Appeals Court: Prop 8 Unconstitutional

USFREEDOM911 said:
Why can't you answer the question, Dixie?
Are you afraid, or just a coward?

Are you ready for a judge who has a different view then yours, making that decision?
Click to expand...

I thought I was very clear the first time I said it, I don't want ANY judge making that decision, or ANY decision which affects the society I live in, it's not the judges place, that is the right of the people. A judge already made the decision that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, what right did he have to do that? The people went to the trouble of codifying law because of another idiot liberal judges ruling, and this one wants to overturn the will of the people, and that's just not how America is supposed to work. WE tell the judges what the law is, not the other way around. They rule on the basis of what WE establish as the law.
 
Dixie said:
Okay, you know what, I am so tired of hearing this stupid comparison, I am going to answer your question. I am opposed to a federal court judge making ANYTHING the law of the land, including interracial marriages... even though they have NOTHING in common with "Gay Marriage" which is an oxymoron. Our system is built to work a certain way, and it has worked for over 200 years, so I don't approve of shortcuts or end-arounds. I believe what the overwhelming majority of society should take precedent over a partisan judge in ALL cases, because that is DEMOCRACY, and there is nothing wrong with it. You can take virtually ANYTHING and twist it into a prejudice against someone, if you try hard enough. We're not a society who sits on it's thumbs and lets judges determine what the law is.... sorry... that sounds like how they live in Russia.

Now before you get all emotive and wound up about the interracial marriage thing... If gay people were a RACE of people, who were brought here on Queer Ships against their will and enslaved for a century, followed by another century of oppression, then I might have a bit more sympathy for the plight of the gay.... but that isn't the history here. They are not a race of people, they make the choice to live a gay lifestyle, whether they were "born gay" or not, and they simply don't have the right to adopt and pervert a sacred religious practice as their own, against the overwhelming will of the people. This is the PERFECT example of why we DON'T allow judicial tyranny. You are never going to settle this issue by judicial fiat, or by trying to dress it up as a civil rights issue.

You say, but dixie, it's not right that the majority can deny Gay Marriage, just as they shouldn't have denied interracial marriage, and we needed the courts to step in. I say you are making an invalid comparison, because marriage is the union of a man and woman, and bans on interracial marriage weren't made on the basis of marriage being perverted into something else and called marriage. What if some judge decreed that Animal Marriage is law of the land? How would that be any different? Or Child Marriage? I think an overwhelming majority would not approve of animal or child marriage, but you are saying a single judge should be able to use his own personal viewpoint, and proclaim it law of the land and fully constitutional.... and that's okay with you!

If your argument has validity, the Constitution and our rights, mean absolutely NOTHING because a judge can rule them out of existence on a whim. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with them, you've already said judges rulings trump majority rule, so you've fucked yourself. Now, I realize, this is all hunky-dory as long as you have LIBERAL judges, forcing LIBERAL ideals down our throats, but how are you going to feel when the judges are far right-wing, and start doing the same thing? You gonna be okay with that? Remember, you won't get to decide what's constitutional anymore, it's up to a judge who has a totally different view than you. Ready for that, idiot?
Click to expand...

so dixie supports interracial bans and believes our 3rd branch of government is meaningless. why don't we do away with the 3rd branch then....
 
Yurt said:
so dixie supports interracial bans and believes our 3rd branch of government is meaningless. why don't we do away with the 3rd branch then....
Click to expand...

When did I say I support interracial bans? Bans on interracial marriage were struck down after Congress had enacted the Civil Rights Act, when did the Homosexual Rights Act pass? I don't support judges and courts usurping the power of the people and legislature, and enacting things into law, particularly in matters where the people have spoken. The 3rd branch serves a vital purpose, they are the arbitrators of constitutionality of what IS the law. They interpret circumstances and weigh importance to fundamental individual liberties, and make determinations on what is or isn't in accordance to the constitution. Now the whole problem here is, the Constitution does guarantee the rights to every person, to do whatever... it doesn't say society has to accept whatever any person wants to do. Marriage is not denied to homosexuals, they can enter into a marital relationship with a person of opposite sex, just like every other American, that right is not being denied to them. Homosexuals have sexual relations with people of the same sex, not opposite sex. You want to take your freaky butt sex and pretend it's the same thing as marriage, and it's not. The problem with society doing this, is it opens the door to all kinds of other problems, which our Constitution is pretty clear on how we have to proceed. If you allow "marriage" to be redefined to include a sexual lifestyle, it means that virtually ANY sexual lifestyle you can possibly dream up, has to be given the same consideration. If something is a right for one of us, it is a right for ALL of us... If marriage is based on our sexual inclination, and guaranteed as a right under the constitution, then this is the criteria we have established, and we'll live to regret the mistake.

