Armed Polite Society
July 12, 2020, 02:34:56 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: R.I.P. Scout26
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12
  Print  
Author Topic: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8  (Read 101168 times)
Manedwolf
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,516



« Reply #25 on: November 10, 2008, 09:07:16 PM »

Government approved hatred is not OK; EVER.

Sorry.  I do not approve of any one set of people taking rights away from another for any reason without due process.

It's a horrible precident, and it's not what this country should be about.

I'm all for the rule of law, don't get me wrong, but sometimes you just have to stand up and say, "NO.  This is WRONG."

This is one of those times.  It's that time ANYTIME something like this happens, not just in California.


So you're not okay with the majority of voters in a state deciding how they want their state's culture to be?

If you don't like it, you can go to another state that is more like-minded! Like Massachusetts, liberal central, gay marriage and all.

Some of us would like the America back that existed before public deviancy was okay. So, in those areas, people vote for that.

Your kind wants to force the new hedonistic deviant culture on EVERY place coast to coast, instead of accepting that a bunch of people can, through voting, determine what is okay and not okay IN THEIR STATE...and that you are free to move to another state if you don't like it!

What you want isn't the will of We The People, it's Plato's freaking philosopher-kings determining what the people want for them because they're too stupid to understand. (No! You voted wrong! *slap* Vote again!) And THAT is not what the country is about.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2008, 09:10:25 PM by Manedwolf » Report to moderator   Logged
De Selby
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 6,288


« Reply #26 on: November 10, 2008, 09:13:40 PM »

I've seen discussion here of disenfranchising people who don't own property because it's wrong to let people vote themselves what belongs to others.  After all, the right to property is above democracy.

But now I'm reading a thread where democracy is almighty because it banned gay marriage. 

It seems that enthusiasm for the rights of voters depends entirely on the subject of the vote.
Report to moderator   Logged

"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."
Headless Thompson Gunner
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 8,517


« Reply #27 on: November 10, 2008, 09:15:43 PM »

How often have you seen people here arguing that the constitution be ignored?  Because that's exactly what we're discussing.
Report to moderator   Logged
De Selby
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 6,288


« Reply #28 on: November 10, 2008, 09:19:44 PM »

How often have you seen people here arguing that the constitution be ignored?  Because that's exactly what we're discussing.

That's not quite the question.  How often do we see convenient interpretations of the constitution's requirements when it suits the political position of the interpreter?  That one we see all the time:  the amendments' criminal protections are much less clear when it comes to "enemy combatants", the 14th amendment isn't so obvious when we're talking about illegal immigrants' children, and then there's...the right to vote.

We see that kind of discussion all the time.
Report to moderator   Logged

"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."
Nitrogen
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 1,755


Who could it be?


WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 10, 2008, 09:20:45 PM »

If a majority of residents in a state got enough signatures on a ballot to float a referendum to, oh, say, deny civil rights to Jews, would that be OK by you?

Or lets say a majority of liberals in NJ decided to expel anyone that was seen with a McCain sticker on their car, would THAT be okay?

It's. Not. Okay.
If a majority of people want to take rights away from people they don't like willy-nilly like that, it's not okay.

I can appreciate your end of the argument, honestly.  You're afraid that "others" would just decide to nullify any law they decide that was "Wrong."  I can appreciate how that's A Bad Thing.

But you know what?  It's still wrong.  Evil by a majority vote is still evil.  Denying rights to people you don't like without due process is always wrong.  ALWAYS.
Report to moderator   Logged

יזכר לא עד פעם
Remember. Never Again.
What does it mean to be an American?  Have you forgotten? | http://youtu.be/0w03tJ3IkrM
Manedwolf
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,516



« Reply #30 on: November 10, 2008, 09:21:31 PM »

That's not quite the question.  How often do we see convenient interpretations of the constitution's requirements when it suits the political position of the interpreter?  That one we see all the time:  the amendments' criminal protections are much less clear when it comes to "enemy combatants", the 14th amendment isn't so obvious when we're talking about illegal immigrants' children, and then there's...the right to vote.

We see that kind of discussion all the time.

