Prop 8 overturned (Montclair: yard, water, town)

[WesternGulf]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

You're right and that's almost within the margin of error it's such a small majority percentage.

If one were to Google "driving factors of prop 8" there are several mentions of that analysis.

[Voyageur]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

They are only making fools out of themselves.

Its evidence that when a certain group is unhappy with the will of the people and want to redefine a basic institution to suit their agenda-they can scream bloody murder to puppet, activist judges who will oblige their whims and indulgences.

Its how these 'marriages' occurred prior to Prop 8 and that's why Prop 8 was put on the ballot and its why Prop 8 passed with 7 Million votes-despite being outspent, despite being villified by the media, despite the Hollywood machine falling overthemselves to fight it, despite politicos from Sacramento to DC lining up to voice their opposition, the people of California still voiced loud and clear on Nov 4, 2008 that we will not surrender ourselves to the demands of anyone or any group.

And that was quite a proud day for our state. The world watched in awe and amazement as we the people of California told the world without equivocation that we will not be intimidated or forced to go along with something we think is wrong.

But based on the comments one finds here, you'd think that its always been that way and with a straight face, to even insinuate such a thing as something historically the case is so outlandishly ridiculous.

That some make this false claim without even batting an eye is downright disturbing.

"activist judge" = any judge who issues a ruling someone doesn't like.

"outlandishly ridiculous" = people who whine that same-sex marriage will lead to people marrying dogs.

[WesternGulf]

Originally Posted by Voyageur

"activist judge" = any judge who issues a ruling someone doesn't like.

I have to agree. Same with "pork barrel spending".

[14thandYou]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Its evidence that when a certain group is unhappy with the will of the people and want to redefine a basic institution to suit their agenda.

So, was marriage "redefined" when...

...black people were allowed to marry white people?

...age of consent laws were altered?

...polygamy was outlawed?

---women were granted the right to initiate divorce proceedings?

...common law marriage was affirmed by the Supreme Court?

...any of the 1,138 U.S. laws and statutes governing marriage were introduced, repealed, or changed?

If not, then what, precisely, does it mean to "redefine marriage", because it would seem the term has little or no meaning if none of the above examples would qualify.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Voyageur

"activist judge" = any judge who issues a ruling someone doesn't like.

I don't like any sort of judicial vetoing when it comes to the will of the people-be it conservative or liberal.

I am a democrat btw.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by 14thandYou

So, was marriage "redefined" when...

...black people were allowed to marry white people?

...age of consent laws were altered?

...polygamy was outlawed?

---women were granted the right to initiate divorce proceedings?

...common law marriage was affirmed by the Supreme Court?

...any of the 1,138 U.S. laws and statutes governing marriage were introduced, repealed, or changed?

If not, then what, precisely, does it mean to "redefine marriage", because it would seem the term has little or no meaning if none of the above examples would qualify.

Those are corrections to past deviations from what marriage is and what it has always been.

The union of a man and a woman.

What is happening now is the attempt to completely redefine what marriage is and that is why 7 Million Californians voted to pass Prop 8.

[Voyageur]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

I don't like any sort of judicial vetoing when it comes to the will of the people-be it conservative or liberal.

I am a democrat btw.

I see. So you oppose the whole premise of having a Supreme Court which decides the Constitutionality of laws? Or do you only oppose that premise when the laws in question were decided by popular vote?

Was Brown v. Board of Education "judicial activism"? And do you oppose it for that reason? It certainly cut against the will of the people of numerous states. See, the reason I'm asking is to find out if you really oppose judicial rulings when they run counter to public will, or if you've just latched on to that excuse because it seems to fit the direction you wish this case had gone. Brown v. Board of Education also overturned previous precedent (specifically, Plessy v. Ferguson) and some have certainly made the case that the basis on which Brown was decided - as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause - was indeed "judicial activism". So, was it "judicial activism" for the will of the people to be overturned in that case?

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

They are only making fools out of themselves.

Killing myself laughing here. Look who is talking

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

I don't like any sort of judicial vetoing when it comes to the will of the people-be it conservative or liberal.

I am a democrat btw.

Then you should probably live in a country that does not have a judicial branch of government because that's how this country and indeed, our state works.

I can understanding not agreeing with a court decision but to basically disregard it because YOU personally don't believe in it says a lot. I know I know...you're gonna ask when or in what way did you imply that you disregarded it:

Here

activist judges who will oblige their whims and indulgences

Here

We are not the ones trying to force our desires on anyone. It is most definitely the other way around.

...and that's because you have it very backwards in this statement. Especially here

you can't justify gay marriages without defending the other potential marriages that exist as well

and here

Still waiting for you and the others to tell us why your threshold for allowing certain marriages is more acceptable than the view of the majority of Californians.

So now that we've got that out of the way, I think you should really think about what happened here rather than using a majorty vote (which as has been pointed out is controversial at best in this case) as a crutch that you keep leaning back on.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

why 7 Million Californians voted to pass Prop 8.

poor arguments. The majority can be tyrants at times. That is what the courts are for. To keep a check on prejudiced people. (such as churches who spend money in order to fund hateful laws instead of feeding the poor).

The majority wanted to maintain Jim crow too you know