[excon]

prop 8 has done just that- taken away legal rights.....Again, it isn't about morality, it's about religion. That is the legal hammer used to maintain discrimination. Would you say that's criminal? I would.

Hello again, Jake:

Proposition 8 took away rights TEMPORARILY. I promise you, they will be restored. Jerry Brown, California Attorney General understands the Constitution.

The Constitution grants ALL men (people) rights. Every one of us, as individual sovereign people, hold these rights. The majority cannot vote out the rights of the minority, even if it is only a minority of ONE.

Is it criminal for religion to try to impose THEIR idea of morality on the rest of us? Nahhh. They been doing that since time immemorial. It's just a constant pain in the @ss.

excon

[Jake2008]

Good!

I am Canadian, with relatives and friends in California, and they too are optimistic that this will be resolved sooner rather than later. I am one of three sisters, one of whom is gay, and although it is a difficult thing to get past (she came out 20 years ago), when you do, you're left with the same person that was there before, only happier.

As you probably know gay marriage is legal here. It really isn't a big deal. It was, until it was entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedom's, but after it was the law of the land, you don't hear boo about it.

It is kind of nice to get past the b.s.

[inthebox]

Hello again, Jake:

Proposition 8 took away rights TEMPORARILY. I promise you, they will be restored. Jerry Brown, California Attorney General understands the Constitution.

The Constitution grants ALL men (people) rights. Each and every one of us, as individual sovereign people, hold these rights. The majority cannot vote out the rights of the minority, even if it is only a minority of ONE.

Is it criminal for religion to try to impose THEIR idea of morality on the rest of us?? Nahhh. They been doing that since time immemorial. It's just a constant pain in the @ss.

excon

Define "rights."

So if one "man" wants to steal 50 billion should that be his constitutional "right" even though the majority think it illlegal? Should he get Jerry Brown to make it his "right" to do this?

What is criminal is using the court to supercede a public vote on the issue.

Whose "morality" are we talking about? How about getting rid of that "religiously imposed " morality against murder or stealing or lying? Are we talking about your morality? How is your morality any better than the majority voters in CA on prop 8? :confused:

And lets be clear here, just because I am, or someone is, not for gay marriage does not necessarily mean we are anti - gay. We can accept and love the person yet disagree or be against a [the] behavior [s].

John 8




g&p

[excon]

Define "rights." So if one "man" wants to steal 50 billion should that be his constitutional "right" even though the majority think it illlegal? Should he get Jerry Brown to make it his "right" to do this?....If it is about the llaw, 1] why not respect the vote in CA 2] you just refuted yourself by calling it immoral :>

Hello again, in:

Where or where shall I start?? How about this? You should know that I don't use the "right" word carelessly at all. There are a lot of people who claim rights but have no idea what they're talking about... I'm not one of those. When I say RIGHT, I know whence I speak.

Rights aren't made up like you seem to think I think... My rights, your rights, and everybody's rights emanate from the Constitution of this here country of ours. THAT'S where they come from - nowhere else...

Maybe if you read and understood the Constitution, you wouldn't ask such stuff. Frankly, I wish you would read it. Then we can defeat this thing together... What?? You're not going to disagree with the Constitution, are you?

Pay particular attention to Amendment number Nine, and number Fourteen, section #1. If you understood THESE amendments, you'll understand why gay marriage is a Constitutional Right.

In terms of you thinking the vote is the law, you're just flat wrong on that issue. Voters cannot remove your rights. Nobody can. Nobody! That's the way it SHOULD be.

(edited) Ok, I'll save you some trouble. I'll reprint the relative segment here from the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution... "..nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...." The passage is simple, short and sweet.

Can you understand EQUAL protection of the LAW? That means, in the simplest terms, that if you have the right to DO something, SO DOES EVERYBODY!! It can't be plainer than that. Ok, let me try it another way. IF the government is going to give YOU rights for being married, then EVERYBODY can get married. Certainly that would be the case if those rights are to be given EQUALLY, and the Fourteenth Amendment says they are. No?

excon

[inthebox]

Hello:

Sorry. This ISN'T about morals.... It ISN'T about acceptance/tolerance. And it for sure ISN'T about what YOU think about homosexuality. SCREW those things!!!

It's about the LAW, the CONSTITUTION, and CIVIL RIGHTS.

