[tomder55]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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

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

[tomder55]

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

Of course . I never denied that .

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

If not it should .

[Wondergirl]

if not it should .

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

[Wondergirl]

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.

[excon]

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

[Fr_Chuck]

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.

[tomder55]

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.

[NeedKarma]

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

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

[tomder55]

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!

[NeedKarma]

You sound like a freeper.

[excon]

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.

[albear]

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

[cdad]

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?

[excon]

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

[cdad]

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.

[excon]

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

[albear]

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

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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.