Government has no business sanctioning marriage to begin with, they should gracefully bow out, under the guise of respecting religious establishment and relieving themselves from religious entanglement. If there is some perfunctory reason we need to have some federal/state acknowledgement of "couples" in this day and age, we could have simple civil union registrations. It's one of those issues that really doesn't even need to be an issue, but because the Gay Activist Lobby gets so much mileage out of it, and because hypocrite liberal democrats can parade it around with a pretty banner as they bash the intolerance of the right.... it persists as an issue.
 
Dixie said:
I thought I was very clear the first time I said it, I don't want ANY judge making that decision, or ANY decision which affects the society I live in, it's not the judges place, that is the right of the people. A judge already made the decision that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, what right did he have to do that? The people went to the trouble of codifying law because of another idiot liberal judges ruling, and this one wants to overturn the will of the people, and that's just not how America is supposed to work. WE tell the judges what the law is, not the other way around. They rule on the basis of what WE establish as the law.
Click to expand...

So a Judge shouldn't have decided that Blacks deserved to be treated like humans and it should have been left up to what ever society they lived in. :shock:
 
Dixie said:
I thought I was very clear the first time I said it, I don't want ANY judge making that decision, or ANY decision which affects the society I live in, it's not the judges place, that is the right of the people. A judge already made the decision that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, what right did he have to do that? The people went to the trouble of codifying law because of another idiot liberal judges ruling, and this one wants to overturn the will of the people, and that's just not how America is supposed to work. WE tell the judges what the law is, not the other way around. They rule on the basis of what WE establish as the law.
Click to expand...
Your an idiot. If the people passed a law saying that protest against the government was now illegal, it would violate the first amendment, and a judge would be absolutely within his rights to strike down the will of the people. The will of the people does not trump the US Constitution, no matter how much you wish it could. The two judges in this case found that Prop. 8 violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Until the 9th Circ. en banc, or the SCOTUS overturn this decision is the law of the 9th Circ. No other Circuit is required to view this ruling as precedent in in their Circuit. That is how our country has worked for over 200 years and it is the way it works now. YOU only complain when you don't like the decision.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
When did I say I support interracial bans? Bans on interracial marriage were struck down after Congress had enacted the Civil Rights Act, when did the Homosexual Rights Act pass? I don't support judges and courts usurping the power of the people and legislature, and enacting things into law, particularly in matters where the people have spoken. The 3rd branch serves a vital purpose, they are the arbitrators of constitutionality of what IS the law. They interpret circumstances and weigh importance to fundamental individual liberties, and make determinations on what is or isn't in accordance to the constitution. Now the whole problem here is, the Constitution does guarantee the rights to every person, to do whatever... it doesn't say society has to accept whatever any person wants to do. Marriage is not denied to homosexuals, they can enter into a marital relationship with a person of opposite sex, just like every other American, that right is not being denied to them. Homosexuals have sexual relations with people of the same sex, not opposite sex. You want to take your freaky butt sex and pretend it's the same thing as marriage, and it's not. The problem with society doing this, is it opens the door to all kinds of other problems, which our Constitution is pretty clear on how we have to proceed. If you allow "marriage" to be redefined to include a sexual lifestyle, it means that virtually ANY sexual lifestyle you can possibly dream up, has to be given the same consideration. If something is a right for one of us, it is a right for ALL of us... If marriage is based on our sexual inclination, and guaranteed as a right under the constitution, then this is the criteria we have established, and we'll live to regret the mistake.

Government has no business sanctioning marriage to begin with, they should gracefully bow out, under the guise of respecting religious establishment and relieving themselves from religious entanglement. If there is some perfunctory reason we need to have some federal/state acknowledgement of "couples" in this day and age, we could have simple civil union registrations. It's one of those issues that really doesn't even need to be an issue, but because the Gay Activist Lobby gets so much mileage out of it, and because hypocrite liberal democrats can parade it around with a pretty banner as they bash the intolerance of the right.... it persists as an issue.
Click to expand...

your grasp of history fails. the bans were struck down by scotus. do point to where in the civil rights act it mentions interracial marriage bans. it took loving v. virginia, 3 years AFTER the act to outlaw interracial marriage bans, over a dozen states had the ban in force at the time.

i don't understand how on the one hand, you say the 3rd is the arbiter of the constitution and what is constitutional or not, yet, in the same breath you claim they cannot determine that the CA law is unconstitutional. your stance is contradictory.

homosexuals cannot marry anyone they want. your argument is the same that racists made regarding interracial marriage bans. well....blacks can marry, but only other blacks. see, no discrimination there dixie and you, by your logic regarding gay marriage, support interracial marriage bans, because afterall, the will of the people wanted those bans.
 
