Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: sactoking
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Hopefully, if it does pass, there will be another court challenge against.
People need to realize that because something that is wrong and they want it; does not confir the status on it of it being right.
I don't see where it can go in court. Prior challenges were upheld on the grounds that the CA Constitution outlawed bans. Now the CA Constitution no longer outlaws bans. On what grounds can a judge overturn a Constitutional Amendment? It can't be unconstitutional, and there is no higher power under the law. The Fed Gov't has no jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court wouldn't touch it.
The amendment itself can be tested in court.
Merely changing the state constitution doesn't automatically make the changes legal. They will still have to be ruled upon by the state supreme court.
If the federal government held a constitutional convention, passed a resolution/amendment and it was ratified by the states, it can still be overturned by the SCOTUS. ALL law is open to review and one amendment cannot override another. The first would have to be repealed before the second could be enacted.
Expect this to be challenged and overturned.
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i guess thats all you can say because the reality is politically incorrect. if homosexuality were contagious it would be worse than aids, it would lead to extinction of species. luckily its not, and simply a product of the "good enough" aspect of evolution where defect rates are acceptable to save on costs.
Originally posted by: JS80
Why do you guys think homosexuals can't get married in California?
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: sactoking
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Hopefully, if it does pass, there will be another court challenge against.
People need to realize that because something that is wrong and they want it; does not confir the status on it of it being right.
I don't see where it can go in court. Prior challenges were upheld on the grounds that the CA Constitution outlawed bans. Now the CA Constitution no longer outlaws bans. On what grounds can a judge overturn a Constitutional Amendment? It can't be unconstitutional, and there is no higher power under the law. The Fed Gov't has no jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court wouldn't touch it.
The amendment itself can be tested in court.
Merely changing the state constitution doesn't automatically make the changes legal. They will still have to be ruled upon by the state supreme court.
If the federal government held a constitutional convention, passed a resolution/amendment and it was ratified by the states, it can still be overturned by the SCOTUS. ALL law is open to review and one amendment cannot override another. The first would have to be repealed before the second could be enacted.
Expect this to be challenged and overturned.
Nope.
If a Constitutional amendment passes, the SCOTUS can NOT overturn it. Quite the opposite, they are compelled to enforce it because it is now part of the Constitution. That's their job, making sure all subsequent laws are in conformity with the Constitution, including all amendments.
Fern
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Originally posted by: Atomic Rooster
Same-sex marriage ban wins
(11-05) 10:08 PST SACRAMENTO -- After a heated, divisive campaign, fueled by a record $73 million of spending, California voters backed Proposition 8, which would change the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
With 96 percent of the vote counted, the measure was winning by a decisive 400,000-vote margin, 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent. It had piled up huge margins in the Central Valley, but lost in every Bay Area county but Solano.
Isn't that interesting. Even Nobama and his sidekick Joe the Senator are against same-sex marriage.That pitch also was a big help for the Democratic presidential ticket. Both Barack Obama and Joe Biden could give 100 percent support to the campaign's efforts to preserve rights, even though neither of them supports same-sex marriage.
Still bitter, huh? That's ok, time will pass.
Any major political candidate in the foreseeable future has to be anti-gay marriage if they want to win anything. This is the sad truth of our country. The best answer he could have given was "let the states decide," and that's essentially what he did.
Originally posted by: gevorg
What I learned from this thread: If you don't like someone's views, call them a bigot so others would chip in and call then a bigot too. The more you say it, the better your stance is. Sandbox name calling helps too.
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: gevorg
What I learned from this thread: If you don't like someone's views, call them a bigot so others would chip in and call then a bigot too. The more you say it, the better your stance is. Sandbox name calling helps too.
If you didn't learn that this issue IS about bigotry, and calling it by its ugly name is the only appropriate action, then you didn't learn anything. :thumbsdown: :|
Originally posted by: gevorg
What I learned from this thread: If you don't like someone's views, call them a bigot so others would chip in and call then a bigot too. The more you say it, the better your stance is. Sandbox name calling helps too.
C-SPAN anyone? Thats how serious discussions/debates go.
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Heard on the radio that polling data shows that whites voted against the ammendment 51 -40 something and blacks voted for it 60 to 30 something
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: sactoking
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Hopefully, if it does pass, there will be another court challenge against.
People need to realize that because something that is wrong and they want it; does not confir the status on it of it being right.
I don't see where it can go in court. Prior challenges were upheld on the grounds that the CA Constitution outlawed bans. Now the CA Constitution no longer outlaws bans. On what grounds can a judge overturn a Constitutional Amendment? It can't be unconstitutional, and there is no higher power under the law. The Fed Gov't has no jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court wouldn't touch it.
The amendment itself can be tested in court.
Merely changing the state constitution doesn't automatically make the changes legal. They will still have to be ruled upon by the state supreme court.
If the federal government held a constitutional convention, passed a resolution/amendment and it was ratified by the states, it can still be overturned by the SCOTUS. ALL law is open to review and one amendment cannot override another. The first would have to be repealed before the second could be enacted.
