Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's true, it's not official yet in California. It's up to the Supreme Court. But it is leaning toward it being legal. And I found this out after I made the thread.
I don't want my children growing up in this new California. I want them in the California I was raised in. Not the ones where the Democrats are driving the Christian value systems and sweet suburban lifestyle.
You could move to another state. I personally think the political games they play with gay marriage in CA will come to an end with SC ruling. They had popular elections about it, and majority rejected gay marriage, so I don't see how one gay judge can change the results of the vote.
Contrary to popular wisdom, the majority is not always right. We also have a constitution that we live by which grants rights to the population.
Sometimes the majority does some things that violate the constitution, and then it is up to the judiciary to step in and correct this wrong. This is how the country was set up.
As for your implication that the judge only ruled the way that he did because he was gay, please think about that for a moment. If he is not allowed to rule on a case because of his sexual orientation, the same would hold true for heterosexual judges.
As for your implication that the judge only ruled the way that he did because he was gay, please think about that for a moment. If he is not allowed to rule on a case because of his sexual orientation, the same would hold true for heterosexual judges.
The heterosexual judges did not make rulings either way, they accepted the results of a democratic vote. It was a gay judge who rejected democracy and the will of the people.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 02-09-2012 at 08:42 AM..
The heterosexual judges did not make rulings either way, they accepted the results of a democratic vote. It is a gay judge who rejected democracy and the will of the people.
You have this wrong. Vaughn Walker (the gay judge) was the first judge to rule, overturning prop 8. He also issued an injunction against his own judgement, knowing that it would be heading for appeal.
The appeals court has upheld his ruling by a 2-1 ruling. I do not know the sexual orientation of any of the judges on the appeals court, and do not much care. The likelihood is that they are straight. If so, that would directly contradict your statement.
Back to my original point. The judiciary exists to make judgement calls on constitutional issues. Judge Walker was doing his job, what he was hired to do, based upon the separation of powers this country was founded upon. The people of California were wrong, in that they voted for a proposition that was clearly unconstitutional. Walker was correcting this as was his duty.
His personal sexual orientation is irrelevant to the matter. The gay marriage thing is being framed as a conflict between GLBT and heterosexuals. If this is indeed the case, by your logic no judge could rule on this, as gays would be biased one way, heterosexuals the other. Or married judges could not rule because they are married, and have an opinion on it as a result. This is obviously absurd.
Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals made the correct decision here, finding that equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional right.
That's true, it's not official yet in California. It's up to the Supreme Court. But it is leaning toward it being legal. And I found this out after I made the thread.
I don't want my children growing up in this new California. I want them in the California I was raised in. Not the ones where the Democrats are driving the Christian value systems and sweet suburban lifestyle.
Without knowing your age, we can't say for sure what has changed since you were raised, but that California is forever gone. Deal with it. When I was raised, we didn't have a TV set until I was 5-6 years old, no cable until I was grown, no computers or video games, although we did have a telephone, electricity and running water, unlike life just a couple of generations older. Things change. Personally, I would not want to live the way previous generations did.
The free people of California voted on the issue and rejected gay marriage, and a gay judge ignored the will of the people. I hope the Supreme Court intervenes and overturns the rulings of the gay judges, since their rulings are obviously influenced by their own sexual orientation.
The free people of California voted on the issue and rejected gay marriage, and a gay judge ignored the will of the people. I hope the Supreme Court intervenes and overturns the rulings of the gay judges, since their rulings are obviously influenced by their own sexual orientation.
You keep stating this and completely ignoring my substantive points. Let me simplify this for you.
What is your constitutional basis for treating gays and lesbians unequally?
Majority rules is not adequate. Back in the day, the majority felt that:
A. Slavery was ok. Simply because they were the majority did not make that right.
You keep stating this and completely ignoring my substantive points. Let me simplify this for you.
What is your constitutional basis for treating gays and lesbians unequally?
Majority rules is not adequate. Back in the day, the majority felt that:
A. Slavery was ok. Simply because they were the majority did not make that right.
B. Women were not permitted to vote.
C. You could not vote if you did not own land.
D. Whites and blacks could not marry one another.
Gays and heteros have 100% same marriage rights in every state, so there is no violation of the Constitution. Heteros cannot marry same sex partners any more than gays can.
Gays and heteros have 100% same marriage rights in every state, so there is no violation of the Constitution. Heteros cannot marry same sex partners any more than gays can.
Gays can only get married in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington DC (Plus a couple of tribal reservations). Therefore, gays and heteros are NOT being treated the same in every state.
Gays can only get married in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington DC (Plus a couple of tribal reservations). Therefore, gays and heteros are NOT being treated the same in every state.
Incorrect. Gays can marry in every state according to same laws which apply to heteros. Heteros cannot marry same sex any more than gays can, so the law is applied to both groups the same way. Gays can marry in any state as long as they marry opposite sex.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
