Fags are the new ******s.

[Q Classic]

The Fundamental Right treats it as a fundamental right, as well as a fundamental rite, but thinks, in a rather Christian sentiment, that it's perfectly okay to judge a certain subset of people and deny their relations the same legal protections and benefits.

[Japher]

I'm curious where we draw the line.

Me to. It seems there are lines drawn every where, and there's a different excuse for each one.

[Q Classic]

I'm honestly puzzled why a gay marriage would affect 'traditional' marriages.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles
I'm honestly puzzled why a gay marriage would affect 'traditional' marriages.

Because people like onodorous or whatever his ****ed up name is would divorce his wife for a nice piece of manass.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Japher
How is marriage a fundamental right?

What was the basis then for the Supreme Court ruling that it was unconstitutional to deny people of different races to marry one another?

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Asher

Because people like onodorous or whatever his ****ed up name is would divorce his wife for a nice piece of manass.

Why would they want a piece of the podunk town of Manassas? I mean, yes, there were those battles there, but.

[EPW]

[Berzerker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


The challenge will be that the ballot initiative was improper and has no power to do what it says it does, because such a change to the state's constitution would require a revision, not just an amendment.

The California Supreme Court in allowing same-sex marriage called it an "essential right" guaranteed by the state constitution. As such, according to the challenge, a mere amendment isn't enough to deprive citizens of an essential right.

The difference is significant, as a revision to the state constitution would first require legislative approval of 2/3rds, and then approval by the electorate of 2/3rds.

The challenge was brought up before, but the California supreme court declined to hear it. But that was because the proposition had not yet passed, so the court was not inclined to weigh in on something that wasn't yet law and might not be so anyway.

Revising the Constitution requires 2/3rds of both the legislature and electorate? Yeah, they'll have to shoot this down because it does revise the constitution by writing in an exception to the equal protection clause.

[Dinner]

From CFC:

Originally posted by illram;7424992

So, the "will of the people" was finally made...um... final by Constitutional amendment in California on November 4th. Or was it?



Linky: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202425831874

Basically, they are arguing that because the proposition upends fundamental principles of equal protection and fundamental rights as guaranteed by Article I of the California Constitution, as well as principles of checks and balances and the function of the court system, the proposition is not an amendment but revision. A revision, according to the Constitution, requires extraordinary legislative action and a constitutional convention, not just a popular vote. Therefore, the amendment is invalid.

I read the writ filed by the ACLU and others at work today and it is a fascinating, well written argument that brings up a lot of interesting things (to me at least) about government and the rights of the people. You can find it and the ACLU's press release here.

Here is my main point which I am interested in discussing, of course bring up whatever else you find interesting or arguable here:

The most common argument against is that, if this were to be found unconstitutional, then this is circumventing the will of the people as shown by popular vote. My response is that the Constitution is the ultimate expression of not only the will of the people, but the ability of the government to enforce the will of the people. Thus, if the Proposition is found to be invalid, then this is only enforcing the "will of the people" as they wished it to be laid down in perpetuity when the Constitution was ratified and subsequently revised.

The will of the people, in a way, speaks louder when you are trying to protect the fundamental ideals of equal protection and fundamental rights permanently enshrined in the Constitution. To overcome that voice, one needs to speak as loud as they once did, and that requires the constitutional procedures necessary for a revision, not an amendment.

Discuss.

[MrFun]

Thanks for that article, Oerdin. It gives me hope.

[Dr Strangelove]

What we really need to know is does a proposition passed by referrendum in California count as an amendment to the state constitution? If it does, then gays may be out of luck. AFAIK courts can't rule a constitutional amendment uncostitutional. If it doesn't then isn't the passage of Propsition 8 is irrelevant, since the state Supreme Court already struck down previously existing california laws barring same sex marriage?

[Dinner]

[Q Classic]

Straight, red-blooded American men have always had a thing for birds.

[Zevico]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


But you freely accept and embrace different terminology. You aren't offended by the term Gay. That is different terminology based soley on your sexual preference.

What if the state used the following definitions

Civil Union: a legally binding contractual betrothal between 2 persons of the same sex having equal status benefits, rights and privileges as all other state sanctioned betrothals.

Marriage: a legally binding contractual betrothal between 2 persons of the opposite sex having equal status benefits, rights and privileges as all other state sanctioned betrothals.

Just as you don't mind these terms:

Gay: a person who's sexual preference is with someone of the same sex.

Straight: a person who's sexual preference is with someone of the opposite sex.

Asher, I realize life isn't always fair and it is less fair for certain people. But demanding that your betrothal be called a Marriage as opposed to a Civil Union isn't going to make the people that are offended by your lifestyle (the stairers) any more sympathetic or accepting. The real key is that your betrothal be given the same legal status not the same name.

Just take out the word marriage altogether then.
Call every 'transaction' of this nature a 'civil union' and be done with it. If people want to get married at a church that's fine. You can even empower priests or rabbis or whatever to sign the relevant documents as they wish. People who don't want to enter into a civil union during a religious ceremony may do so with a civil celebrant, or at a state registry, or whatever.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin

You do realize that that's funny, and destroys your whole point about gays being the new ******s right?