poet said:
What is homosexual behavior?.
Click to expand...
Two people who share a mutual sexual attraction.

poet said:
Surely, you're implying promiscuity
Click to expand...
Not at this juncture, no. But thanks for throwing part of the problem in the ring, however untimealy it may be.

poet said:
of which heterosexuals are equally guilty.
Click to expand...
Of which I already understand, and yet you people can't seem to shut up about it.

poet said:
Marriage, as I see it...is between two people, not 3 or 4 or more.
Click to expand...
Marriage, as I see it, is between one man and one woman, not 2 homosexuals, or 3 or 4 polygamists.

poet said:
Any woman that consents to a marriage with multiple wives involved is a fool. Any man that desires a marriage consisting of more than one spouse is greedy.
Click to expand...
Yes. You're just missing one more point: Any man or woman who wants to marry another of the same sex is perverted.
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
your grasp of history fails. the bans were struck down by scotus. do point to where in the civil rights act it mentions interracial marriage bans. it took loving v. virginia, 3 years AFTER the act to outlaw interracial marriage bans, over a dozen states had the ban in force at the time.
Click to expand...

My grasp on history is fine, you just have a mild comprehension problem. Yes, the SCOTUS, who often ultimately does rule on constitutionality of an issue, did indeed strike down the bans in loving... if it hadn't been for CRA64, there would have been no loving because there would be no legal basis. This is why such bans existed in the first place. AFTER passage of CRA, an avalanche of rulings followed, because the court was properly determining cases based on the law and the constitution.

You see, the problem we have here is, you want the courts to enforce your interpretation of the constitution and forget the law, and that's not the purpose or function of the courts, or at least, it shouldn't be.

i don't understand how on the one hand, you say the 3rd is the arbiter of the constitution and what is constitutional or not, yet, in the same breath you claim they cannot determine that the CA law is unconstitutional. your stance is contradictory.
Click to expand...

Not contradictory at all. The court has no basis on which to claim the CA law unconstitutional because it is not unconstitutional. If California had passed a law or the US amended the Constitution, to give homosexuals special rights to pervert the sanctity of marriage, then the CA court would be within it's authority to rule Prop 8 unconstitutional, but such an act has not been passed. We have instead, the Mythical Magical Imaginary but Just Like Civil Rights Act for Gay People of 2012... It never passed Congress, it was never vote on by the people or their representatives, it just exists because liberal homos like yourself, NEED for it to, so you can make your idiotic arguments!

homosexuals cannot marry anyone they want.
Click to expand...

Guess what? NO ONE CAN!

your argument is the same that racists made regarding interracial marriage bans.

No, it's completely different, and it continues to disgust me that low lifes like you, want to make the two synonymous, when they aren't. In fact, it kind of angers me, because black people suffered a long time before the injustices against them were lifted, and for you to use that like a condom to make some point about gays not being allowed to legitimize their sexual perversion and shit on religious customs? Fuck you, idiot... you don't deserve a response.

well....blacks can marry, but only other blacks. see, no discrimination there dixie and you, by your logic regarding gay marriage, support interracial marriage bans, because afterall, the will of the people wanted those bans.
Click to expand...

Yes, the will of the people wanted those bans, and they were in place until the Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination on the basis of race... when you get your act passed which prohibits discrimination on basis of sexual desire, let me know.

When you get tired of erecting straw men, toss a match on a few for me?
 
Dixie said:
If you allow "marriage" to be redefined to include a sexual lifestyle, it means that virtually ANY sexual lifestyle you can possibly dream up, has to be given the same consideration. If something is a right for one of us, it is a right for ALL of us... If marriage is based on our sexual inclination, and guaranteed as a right under the constitution, then this is the criteria we have established, and we'll live to regret the mistake.
Click to expand...

NO, IT DOES NOT.
If you want to keep fucking your pet goat, have at it, but it will never be legal you fucking moron.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I was focusing on the assertions that you have imagined and it appears that you feel that gays marrying are going to harm children, but can't say how,
Click to expand...

Imagined assertion.


USFREEDOM911 said:
that gays marrying are going to affect your marriage, but can't say how, etc., etc., etc.!!
Click to expand...

I am not married. Another imagined assertion. Ya got anything relevant to my words you keep quoting? ....I didnt think so.
 
Yurt said:
what does allowing gay marriage have to do with improving the well being of children?
Click to expand...

Children who are born to their married parents thrive, compared to children born to single mothers who have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquincy, drug and alchohol, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal conviction as an adult. Encouraging heterosexual couples to marry reduces the #s of children born to single mothers and increases the # of children born into homes with the benefit of both their mother and father to provide and care for them.

Encouraging gay couples does not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top