our own supreme law of the land from politicians claiming those morals; or are they just "perjuring" themselves against the People by resorting to the abomination of hypocrisy./

 

Ah, but in ruling on DOMA, they DID rule on Prop 8. The clever senior conservative judges slipped this one by the liberal freshmen there. The lack of standing was in claiming gay marriage harmed hetero marriage. The proper standing is voter disenfranchisement. ie "Juan Doe & the state initiative system v The State of California.

They said in DOMA that the fed has to abide by what each state has determined is "legally married". Since this says that gay, polygamy and minor marriage are not civil rights, they left it up to states to decide. California cannot be the one exception. And since the High Court "said" gay marriage is up to each state in this clever way, then Prop 8 is valid. The officials at any level, state, state AG, Governor, lower federal courts, may not circumvent this constitutional interpretation at their whim. "Legally" in California means through the initiative process. And that was done already: twice.

Any "determinations", "concerns" "invalidating" etc. the lower officials may fancy themselves as having power to carry out and act on are null and void. California cannot be the one exception to the 50 in being able to choose yes or no on gay marriage. Gay marriage is not a constitutional right. That fact was upheld. The Court made its Ruling last week expecting it to be challenged in this way.

Can you imagine how in "Juan Doe v California" democrats will have to hem and haw explaining to hispanic catholics and other catholics how the power of their vote doesn't count in the blue state?..lol... what a tightrope to walk! What a number of voters they will turn away from their party... Will California go purple again?

 

Utter, complete & fanciful nonsense!

 

Constitutional amendment to go against a Constitutional amendment...conservatives.

 

The California State Supreme Court had already ruled that denial of the right to marry for same-sex couples violated equal protection under the law for gays and lesbians so the matter for the State of California was settled before Prop 8 was ever proposed.

When Prop 8 passed, based upon the decision of the California State Supreme Court, the Attorney General and Governor of California refused to defend the law because Prop 8 violated the equal protection under the law for gays and lesbians.

The People of the State of California have no Right or Authority to legislate unconstitutional laws or amendments to the State Constitution and the matter of same-sex marriage had been previously resolved by the highest Court in California.

 

Again it's about calling something that it's NOT

 

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to call it something else besides marriage, make it clear that the "something else" entails all of the rights and privileges of marriage, and then get on with out lives? Why waste time, breath, and bandwidth arguing over a word? It's just a word. Call it something different.

 

Sounds good.

 

everything in this post is wrong

- - - Updated - - -

no it isn't.

 

It'll never pass and they know it. At any one time at least 1/3 of Republicans will oppose it on state's rights grounds and no Democrat will go for it; so this is just a show to earn points with religious nutcases (or else was outright introduced by the religious nutcase wing of the party; I've no idea who introduced this bill). Regardless, this is not actually representative of the general Republican mindset. They're just humoring some hickland Senator or whatever.

 

YES it IS,only stubborness claims otherwise

 

And they are marriages in reality too.

 

Nope,you're still wrong

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

mar·riage noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\

Definition of MARRIAGE

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

 

You can cover your ears and chant 'nananana' all you like, it doesn't change the fact marriage is permitted between persons of the same-sex in many states/countries. The legal definition is the only one that matters essentially.

 

Nope,despite gay's hijacking of the definition,it's still wrong

 

and here is where the wheels come off the bigot train. What is right or wrong is completely subjective. But the law is something else, while there is room for interpretation there is something to base it on. Here if people think something is right but it clear is illegal it is still illegal no matter how many times they vote for it.

 

2014 is looking great for Democrats. All they have to do is use this during the campaign.

 

Every jobs bill that has been proposed that would actually help create jobs has been either filibustered by the Republicans or killed by the Republican controlled house.

- - - Updated - - -

False. DE, MD, NY, RI, Vermont, New Hampshire, Washington State, NY, Maine and Minnesota for a total of 10 were all enacted by the State legislatures. So quite simply, you are wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

In the 13 states with SSM, there is no differentiation between OSM and SSM in any legal way.

 

Are those crazies really spending our tax dollars creating that kind of ridiculous and obviously going nowhere "amendments?"

How many people have died because of "gay marriage?"
And how many people have died because of "concealed weapons?"

If they really want to amend the constitution. . .go and amend the 2nd amendment! At least that would save lives!

 

This thread is a circle jerk. Nothing more.