What the hell are you talking about?

This is THE PEOPLE voting to change their state's constitution. That is IN the Constitution.

They voted! Done! There is no challenge that is not unconstitutional!

THEY VOTED.
Report to moderator   Logged
Headless Thompson Gunner
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 8,517


« Reply #31 on: November 10, 2008, 09:28:44 PM »

They didn't just vote.  They amended their constitution.  This isn't some average vote by the legislature.
Report to moderator   Logged
Nitrogen
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 1,755


Who could it be?


WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 10, 2008, 09:28:58 PM »

Ah well, I'm dropping it. There's no convincing you, OR me on this issue.

I still dig you folk even though I think you're wrong.  You're wrong for the right reasons at least, and I can 100% respect that.
Report to moderator   Logged

יזכר לא עד פעם
Remember. Never Again.
What does it mean to be an American?  Have you forgotten? | http://youtu.be/0w03tJ3IkrM
De Selby
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 6,288


« Reply #33 on: November 10, 2008, 09:34:29 PM »

What the hell are you talking about?

This is THE PEOPLE voting to change their state's constitution. That is IN the Constitution.

They voted! Done! There is no challenge that is not unconstitutional!

THEY VOTED.

Yeah, and check out what the other side's argument is: That the Constitutional requirements weren't actually met, because this is a "revision" and not an "amendment." 

Take a deep breath and realize that this kind of technicality-finding goes on no matter what the cause, including in support of causes that are widely championed by social conservatives.
Report to moderator   Logged

"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."
Kyle
Member
*
Posts: 123


« Reply #34 on: November 11, 2008, 12:57:10 AM »

Some of my girlfriend's gay friends were in town for her birthday this weekend.

I am all for gay marriage, gay whatever. None of it bothers me in the least. However, in one sentence they were talking about how terrible it is that CA banned gay marriage. In the next sentence they were complaining that we need more gun control. I blew up on them and started speechifyin'. Paraphrased:

The Liberals or Progressives or what have you, over the last 75 years in this country have slowly but surely picked away at individual liberty. This country was founded on the idea that the Constitution should be the law, and democracy should be limited, and used to sort out the details. The progressives over the years have made democracy paramount, surpassing any conception of liberty. It doesnt matter that each individual has the right to free speech, if the majority of the people want Fairness Doctrine, majority rules. It doesnt matter that each individual has the right to keep and bear arms. If the majority wants more gun control, thats all that matters! On and on and on and on.

Now, we have conservatives saying "It doesnt matter that each individual has the right to love in any way they see fit, and to enter into legitimate contracts, the majority has spoken!"

And oh how they cry about it.

They made their bed, and now they're gonna hafta lie in it.
Report to moderator   Logged
dogmush
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 8,354


« Reply #35 on: November 11, 2008, 02:18:24 AM »

Serious question;

Is marriage a right?

I think Nitrogen's right, in that the majority can't vote away rights.  If the majority of folks in CA voted to ammend their states Constitution to outlaw firearms, we'd all be the first to cry foul.  If the majority wanted to vote that you can't BE gay, id' be right there screaming no.

No one's sayingyou can't be gay,the citizens of CA are saying that their government won't recognize that union.  This doesn't actually seem a right to me.  I don't think there's any right to tax breaks, cheap(er) health insurance, and pensions.  (what else do you get out of a marriage, legally?)

All these things are stuff you get for being being in a gov defined relationship.  Since the relationship is gov defined, why can't the people tell the gov which definitio they want?

What, of the things proponents of gay marriage say they'll get from it, is actually a right?

I freely admit that I don't know, but the issues I've heard on the subject (listed above) don't seem to me to be rights.

So is gov. acknowledged marraige a right?  Or is it just another program that you enter volentarially withsom preconditions?
Report to moderator   Logged
Jamisjockey
Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
Administrator
Senior Member
*****
Posts: 26,580


Your mom sends me care packages


« Reply #36 on: November 11, 2008, 05:09:25 AM »

And the rights of small business owners to not be forced to accept that they now have to insure someone's gay "spouse"?

