It doesn't bother me at all that you think I made a weak argument. Coming from someone who thinks Walker made a sound argument that's amusing .

I'll say it a little differently . State issuance of marriage licenses is a conferred benefit by the State . It is not a right. The State may decide who receives and gets the benefit of a State license and the priviliges that implies much like it can put limits on who receives any other state benefit. State laws provide rules for those who wish to get married in their state... and those laws vary considerably.

Wondergirl is correct in citing just a few of the benefits the state grants married couples. California already dealt with that in making the same benefits available to same sex unions ,and common law arrangements. Are you arguing then that California is also denying equal protection to common law couples ? Of course not because it isn't happening. And until you can prove to me that same sex civil unions denies gays equal protection then the argument is lame.

Other states have not made those provisions in their laws. In fact most don't .Even your most liberal leaning ones don't have civil union privilages . I would say there is a more compelling argument in taking on those states because the issue of equal access is legitimate there .

But not in California where the people ,through the intiative process amended their constitution to strike a fair and reasonable solution to the competing arguments.

Perhaps in some near future the minds of the people will change ,and that change will be reflected in the will of the people . Anything less than that is a justice like Walker "deeming " a result on the people of the state.

So the real beef is calling it a "marriage."

Does a "civil union" include ALL the rights obtained in a "marriage"?

Quote:

---

So the real beef is calling it a "marriage."

---

Of course . I never denied that .

Quote:

---

Does a "civil union" include ALL the rights obtained in a "marriage"?

---

If not it should .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

if not it should .

---

I'm guessing it doesn't. I will check, librarian-style.

Marriage is not equal to a civil union.

From now.org (as well as other sites) --

Marriage is a unique legal status conferred by and recognized by governments all over the world. It brings with it a host of reciprocal obligations, rights and protections. It is also a cultural institution. No other word has that power and no other status can provide that protection.

A civil union is a legal status granted by a state. The State of Vermont created civil unions in 2000. It provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections, as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word "marriage".

Civil unions are different from civil marriage and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal.

To read more from this site, see Equal Marriage NOW: Civil Marriage v. Civil Unions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

of course . I never denied that

---

Hello again, tom:

If it's about what it's called, in terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, I'll repeat what I said earlier to dad. If you have the RIGHT to call what you have with your spouse, a MARRIAGE, and you do, so does EVERYBODY ELSE.

excon

But marriage is not honored by all states, in those where gay marriage is allowed, it is not honored in other US states.

Nations where having more than one wife is allowed, that is not honored here in the US if they would move here.

So calling it marriage is not a magic wand that makes it any better status.

A couple judges have now reversed what millions voted for in Arizona and California. Arizona voted for the enforcement of existing federal immigration law ; and California changed their constitution to recognize marriage as a traditional bond between a man and woman as it has been for 2,500 years in the West.

Both were reversed by these black robed, unelected ,appointed for life oligarchs because they deemed the will of the people bigoted, comparable to the racism of the Jim Crow South.

It is nonsense ,and no clearer example of the Imperial Judiciary exists today.

71% Think Prop 8 is Unconstitutional - Source: Fox News!

FOXNews.com - Did Judge Make Right Call In Gay Marriage Case?

Lol Which lefty blog suggested their readers should troll and vote ? I've seen that done plenty times on right wing blog sites so I understand how that works ,as I suspect you do too.

Really ? You are citing an unscientific web poll ? Then pan someone else's sources ?

Too funny!

You sound like a freeper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

A couple judges have now reversed what millions voted for in Arizona and California. Both were reversed by these black robed, unelected ,appointed for life oligarchs because they deemed the will of the people bigoted, comparable to the racism of the Jim Crow South.

---

Hello again, tom:

Good thing the Constitution, which you purport to LOVE, created a 3rd branch of government, which you apparently HATE. How do you deal with your schizophrenia?

excon

PS> A reminder, if EVERY SINGLE voter voted to remove a Constitutional right, say about your GUNS, it would be illegal. I don't what's so hard about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

PS> A reminder, if EVERY SINGLE voter voted to remove a Constitutional right, say about your GUNS, it would be illegal. I don't what's so hard about this.

---

So if nobody in your 'country' likes one of its rules and wants it gone or changed, they can't do anything about it?

Sounds abit like a dictatiorship to be honest

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

PS> A reminder, if EVERY SINGLE voter voted to remove a Constitutional right, say about your GUNS, it would be illegal. I don't what's so hard about this.

---

What I find funny about the fact that you keep throwing this out there is that gun ownership is one of the most restricted rights we have. And at the same time it is the only right that protects all others. Are you saying there should be no gun laws whatsoever? Or are you comfortable with the state/government making a legal definition as to where you can carry and who can own them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by albear

so if nobody in your 'country' likes one of its rules and wants it gone or changed, they can't do anything about it?

sounds abit like a dictatiorship to be honest

---

Hello albear:

Our Constitutional RIGHTS are not RULES. In fact, what the Bill of Rights does is tell the government what RULES it CANNOT MAKE concerning the FREEDOM of its inhabitants.