I could care LESS whether you HATE gay people or not. It matters NOT that you may think they're the most IMMORAL people in the world..... In fact, YOUR views on MORALITY don’t have ANY place in this discussion.

If YOUR rights were based upon YOUR morality, I’ll be you’d lose ‘em real quick. Unless, of course, you’re one of those NON sinning Christians.

However, since you brought it up, the TRUTH of the matter is, keeping an ENTIRE class of people from enjoying the SAME RIGHTS YOU HAVE, is pretty damn IMMORAL – pretty damn immoral, indeed!!!

excon

Again - self refuting.

Tell me - do you think the founding fathers would ever have imagined that the Constitution would be used to create new rights? Like abortion or the marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman?

What is the next right that you think you can use the Constitution to create? How about marriage between man and animal or between 2 children?

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"first intended to secure the rights of former slaves"

How does this relate to gay coupling? How do you make the logic leap from race and slavery to gay coupling?

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds | L.A. Now | Los Angeles Times

Do you think the 70% of blacks think that civil rights is the equivalent ot gay marriage?







G&P

[excon]

Tell me - do you think the founding fathers would ever have imagined that the Constitution would be used to create new rights?

Hello again, in:

I asked you to read and try to understand the law of our land... You didn't. I can't help it.

There are no NEW rights. There's only the ones we've ALWAYS had. That's the way it IS, and that's the way it should be.

I knew you'd mention marrying dogs and stuff... That's stupid. I'm not going to argue stupid.

excon

[inthebox]

Ex


You state:

Rights aren't made up like you seem to think I think... My rights, your rights, and everybody's rights emanate from the Constitution of this here country of ours. THAT'S where they come from - nowhere else...

How is gay marriage a right "we've always had?"

Where in the constitution does it state that gay marriage is a right?

Yes, I read the 9th and 14th amendment like you asked and I see no logical interpretation that can be used to justify gay marriage.

Obviously you do. All I'm asking is for you to make that case since you brought up that line of "thinking."

I don't consider you stupid, so I find it disappointing that you can't or won't answer the questions that your line of thinking brings up.



g&p

[excon]

Where in the constitution does it state that gay marriage is a right? Yes, I read the 9th and 14th amendment like you asked and I see no logical interpretation that can be used to justify gay marriage.

Hello again, in:

I thought maybe a reading of the Constitution would do it for you. I guess not. You still DON'T understand the Constitution. If you did, you wouldn't have asked the question you asked. Let me see if I can help.

The specific answer to your question is this:

The Constitution doesn't list rights. Our founders were TOO smart to write a LIST. For example, you DO have the right to own a safety pin, don't you? Yes, of course you do, yet, you won't find THAT right listed either. Nope. Our founders, in their wisdom, realized that if they LISTED rights, they couldn't list EVERYTHING one was free to do. So instead of listing the things we CAN DO, they LISTED the things the GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO. The implication being that we were free to do EVERYTHING else.

That's what freedom is, no?

They thought people would UNDERSTAND that, but they wanted to MAKE SURE, so they wrote the Ninth Amendment to seal the deal. It says there, quite clearly, exactly THAT. It says, because certain rights are enumerated (listed), that doesn't mean that there aren't OTHER RIGHTS retained by the people...

The term "other rights retained by the people" is QUITE significant. THAT is where you'll find your right to own a safety pin, to MARRY, or do ANYTHING that is not constrained by the government. Really, that's where it is. It SAYS so.

The Fourteenth Amendment simply says that the laws will be applied equally.

So, if YOU have the right to own a safety pin, AND YOU DO because the Ninth Amendment says so, so does everybody else. Those are the TWO concepts imbued in those two Amendments and the Constitution as a whole.

Those founders of ours were really, really smart. Now, YOU are too.

excon

[Alty]

Exy, had to spread the rep, but I agree 100%.

Marriage is a right, whether you are gay or straight!

Why are some people so opposed to this, it's not like we're telling you to go out and become a homosexual. You don't have to be in a gay marriage, heck, you don't even have to accept gays, that's your right, but to deny them the right to be married, well, that's not your right, never was, never will be.

Live and let live already!

[NeedKarma]

And think of all the fornicators and adulturers that sit in the pews every Sunday - no one seems to have a problem with that.