Oh, right. THEY don't matter. Only the group that wants special equal rights that are more special than others matters.

Small business owners lost that right with EEO legislation.
Report to moderator   Logged

JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. ôRobert Hollisö
HankB
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 12,503


« Reply #37 on: November 11, 2008, 05:51:51 AM »

Government approved hatred is not OK; EVER.
Failure to support and endorse aberrant behavior is not "hatred."  rolleyes
Report to moderator   Logged

Trump won. Democrats haven't been so offended since Republicans came along and freed their slaves.
Those who work for a living are being BURIED by those who vote for a living.
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods. - H.L. Mencken
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain
Fitz
Face-melter
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 6,215


Floyd Rose is my homeboy


WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 11, 2008, 06:31:02 AM »

I take it, then, that if the "mainstream" decides that gun ownership is appalling, you'll happily surrender yours.

Report to moderator   Logged

Fitz

---------------
I have reached a conclusion regarding every member of this forum.
I no longer respect any of you. I hope the following offends you as much as this thread has offended me:
You are all awful people. I mean this *expletive deleted*ing seriously.

-MicroBalrog
Nitrogen
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 1,755


Who could it be?


WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 11, 2008, 06:47:11 AM »

I take it, then, that if the "mainstream" decides that gun ownership is appalling, you'll happily surrender yours.



Well, no, Gun ownership is specifically mentioned in the constitution, while buggery is only blanketly covered under other provisions.
Report to moderator   Logged

יזכר לא עד פעם
Remember. Never Again.
What does it mean to be an American?  Have you forgotten? | http://youtu.be/0w03tJ3IkrM
ilbob
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 1,544


WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 11, 2008, 06:55:24 AM »

A referendum to take rights away from citizens without due process shouldn't pass.  Period.  End of discussion.

I don't care how icky they might be.
no one's rights were taken away. everyone retains the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender.
Report to moderator   Logged

bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.
FTA84
friend
Member
***
Posts: 364


« Reply #41 on: November 11, 2008, 07:05:05 AM »

no one's rights were taken away. everyone retains the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender.

Ah and there it is.  The mayor Daley argument.  Mayor Daley argues the same thing about handguns.  The people voted to ban handguns.  They did not vote away second amendment because people retain the right to have long guns.

Interesting how that argument works here but not there.
Report to moderator   Logged
makattak
Dark Lord of the Cis
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 12,642



« Reply #42 on: November 11, 2008, 07:29:47 AM »

Alright, if people have a right to marry as they see fit, then marriage means nothing.

There is a reason marriage has been between a man and a woman; this has been the definition for millenia.

If it simply means: people who get together and want to have the government recognize their relationship, what is marriage?

Bring back polygamy.

Interspecies marriage.

Underage (with the parents consent) marriage.



Why stop with just two people?
Report to moderator   Logged

ôWisdom is the right use of knowledge. To know is not to be wise. Many men know a great deal, and are all the greater fools for it. There is no fool so great a fool as a knowing fool. But to know how to use knowledge is to have wisdom.ö
GigaBuist
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 4,345



WWW
« Reply #43 on: November 11, 2008, 07:35:07 AM »

Quote
Yeah, and check out what the other side's argument is: That the Constitutional requirements weren't actually met, because this is a "revision" and not an "amendment." [

Bingo.  You need more than 50% approval for a revision, only 50% approval for an amendment.  Given that the CA SC already found a right to gay marriage in the existing state constitution I think this thing is going down in flames.
Report to moderator   Logged
zahc
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 5,044



« Reply #44 on: November 11, 2008, 07:45:36 AM »

Quote
No one's sayingyou can't be gay,the citizens of CA are saying that their government won't recognize that union.  This doesn't actually seem a right to me.

Me either. Government recognition of marriage seems like something with importance comparable to, say, motorcycle endorsments. I fail to see how this issue is even worth a constitution being ammended over. If it's that big of a deal, just get rid of 'normal' marriage to settle the argument. It's absurdity.
Report to moderator   Logged

Maybe a rare occurence, but then you only have to get murdered once to ruin your whole day.
--Tallpine
ronnyreagan
Member
*
Posts: 249



« Reply #45 on: November 11, 2008, 07:52:26 AM »

Alright, if people have a right to marry as they see fit, then marriage means nothing.

