[only?] Californians' Rights To Set Law By Ballot Measures Dismantled?

An Unconstitutional law is null and void, regardless of how it became law. You can vote to ban women from voting. But if, somehow, you managed to get a majority to agree with you, it would not matter, for preventing women from voting is Unconstitutional. I do enjoy watching y'all's heads explode over the past couple of days, very entertaining to me.

 

So what? Legalize it, I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*), might actually take advantage of it if my wife and I end up with a serious girlfriend. You still have said why it's bad.

 

I have no religious opinions....I simply note the advocated desire to redefine the word 'marriage' is lacking a certain...ah, honesty and elegance. Folk can do whatever they desire with each other but perverting the word 'marriage' is a tad odious, especially when accompanied by the pretense that the perversion of the language is not happening...Black is white...

 

Your argument fails on the second point...

1. marriage is a Constitutional right (perhaps)
2. Marriage is whatever the left says it is..(wrong)
3. Therefore the perverted definition trumps the reality of the intended action...

Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman...all else is a conceit, a pretense. One can call a rabbit a dog but both the rabbit and observers know better...even if a court is confused.

 

Actually that is not what you said...here is the post I remarked on

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Marriage is a legal partnership, that means whatever we say it means, because we make our own laws. A dog is a dog, and has nothing to do with laws, except perhaps those of genetics. We don't make those laws, they just are.

 

You make my point...'We' being the far left...Another conceit, the idea that they and they alone get to define terms. As noted, marriage is the union of a man and a woman...the rest is simply redefinition. I know what it means you know what it means and no one is fooled. That the pretense comes with a legal ribbon does not change the facts...Time may change it...decades, generations or more might change the reality but for now the conceit is simply a pretense.

 

No, we as in "We The People".

Not anymore, it doesn't. Soon, SSM will be the law of the land from sea to shining sea, and people who think as you do will be viewed by history as morally repugnant as those who endorsed the continuation of slavery. Your legacy will be viewed as hateful. Enjoy knowing that.

 

If that was true then 'we the people' would have accepted the will of the people in prop 8...but they didn't.

Someone once wrote that feminism is a conceit that could only exist in the western world as long as it is governed by western philosophy and a rule of law. The steady rise and spread of Islamic extremism puts such ideas in danger. My legacy might be viewed as the good old days before the Sharia eliminated feminism and wiped out the western worlds gay communities...

Put more simply, your pretense is only as strong as the western traditions that support it. As the same left that is pushing gay marriage are the same that sucks up to the Arab world, the permanence of your position is in serious doubt.

 

If "we the people" want to pass an Unconstitutional law, they have to Amend the Constitution first. There is a procedure for that. If they do not, even a 90% yes vote doesn't matter. Of course, if they could get 90%, they could probably get the Amendment passed, so it's all good.

We may very well be destined for an Islam vs. everyone else global war. I don't know if it's inevitable, but it may be. Only time will tell. Your vision of society is only slightly different from their's, for what it's worth.

 

Again you are operating from the pretense that all it takes to create a legal fact is your enunciating it...It is not unconstitutional until the Supremes say it is...

 

Or the third option, the only one that has anything to do with reality: The Court will rule on the facts of whatever case comes before them. It will not say "gays get marriage, so everyone else does".

 

And you are operating under the pretense that all it takes is for you to declare that 'marriage is what marriage' is in a form of circular reasoning.

The law is whatever the legislative/judicial process determines it to be, your puny personal opinion notwithstanding.

 

Which they did, just yesterday. You lose. Enjoy your pain, given your POV, you are due to experience nothing but.

 

If misreading the decisions so as to make you feel good works for you, go for it. On this issue I have no position. If the court wants to declare any sort of relation between folk a right, let them. My concerns are about the basic legal errors I find amongst the supporters. The court did not find a right to gay marriage, they did not speak on the issue at all. All that happened is the unconstitutional meddling by the feds in marriage was noted to be unconstitutional and the ability of citizens to challenge a minor court decision was denied.

 

You're right. They didn't. But when the time comes that they must, they WILL find it a Constitutional Right. Mark my words.

 

They found gays are not a special class of people. What IS Constitutional is that SCOTUS just said "it's up to the states how to define marriage". And "Prop 8 defenders in court lacked standing".

That doesn't mean that other plantiff's suing to protect Prop 8 lack standing. Disenfranchised voters in the millions have a case. A case of harm done to them. And it would be up to gays to prove

1. How they were singled out in "between a man and a woman" . [remembering that that clause also excludes boys and girls, and polygamists]

2. That they are a special class of minorities being discriminated against arbitrarily. [They aren't. They just don't qualify, among others for "between a man and a woman".]

The fallicy in the recent Decision is that California cannot at once be granted the right to decide if gays can be married or not; and at the same time UNable to decide if gays can be married or not! The fed just said they could.. So the barn door is wide open for plaintiffs of proper standing [those that can show harm by gay marriage being upheld by courts in that state].

>>THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT AT ONCE SAY THAT GAYS ARE NOT A PROTECTED CLASS AND THAT STATES CAN DECIDE GAY MARRIAGE EACH INDIVIDUALLY, AND AT THE SAME TIME SAY CALIFORNIANS [ONLY] MAY NOT DECIDE ON GAY MARRIAGE. <<

THAT is unconsitutional. California cannot be singled out. And the Fed cannot say "California's ballot iniatives have no weight". California most certainly CAN disqualify gay marriage and the ruse is that gays are trying to get people to think "it's a done deal"...when it isn't....not by a long shot. It's not every day voters have their rights stripped away...

 

and the courts have of course said your argument is bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

It's the stages of grief.
Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance

They're currently in the bargaining phase, desperately trying to find a scenario in which they might grasp victory from the jaws of defeat. Once they realize that's not going to happen will come depression, and finally, acceptance. Though I suspect many of them will be stuck in depression for a long, long time as they see society moving on from their barbaric ways.

 

I made the claim, and gave you the link. Its clearly stated in that court decision. Anyone who has to ask "what part of the constitution does prop 8 violate" has no right to ask such a question. You can debate the court decision, but pretending like you don't know or actually not knowing out of ignorance is not acceptable.

 

Yes it is. I gave your a direct quote of exactly what I said. Saying I didn't say it is like saying that the American flag has no stripes while holding a picture of the flag in your hands clearly showing the opposite.

 

I am sorry but I reproduced the entire post that I responded to. If you cannot figure that out, it is your problem. As Samuel Johnson said "I have found you an argument. I am not obliged to provide you any understanding"

 

The 'direct quote' you gave ne was not the post I remarked on....just for info.

 

You can't expect me to read a whole bloody court document to find a statement that supports your claim, not least because if I'm skeptical of your claim to the constitutionality of this I will probably be skeptical of the court's. Just because the Supreme Court upholds or overturns an action as constitutional/unconstitutional doesn't make it so, else the constitution would be rendered worthless. In fact most federal programs are in violation of the 10th amendment and it takes severe sophistry to argue otherwise.

If you insist on tossing the source in my face and assuming it's legit as opposed to just explaining yourself (seriously it won't kill you), then quote the relevant bits. I refuse to do your homework for you.

 

And that post, like the original post you remarked on, specifically deals with the Federal District Court. It contains a direct quote from the Federal District Court, the name "Perry v Schwarzenegger, which is the name of the Federal District Court case (the SCOTUS case being Perry v Hollingsworth), and a link to the Federal District Court decision itself (which if clicked on has a header that says "United States District Court for the Northern District of California").

Those are FOUR clear indications that I was talking about the Federal District Court. There is no excuse for misinterpreting that as Supreme Court. Now get back on topic or don't bother responding.