Expect this to be challenged and overturned.
Nope.
If a Constitutional amendment passes, the SCOTUS can NOT overturn it. Quite the opposite, they are compelled to enforce it because it is now part of the Constitution. That's their job, making sure all subsequent laws are in conformity with the Constitution, including all amendments.
Fern
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 24
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 17, 2005
Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: gevorg
What I learned from this thread: If you don't like someone's views, call them a bigot so others would chip in and call then a bigot too. The more you say it, the better your stance is. Sandbox name calling helps too.
If you didn't learn that this issue IS about bigotry, and calling it by its ugly name is the only appropriate action, then you didn't learn anything. :thumbsdown: :|
So why are so many dems and minorities bigots?
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: gevorg
What I learned from this thread: If you don't like someone's views, call them a bigot so others would chip in and call then a bigot too. The more you say it, the better your stance is. Sandbox name calling helps too.
If you didn't learn that this issue IS about bigotry, and calling it by its ugly name is the only appropriate action, then you didn't learn anything. :thumbsdown: :|
So why are so many dems and minorities bigots?
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
So why are so many dems and minorities bigots?
I wish I knew. You can start enlightening us by telling us why YOU are.
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
That is the basis of my argument. California (I'm assuming) has some equal protection clause/amendment in its constitution that this new passed law is in direct conflict with. It will be heard and any sensible judge would rule against it.
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Heard on the radio that polling data shows that whites voted against the ammendment 51 -40 something and blacks voted for it 60 to 30 something
If true, that's pretty ironic and disheartening.
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
So why are so many dems and minorities bigots?
I wish I knew. You can start enlightening us by telling us why YOU are.
I voted "no", sorry. But i'm just a straight white upper-middle class male with no disabilites, so my vote is not important to anyone.
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
That is the basis of my argument. California (I'm assuming) has some equal protection clause/amendment in its constitution that this new passed law is in direct conflict with. It will be heard and any sensible judge would rule against it.
That's exactly what California has, an equal protection clause. It's the same clause that caused the CA Supreme Court to rule against the last proposition that tried to ban gay marriage. Prop 22, I believe.
And for whomever was asking if it's retroactive, I do not believe that it can retroactively affect those who have already been married.
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: gevorg
What I learned from this thread: If you don't like someone's views, call them a bigot so others would chip in and call then a bigot too. The more you say it, the better your stance is. Sandbox name calling helps too.
If you didn't learn that this issue IS about bigotry, and calling it by its ugly name is the only appropriate action, then you didn't learn anything. :thumbsdown: :|
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: MH2007
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: MH2007
Boy was I wrong. I wonder how many of our fellow self-righteous Obama voters secretly voted for this
Fixed
Good point and interesting question. We can do some math:
http://election.cbsnews.com/el...8/state.shtml?state=CA
So as of now
McCain voters 3,693,865
Yes on 8 voters 5,163,908
So maybe as many as 1,470,043 (and I think it's safe to say that not all McCain voters went Yes on 8). Clearly I was wrong when I proposed that more Obama voters voting on 8 would have defeated it.
Another way to look at it, 6.125M Obama voters but only 5M no on 8 voters, so at least 1.25M Obama voters voted no (or no vote) on 8. Disgusting.
Some Republicans did switch over to vote for Barak, though, and I suspect they were a big part of the 'yes on 8' vote.
Originally posted by: gevorg
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: gevorg
What I learned from this thread: If you don't like someone's views, call them a bigot so others would chip in and call then a bigot too. The more you say it, the better your stance is. Sandbox name calling helps too.
If you didn't learn that this issue IS about bigotry, and calling it by its ugly name is the only appropriate action, then you didn't learn anything. :thumbsdown: :|
Grow up and watch C-SPAN or something.
You're not discussing/debating you're just bullshiting. Is this your preferred way of communication (name calling)?
Originally posted by: gevorg
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: gevorg
What I learned from this thread: If you don't like someone's views, call them a bigot so others would chip in and call then a bigot too. The more you say it, the better your stance is. Sandbox name calling helps too.
If you didn't learn that this issue IS about bigotry, and calling it by its ugly name is the only appropriate action, then you didn't learn anything. :thumbsdown: :|
Grow up and watch C-SPAN or something.
You're not discussing/debating you're just bullshiting. Is this your preferred way of communication (name calling)?
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How much you wanna bet this gets overturned by "activist" judges? :laugh:
I'll take that bet. I'm in for $1,000 that activist judges don't overturn it.
That's a little rich for my blood. I'd go for $5 or maybe $10.
I forgot to mention one other point -- I heard that this proposition was supported financially from out-of-state orgs -- and I strongly believe we should ban this sort of thing in California.
Where do these out-of-state organizations get off putting props on our ballot and then spending huge amounts of cash to affect the outcome of our state election? That's just absurd and I would say so regardless of the specific issue or who was behind it.