[inthebox]

They thought people would UNDERSTAND that, but they wanted to MAKE SURE, so they wrote the Ninth Amendment to seal the deal. It says there, quite clearly, exactly THAT. It says, because certain rights are enumerated (listed), that doesn't mean that there aren't OTHER RIGHTS retained by the people...

So by that same logic the right for man and animal to marry or the right of two children to marry can be included in those rights not specifically enumerated by the constitution.
How about the "right" to drive around naked, or the "right" to have several wives. Your interpretation leaves a whole pandora's box of "rights" open.

that is not constrained by the government

implying that government can constrain rights like driving - [ dui laws ]

and that government follows laws that may be made at the will of or voted on by the people... so what is the problem with prop 8?


Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

again explain how this pertains to gay coupling?

How can there be "equal protection" when we have :

1] a progressive tax system where the more you make in adjustd gross income the greater the percentage in taxes you pay

2] affirmative action?

3] in abortion ? Where is the "equal protection" for the unborn?

4] why do single tax filers pay more per same agi? Why do taxpayors that have dependents have special deductions?

And think of all the fornicators and adulturers that sit in the pews every Sunday - no one seems to have a problem with that.

Who told you, that you had to be perfect and sinless to go to church? Did not Jesus come for the sinners? Sin does include fornication, adultery, homosexuality [ no special dispensation there ] greed, hate etc...

Luke 18:9-14 (New International Version)

The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector
9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[a] himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

G&P

[excon]

Hello again, in:

You're not listening.. I'm telling you what YOUR CONSTITUTION says. I know you don't like it. I don't know why. It is YOUR country, and the laws ain't too bad. The Constitution is pretty cool too.

But, I know you're not interested. That's a shame for an American. Ok. You don't want to know the law. You keep making silly suggestions, that could only have come from your church. I ain't interested in your SILLY stuff. I'm interested in the law. You aren't.

Later.

excon

[inthebox]

Ex

If prop 8 is what you may think of as "unconstitutional" why did it even make to the ballot in the first place?

I'm telling you what YOUR CONSTITUTION says.

And it does not, specifically in writing, list gay marriage as a right.

Those "rights" not enumerated are then open to interpretation [ see prior posts ] and the majority of CA voters on prop 8 were in favor of it.

You make a number of false assumptions about my view point that just serve as a detraction from a discussion.





G&P

[Alty]

it does not, specifically in writing, list gay marriage as a right.

It doesn't list your right to bowl either, but believe me, you have the right to bowl.

I'm not even American and I understand the constitution, it's not hard.

Marriage is a basic right, for all human beings. The last time I checked, gays and lesbians are indeed humans, therefore they have the right to marry and all the rights that marriage allows.

Why did it this proposition make it to the ballot in the first place? Because of religious nuts that think that being gay or lesbian is against God's words. I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but a lot of things that everyone does is against "God's law". You can't pick.

[inthebox]

Where is the proposition against bowling?

Anyone, please explain how "gay marriage" is a "right" justified by the Constitution.

Maybe you pro gay marriage lawyers out there can state your legal case beyond;

"Its there in the Constitution"

What case law or precedent establishes it as a right?

By what standard is it a right? If one group says it is a right by their standard and another group, going by a different standard, states it is not; was that not voted on in Prop 8?

Please, state your case in a logically manner.

Terms like "stupid" "religious nuts" " you this or that .." "tolerance"... would they make it as reasonable legal argument?





G&P

[Jake2008]

Here in Canada, the entire country is subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not within our constitution to discriminate against who gets married, it is entrenched that anybody has the right to get married.

To deny someone their right, under the Charter, not to marry simply because they are gay, is unconstitutional, and discriminatory, and illegal.

As I said before, take religion out of the equation, and there is no argument.

For you to understand this, you must look at all people as being equal under the law.

Imagine that you and your wife (as an example here, no idea if you are married or not), are seen, in the eyes of the law, as equal to a same-sex couple. It is not lawful to deny either of the two parties the right to marry.

You may disagree because of your religion, however, because it is the law, your religion cannot influence what is lawful for ALL citizens. No offence, but you having religious arguments, does not make any difference in what is lawful, and available to all people.

