Prop 8

[JS80]

Why do you guys think homosexuals can't get married in California?

 

[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 The first would have to be repealed before the second could be enacted.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

 

[Xavier434]

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.

But it is not contagious so that doesnt matter anyways. Next!

What does them getting married have to do with the fact that they cannot produce children on their own? A lot of people get married and don't have kids. Should they not be allowed to get married for that reason too? How about we create an amendment that states that all people must get tested to see if they are sterile before getting married. If they are sterile then they are banned from marriage.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: JS80
Why do you guys think homosexuals can't get married in California?

I know how racist this sounds, but my guess is black people.

 

[K1052]

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

Which is why it is so hard to amend the Federal Constitution in the first place. It prevents the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Atomic Rooster]

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.

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.

Isn't that interesting. Even Nobama and his sidekick Joe the Senator are against 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.

Not bitter at all. I just find it interesting how everybody spews their hatred and anger towards those that supported prop 8, while these two jokers get a pass. I also find it interesting that you think that they will have to anger a large part of their constituency by saying they are against gay marriage just to get elected. Even saying "let the states" decide is a cop out for a politician instead of standing up for what they feel is correct.

 

[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.

 

[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: :|

 

[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

 

[OCGuy]

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?

 

[K1052]

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.

Are the gays trying to keep good christian folk from getting married?

The viewpoints expressed by the people who are for Prop 8 are indeed bigoted. They are trying to exclude others from having rights they should enjoy under a secular government using the mechanism of the state due to their religious beliefs.

 

[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.

 

[RightIsWrong]

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

I agree with you in principal Fern...

But the just passed legislation cannot over-ride an existing amendment. You cannot simply pass a new amendment that states that there is no more freedom of speech. You have to repeal the existing amendment first.

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.

Edit, Edit, Edit: I wanted to ensure that this was seen. HTF did I not notice or hear about an attempt to allow Bush (or any other president) to become dictator for life by the Republicans?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...y/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:

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

The 22nd is the amendment that sets presidential term limits.

 

[Harvey]

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?

I wish I knew. You can start enlightening us by telling us why YOU are.

 

[Xavier434]

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?

Some changes take a lot of time regardless of party affiliation. I am just disappointed that it is taking this long and I am pissed that others who are not even homosexual are being included in this mess just because they don't have rings on their fingers. I thought we were much farther along than that, but it appears I was wrong.

Gays WILL get the right to adopt and to marry across the entire country some day. It is only a question of time.

 

[OCGuy]

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.

 

[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.

 

[nageov3t]

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.

there's a rift between the two.

when the issue of including gays as a part of affirmative action on the DNC party platform, the response from the congressional black caucus was something along the lines of "including gays is an affront to the civil rights movement."

 

[Xavier434]

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.

You and I may disagree a lot, but I will fight till the day I die against anyone who believes that your vote is not important. You are an American.

 

[sactoking]

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.

The difference is that Prop 8 is an amendment to the CA Constitution. None of the other measures were amendments, they were laws.

If Prop 8 is in fact passed, the effect will likely be this: The CA Constitution Equal Protection clause will state "Everyone has rights, blah, blah, blah..." Then later on the Constitution will say "This has been Amended to remove the ability for homosexuals to marry from the Equal protection Clause."

Considering that the Prop initially went before the CA Supreme Court and they rejected it as misleading, then it was reworded by the Atty General, then the CASC affirmed the Prop, I don't see them later ruling on it. Again, it is NOT in conflict with the CA Constitution, it CHANGES the CA Constitution.

Also, the wording it has is something to the effect of "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California", which means that the prior legal marriages would be null and void, as would other unions performed in other states.

 

[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)?

 

[MH2007]

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.

That was the assumption I made when doing my math. We came with fairly similar numbers, and obviously the true number is somewhere between our estimates.

 

[blackangst1]

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)?

Yes, it is. Do a search for his posts.

 

[Xavier434]

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)?

Harvey easily has more than 10 times the number of quality posts consisting of discussion and debating than you have total and that is me really selling him short.

 

[MH2007]

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.

Actually, No on 8 spent just as much money (more actually): $37.6M vs. $35.8M

In-state money was almost dead even

http://www.mercurynews.com/new...0889066?nclick_check=1

"Of the $51 million given by California contributors, less than $550,000 separated the totals raised by the two sides in the emotional election."

So unless I'm missing something, No on 8 actually got more money from out-of-state.