That sounds like a free country, and it is.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by albear

so if nobody in your 'country' likes one of its rules and wants it gone or changed, they can't do anything about it?

sounds abit like a dictatiorship to be honest

---

There are remidies in place. But no one (single) entity is suppose to rule over the other as supreme. Our government is set up with different branches to address grievences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

Are you saying there should be no gun laws whatsoever? Or are you comfortable with the state/government making a legal definition as to where you can carry and who can own them?

---

Hello again, dad:

I'm consistent in my support for the Constitution. I don't like the government whacking away at THAT right, any more than I like 'em whacking away at the ones we've been discussing. The Constitution says you may own and carry a firearm. That's the only legal definition I need.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello albear:

Our Constitutional RIGHTS are not RULES. In fact, what the Bill of Rights does is tell the government what RULES it CANNOT MAKE concerning the FREEDOM of its inhabitants.

That sounds like a free country, and it is.

excon

---

That's not the way you make it sound

Sounds like a prison with the illusion of freedom,

The cage is so big you can't see the bars

Hello again, albear:

I have no idea where you get that. ALL my posts deal with freedom and the Constitution. But, that's OK. I'm misunderstood by LOTS of people here. However, you can make up your own mind. Here are the Bill of Rights. Certainly doesn't sound like a prison to me. I've been there, and this ain't it.

Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II - A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III - No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII - In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

excon

Ex what the Constitution did not create was a judiciary superior to the other branches;nor is there anything making the judiciary the final arbiters. That was a usurpation early in the Republic that has not been challenged .

Indeed I think the will of the people should have weight on these matters. There is no basis for the courts to decide that Arizona cannot enforce legal laws .And ,there is no provision that makes the California prop 8 amendment to their state constitution unconstitutional.

There is a growing movement in this country to amend/repeal the 14th Amendment. The sole reason for this is the court using sole disgression in a dictatorial manner to reshape our society .

It is the court's abuse of the system that's the real problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

That was a usurpation early in the Republic that has not been challenged .

---

Hello again, tom:

Could that be because you remained silent when the black robed usurpers ruled in your favor?? Could be. Nevertheless, you always admonish me for arguing the way the law SHOULD be, instead of the way the law IS.

Besides, you're not saying, are you, that our civil rights ought to be left up to the whim of the public and/or the legislature?? I think you ARE saying that, which is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time.

excon

Neil Steinberg's column in today's Chicago Sun-Times mentions this: "Despite the changes we've seen, marriage still has worth, and withholding it from gay people based on nothing is mere religious oppression. It's odd -- in some American colonies before the Revolutionary War, clergy were not allowed to perform wedding ceremonies; that was the realm of judges. The colonists, with fresh memories of the monolithic Church of England, did not want to let state religion get its foot in the door. So if you know your history, marriage in the United States is not a religious realm being intruded upon by the government, but a governmental realm that has been shanghaied by religion."

Quote:

---

"marriage in the United States is not a religious realm being intruded upon by the government, but a governmental realm that has been shanghaied by religion."

---

From "some American colonies" to the entire history of marriage in the United States. That's quite the leap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

From "some American colonies" to the entire history of marriage in the United States. That's quite the leap.

---

Colonies. This was pre-United States.

I'm quite clear on what "colonies" means. I'm also quite clear that "some colonies" doesn't define the history of "marriage in the United States."

Hello again,

What DOES the history of marriage have to do with it?? Ok, you want history? Here's the only history that's important here. When WE, as a nation, recognize that what we have HISTORICALLY done, was WRONG, we fixed it. THAT is a history to be PROUD of.

But, to continue to do the wrong thing, because we always have, isn't a sentiment I could latch onto.

excon

The Puritans, no less!

From historycooperative.org --

The English Puritans who founded Massachusetts in 1630 formed a society as committed to religion as any in history. But for them, marriage was a civil union, a contract, not a sacred rite. In early Massachusetts, weddings were performed by civil magistrates rather than clergymen. They took place in private homes, not in church buildings. No one wore white or walked down the aisle. Even later, when it became customary for ministers to preside at weddings (still held in private homes), the clergy’s authority was granted by the state, not the church.

Massachusetts’ founders insisted on civil unions, not as a reluctant compromise with the state, but as a direct outgrowth of their religious beliefs. Puritans were dissenters from the Church of England, which like the Catholic Church treated marriage as a sacrament. In England, the king was "defender of the faith," bishops sat in the House of Lords, and the Church of England had legal authority over all religious matters, including marriage. Puritans strongly opposed this system. They wanted to adhere strictly to the Bible in shaping their forms of worship, but as they read it, the New Testament offered no precedent for bishops, ecclesiastical courts, and royal control over religion. What’s more, they held that the Bible sanctioned only baptism and communion as sacraments, since these were the only sacraments that Jesus took part in himself.