Your religious beliefs do not represent all people, equally. Your religion discriminates. It is unlawful, at least in this country, to deny same-sex couples their legal right to marry, simply because your particular religion does not agree.

[excon]

Please, state your case in a logically manner.

Hello again, in:

If you don't think the way I've presented it so far is logical, then we have nothing further to discuss.

excon

[excon]

Where is the proposition against bowling?

Hello again, in:

Nahhh. I'm not going to give up. If you want logical, I'll give you logical.

It's been pointed out here that you have the right to own a safety pin and you have the right to bowl. You don't deny that, but you say that THOSE rights don't have to be listed in the Constitution because they aren't being challenged.

What??

You ask for logic, but logically, that makes no sense at all. What if somebody DID challenge your right to bowl, and you couldn't justify it with it being on the list? By the way, when you read the Constitution, did you find ANY list??

You'll probably say something like bowling isn't a moral issue, as though that has some LEGAL distinction... It doesn't.

Unless, of course, you can show ME where it says that laws and/or rights need to be based upon morality. Where is THAT stuff in the Constitution??

I've shown YOU where your rights are, including the ones where you can bowl and own a safety pin. You didn't like that. You scoff at my legal analysis, yet you show me NONE of yours.

Instead, you provide religious dogma.

If prop 8 is what you may think of as "unconstitutional" why did it even make to the ballot in the first place?

You think that laws can be made, but if they were UNCONSTITUTIONAL, they wouldn't have been made in the first place. That's just flat out wrong. It makes NO sense whatsoever. I have NO idea what you might think the role of the Supreme Court is, if it's NOT to rule on the constitutionality of a law.

You think that the majority can vote out the rights of the minority. That too, is just flat out wrong. If we lived in a democracy where the majority DOES, in fact, rule, then you'd be correct... But, we live in a republic where the majority does NOT rule.

I don't know how you missed THAT piece of law and/or history, but you did.

I again, suggest that if you understood the Constitution, and WHY it was written, you'd understand why gay people have the right to marry.

Nobody here is asking you to ACCEPT that gay people can get married. They're just telling you that it's the LAW of the land.

excon

[inthebox]

Ex

"law of the land"?

State the law - the link - perhaps in Mass but in California?

If it is a "law of the land" why are /were there state ballot initiatives in2004 and 2008 regarding same sex marriage? Then this becomes a states rights vs federal power issue.

If you believe in an activist judicial system, yes, they can interpret law anyway they see fit - make up laws - regardless of what the Constitution states.

You, as a reported libertarian, should be more fearful of a couple of people [ judges ] that can alter laws arbitrarily, like eminent domain,
rather than a vote by thousands of your fellow citizens.


G&P

[Synnen]

Actually, I had this conversation recently with someone I respect--and I've come to the realization that it IS a state's rights vs federal rights issue---just like slavery was.

So--every state can rule on it however they want to, but if someone gets married in a state where it is legal and then MOVES to another state where it is NOT legal---the state where it is NOT legal must still recognize the legality of the relationship.

Just like in the days of slavery where a state could decide whether slavery was legal in their state, but could not say that a slave was no longer property just because the owner of the slave travelled to a state where slavery was NOT legal.

Either way--MY religion says that gay marriage is okay. Are you going to say that MY religion is wrong, when YOUR religion practices cannibalism by proxy (the body and blood of Christ). Isn't cannibalism wrong? I mean, even if you ARE substituting bread and wine, isn't the very idea of eating another person repellent to you? It is to ME! I think that's morally WRONG! Let's BAN IT! I bet that I could get a "cannibalism by proxy is wrong" ballot going, and people would only get worked up about it because it's discriminating against a religion, not because cannibalism IS wrong, morally.

So... since your religion is doing something disgusting to me, should I teach my children to hate and scorn all Christians? I mean... you can't really justify cannibalism! And really, you can STOP yourselves! It's not something you HAVE to do! You just CHOOSE to do it because you FEEL that way about your morals or something.

Anyway, maybe I am rambling a bit, but I think my argument no more ridiculous that the people marrying pets argument, or the pedophiles marrying children argument (stupid arguments, by the way--what part of TWO CONSENTING ADULTS do people just not get?). It's also no less stupid than the morals trump laws argument.

Anyway... I'm off to start my campaign against "Cannibalism by Proxy" or something.