There is a reason marriage has been between a man and a woman; this has been the definition for millenia.

If it simply means: people who get together and want to have the government recognize their relationship, what is marriage?

Bring back polygamy.

Interspecies marriage.

Underage (with the parents consent) marriage.



Why stop with just two people?

So you're afraid that if two people of the same gender who love each other are able to enter a commitment recognized by the government, we will eventually be overwhelmed by barnyard multi-partner marriages? I didn't realize the slippery slope was quite that steep - maybe we'd better outlaw regular marriage or it might lead to gay marriage!
Report to moderator   Logged

You have to respect the president, whether you agree with him or not.
Obama, however, is not the president since a Kenyan cannot legally be the U.S. President rolleyes
MicroBalrog
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,505


« Reply #46 on: November 11, 2008, 08:05:08 AM »

Quote
Bring back polygamy.

Heinleinian line marriages!
Report to moderator   Logged

Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner
seeker_two
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 12,922


In short, most intelligence is false.


« Reply #47 on: November 11, 2008, 08:13:23 AM »

I wonder if the voters of California can sue the state gov't for a civil rights violation via "disenfranchising" their vote in this matter.....

...should make for some interesting CourtTV....


...also, when are the CA voters going to start getting as loud and militant as the lefty loonies out there?  Maybe THAT would get Herr Ah-nuld's attention?....
Report to moderator   Logged

Impressed yet befogged, they grasped at his vivid leading phrases, seeing only their surface meaning, and missing the deeper current of his thought.
MicroBalrog
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,505


« Reply #48 on: November 11, 2008, 08:15:10 AM »

Failure to support and endorse aberrant behavior is not "hatred."  rolleyes

I don't think you get it.

Intolerance towards uncommon sorts of sexual behavior is, in fact, intolerance. The spade is a spade.

Report to moderator   Logged

Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner
dogmush
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 8,354


« Reply #49 on: November 11, 2008, 08:21:34 AM »

OK So they're allowed to be intolerant.  The government is intolerent towards drunk drivers, pot smokers, heck tobbaco users are even the subject of Government intolerance in CA.

They can be Gay, They won't be thrown in jail for being gay, They are free to sleep with whomever they want (and can convince to consent).

That covers Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Which, exactly, RIGHT is being infringed here?

Seems like the votors of CA just put homosexuals in the same boat as smokers.  The votors have said they don't want to encourage that behavior in their society.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
ankara escort ata┼čehir escort pendik escort ┼či┼čli escort kurtk├Ây escort ankara escort ankara escort avc─▒lar escort istanbul travesti escort bayan escort avc─▒lar escort antalya escort ankara escort istanbul escort t├╝rk porno ─░stanbul Escort Ankara Escort Bayan taksim escort maltepe escort Ankara Escort Eros Porno Bah├že┼čehir Escort ankara escort Sincan Escort Bayan Etlik Escort Kurtk├Ây Escort Demetevler Escort ├ťmraniye Escort Escort ankara Keci├Âren Escort Escort Ankara Kad─▒k├Ây Escort Escort bayanlar Ankara Escort Bayan Kurtk├Ây Escort Eryaman Escort Kurtk├Ây Escort Escort ─░zmir Escort beylikd├╝z├╝ Beylikd├╝z├╝ Escort ├çankaya Escort escort izmir Ankara escort Antalya escort Ankara Escort ankara escort Altyaz─▒l─▒ Porno T├╝rk├že Altyaz─▒l─▒ Porno Beylikd├╝z├╝ Escort istanbul escort Bah├že┼čehir Escort Ankara escort Porno izle izmir escort Pendik escort Bostanc─▒ Escort izmir escort izmir escort Anadolu Yakas─▒ Escort Umraniye Escort mersin escort kocaeli escort izmir escort Altyaz─▒l─▒ Porno fmovies casino siteleri yabanc─▒ dizi ankara escort PORNO