Marriage remained important to Puritans (it was often used as a metaphor for the divine love between believers and God), but they wanted to remove it from the realm of sacred authority, leaving only the sacraments under church control. This radical change was impossible to achieve in England, where the unified church and state used its power to persecute dissenters. But when they migrated to Massachusetts, the Puritan founders were free to shape their new society according to their beliefs. As a result, Massachusetts had no bishops, no ecclesiastical courts. The state [civil government] regulated all aspects of the marriage process, from "publishing the banns"–an announcement of the intent to marry that was an early predecessor to the marriage license–to the marriage ceremony, the giving of dowries, property and inheritance rights, and in rare cases, divorce.

Hello again:

Looks like the mean, homophobic, anti-constitutionalists are at it again. Here's the deal. IF the ruling is NOT appealed, it applies only to those states within the Ninth Circuit. If it IS appealed to the Ninth Circuit, no matter what happens there, it WILL be appealed to the Supreme Court, where the ruling will effect the entire country...

So, since they KNOW they'll lose at BOTH venues, they're NOT going to appeal it, simply to punish gays and lesbians living OUTSIDE the Ninth Circuit.

I'm STILL having difficulty with the Constitution loving wingers who constantly want to CHANGE it, even though the think they don't. I don't know what's going on with them.

As an aside, Glenn Beck says, "progressivism is the cancer that is destroying the Constitution". I'm progressive to the extreme. I don't think I want to destroy the Constitution. There isn't a contributor to this board who argues the constitutionality of events MORE than I do.

Do YOU think I want to destroy the Constitution??

excon

Not being Glenn Beck I can't defend what he says nor divine what he means.

The judge said that the appeal needs to be made by the people who lost the case. In this case that would be the state of California.

As I already pointed out. The State of California's AG Brown was neither interested in defending the case ;nor will he likely attempt an appeal. In this case ,he is letting his own opinion dictate his course rather than his oath to serve the people of the state(indeed the judge's ruling is full of his own personal opinions also making it ripe for repeal... if only attempted ).


This was the same thing that happened in the DOMA case. The US justice dept did not want to defend the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The judge said that the appeal needs to be made by the people who lost the case. In this case that would be the state of California.

As I already pointed out. The State of California's AG Brown was neither interested in defending the case ;nor will he likely attempt an appeal.

---

Hello again, tom:

That's not exactly right. In fact the State of California REFUSED to defend it, so they didn't. The group who sponsored prop 8 in the first place defended the suit. I can't for the life of me find their name. But, whoever they are, it's up to THEM to appeal - not the state.

In fact, since the ruling, Jerry Brown is urging the appeals court NOT to grant a stay and wants gay couples to be allowed to marry right now.

excon

PS> I'll come up with their name, though. Don't you worry. It's THAT group that has standing to appeal. Nobody else - because it's THEIR suit that the judge ruled against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

That's not exactly right. In fact the State of California REFUSED to defend it, so they didn't. The group who sponsored prop 8 in the first place defended the suit. I can't for the life of me find their name. But, whoever they are, it's up to THEM to appeal - not the state.

In fact, since the ruling, Jerry Brown is urging the appeals court NOT to grant a stay and wants gay couples to be allowed to marry right now.

excon

PS> I'll come up with their name, though. Don't you worry. It's THAT group that has standing to appeal. Nobody else - because it's THEIR suit that the judge ruled against.

---

I haven't looked much but here are some places worth checking to see who is behind it.

Ref: Bill sponsers

Protect Marriage - Yes on 8 » Home Page

Which leads to these people.

Engage

That is only part of the trail.

On a side note. Jerry Brown is an idiot and he was a horrible Governor. A terrible mayor of Oakland. And he was too entrenched with political family and cronies to get any real things done except what he was told to do.

Why where men given penises "ill tell you why " to reproduce with women " its been the answer from the start of time men should not be with men!

Here is something I found interesting. And disturbing at the same time.

Proposition 8 Contributions

The name of the case is Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Clearly it was the duty of the state to defend the constitution of the state. Brown chose not to defend the lawsuit,Schwarzeneggersaid that he supported the lawsuit .None of the state officials named in the suit sought to defend the law in court even though it was their job.

That left a group led Senate leader Dennis Hollingsworth and the Alliance Defense Fund , and a rival group, the Campaign for California Families to act in defense of the law. Except that Judge Walker also denied standing to the Campaign for California Families.
Here we had a law suit against the state ,and no proper government defendant.Even Imperial County ,in an attempt to at least have some government representing the state was denied standing by the judge.

Now the judge ,after giving standing to the Alliance Defense Fund to defend prop 8 is saying he doesn't think they have standing to appeal ? This is a travesty .

So, when are the gays going to support Polygamy, people marrying Children, their Pets, etc. Fair is fair. Can't discriminate against those groups either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

So, when are the gays going to support Polygamy, people marrying Children, their Pets, etc. Fair is fair. Can't discriminate against those groups either.

---

Hello again, smoothy:

If you're allowed to smoke cigarettes, why shouldn't you be allowed to burn your neighbors house down? Fair is fair. Can't discriminate against the stuff you burn.

excon

PS> I can match silly, with silly.

Who lives in the neighbors house... ;)


I've actuially had a few neighbors over the years that though has crossed my mind if only for a moment.