proposition 8 Options

[*Janette*]

By a vote of 6-1 (with Justice Carlos Moreno dissenting), the California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8 -- while preserving the marriage licenses of 18,000 same-sex couples who wed in the months prior to the November election. Paul Hogarth is reading the 185-page Court decision as we speak, and will be reporting later today with his legal analysis of the Court's reasoning.

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/BREAKI...rop_8_6962.html

discuss.

[kryogenix]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm acknowledging that Baker is valid precedent ("I'm not denying Baker as precedent, since it's fairly obvious that it is"), but that with the trend leaning towards a legalization of gay marriage, I don't think it'll be precedent for much longer. Like how Plessy was precedent before Brown ruled it unconstitutional.

OK, so if you acknowledge the current precedent, do you admit your previous argument is null and void?

Besides, I'm not quite sure there is a trend, given that for every state that votes to allow gay marriage, there are just as many that vote to ban it. Not counting the ones that keep the status quo where gays aren't allowed to marry.

But hey, I hope you're right about this trend thing when it comes to Roe v. Wade.

[illriginal]

OK, so if you acknowledge the current precedent, do you admit your previous argument is null and void?

Besides, I'm not quite sure there is a trend, given that for every state that votes to allow gay marriage, there are just as many that vote to ban it. Not counting the ones that keep the status quo where gays aren't allowed to marry.

But hey, I hope you're right about this trend thing when it comes to Roe v. Wade.

Democratic states tend to lean more towards pro-gay / pro-choice. So ya, some states will legalize gay marriage while the republican or at least conservative states will not. Which isn't good because this gay marriage thing is part of the states splitting up. Conservatives do not want to be part of a nation that accepts homosexuality, but not just that of course. So because of these types of things pile up, they're in process of breaking away. Look up Montana and Texas... they're filing for sovereignty and have already started state industries for their states only.

[mipadi]

Look up Montana and Texas... they're filing for sovereignty and have already started state industries for their states only.

Buuuullllllsshhiiittttt. The governor of Texas half-seriously suggested that Texas should secede, but it's not actually doing it (and I doubt Montana is, either). States can't "file for sovereignty" because states can't secede. We fought a war over this. Look it up, I think it's referred to in the US as the "Civil War".

[illriginal]

Buuuullllllsshhiiittttt. The governor of Texas half-seriously suggested that Texas should secede, but it's not actually doing it (and I doubt Montana is, either). States can't "file for sovereignty" because states can't secede. We fought a war over this. Look it up, I think it's referred to in the US as the "Civil War".

Bullshit?

States can't secede? HA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Bullshit my dick, you ho ass trick:

haha I'm moving to Montana while you suffer Obama's **** ****.

Over 20 states have already started their state industries which will be sovereign from the "Union". Even oil the industries that our Government has refused to reopen like a bunch of a flaming f****ts that they are, with their green this and green that . So let Obama damage the Constitution some more.. he's going to have a revolutionary war at the front step of the White House

[mipadi]

Bullshit?

States can't secede? HA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, they can secede -- until the government, you know, sends the military to force them back into the Union.

At any rate, you don't "file for sovereignty".

[illriginal]

Oh, they can secede -- until the government, you know, sends the military to force them back into the Union.

At any rate, you don't "file for sovereignty".

It doesn't matter because the Military is backing up America's citizens, not the Government. There's so many things not being reported (duh... the revolution will not be televised) that many Americans aren't even aware as to what's coming.

[mipadi]

It doesn't matter because the Military is backing up America's citizens, not the Government. There's so many things not being reported (duh... the revolution will not be televised) that many Americans aren't even aware as to what's coming.

I see hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan that seem to be acting on behalf of the government, and not on the will of the American citizens.

I highly doubt a coup d'état is imminent.

I'm disappointed and disgusted. Talk about legislating from the bench. This is like Plessy v. Ferguson.

I don't think this is a case of legislating from the bench. Even though I strongly disagree with Proposition 8, from a legal standpoint, the court made a correct decision: the people of California voted to amend their constitution, and did so in a completely legal way. The decision to amend the constitution is discriminatory in nature, but unfortunately they did so in a legal way. Had the court overturned a legal amendment, then it would have been "legislating from the bench". The court's job is to determine the legality of certain actions, not dictate laws.

That said, I think the people of California made a poor decision last fall.

Personally, I'm somewhat in agreement with Kryo on this: I don't think the government should have a say in marriage. I think the legal term -- for everyone -- should be civil union, and I think everyone should be entitled to joining in a civil union with anyone they wish. I do think that individual churches have the right to refuse to marry two homosexuals, since personal and religious rights are paramount here. But I think the government should grant a civil union to any couple, regardless of sexuality.

Or, better yet, I don't think the government should recognize unions at all. Tax benefits, etc., to married couples inherently discriminate against people who remain single.

[illriginal]

I see hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan that seem to be acting on behalf of the government, and not on the will of the American citizens.

I highly doubt a coup d'état is imminent.

lol... you don't think if the Government started to force Americans into detention camps or declared war on any Americans that the American soldiers will not stand up for the American people and the Constitution?

Regardless... there's a few states who are making moves. We need more than half of the U.S. to stand up and kick Obama, the Congress (majority of them), and Obama's Administration out.

[mipadi]

lol... you don't think if the Government started to force Americans into detention camps or declared war on any Americans that the American soldiers will not stand up for the American people and the Constitution?

Nope. I really don't. Soldiers are highly trained to carry out orders without questioning them. Look at Nazi Germany: the government forced millions into concentration camps, and the military didn't do a damn thing about it. Different situation, I suppose, but if the government convinces everyone that those being forced into camps are "the enemy" or other undesirables (as happened in Germany in the 1930s), then I don't think the military would think twice about going along with the plan.

Furthermore, given our political situation and the economic climate, etc., people are prone to look for a scapegoat -- that's what happened in Germany, after all. The government could easily blame its problems on some group or another and have them detained in camps, and I'm sure most people would just follow along with it. Many Americans have already been trained to think of Middle Easterners and Muslims as "evil", after all, and military personnel especially are trained to think of, e.g., Iraqis (and by extension, any dark-skinned Middle Easterners or Muslims) as the enemy.

I'm not saying that coups don't happen -- they obviously do -- but I think the American government is stable enough, and has a big enough propaganda machine -- that it's unlikely to happen right now, in this specific situation. The only thing that might trigger instability is if people start to blame the government for the economic crisis, but they've already done a good job of turning that blame to banks and auto makers, so I think the government is on pretty safe ground here.