TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- USA - West Coast / Las Vegas
-- California's top court legalizes gay marriage
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »

California's top court legalizes gay marriage

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gay_marr...mYCphmr5ydh24cA

"California's secretary of state is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to put the amendment on the ballot"

about time.
Only shorted lived though?

It is about time indeed. If California voters vote to ban it again, I'm moving. Banning gay marriage is ridiculously backwards.

This is great. Hopefully more states follow. And hopefully Obama is elected and puts some liberal justices on the supreme court bench and we take this to the federal level.

i wonder, would you guys get upset if a court was able to make abortion illegal if the will of the people had just voted in favor of legal abortions? I know id be furious

I am not against gay marriage, just against activist judges using their legal position to forward their own agendas'. If we allow this, it could get ugly. Just because we are in favor of the outcome, doesnt mean we should be ok with the process in which it came about

The fight is just about to begin, alas.

(I made a contribution this morning to the PAC that will be fighting that amendment...sigh, why can't we all get along? )

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen i wonder, would you guys get upset if a court was able to make abortion illegal if the will of the people had just voted in favor of legal abortions? I know id be furious I am not against gay marriage, just against activist judges using their legal position to forward their own agendas'. If we allow this, it could get ugly. Just because we are in favor of the outcome, doesnt mean we should be ok with the process in which it came about

Josh... will you marry me???

saw this on digg today..... Good news!

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen i wonder, would you guys get upset if a court was able to make abortion illegal if the will of the people had just voted in favor of legal abortions? I know id be furious I am not against gay marriage, just against activist judges using their legal position to forward their own agendas'. If we allow this, it could get ugly. Just because we are in favor of the outcome, doesnt mean we should be ok with the process in which it came about

I think we should make divorce illegal! and Mario, will you marry me?

quote:

Originally posted by JCIZZLE! I think we should make divorce illegal! and Mario, will you marry me?

Call me

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen i wonder, would you guys get upset if a court was able to make abortion illegal if the will of the people had just voted in favor of legal abortions? I know id be furious

Abortions arguably kill humans. Gay marriage doesn't. Bad comparison. Try Again.

quote:

I am not against gay marriage, just against activist judges using their legal position to forward their own agendas'.

You should tell that to the judges who, against what the majority of the people believed in 1948, declared interracial marriages legal in the state of California. I'm sure those judges were simply forwarding their own agendas too and didn't care about the people.

quote:

If we allow this, it could get ugly. Just because we are in favor of the outcome, doesnt mean we should be ok with the process in which it came about

The purpose of a judge is to make a logical decision which, in many cases, most humans are too biased to make. Judges are not supposed to be politicians. So don't expect them to share your views.

quote:

Originally posted by bullz Josh... will you marry me???

can i have half of your stuff?

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson Abortions arguably kill humans. Gay marriage doesn't. Bad comparison. Try Again.

uhhhh, i was not comparing the issues because they were alike in killing humans... I was using abortion because it is a contreversial issue as is gay marriage. And i could see some conservative judge going against the will of the people and banning them in some conservative state somewhere in the US.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen just against activist judges using their legal position to forward their own agendas'.

"activist" judges? ALL judges have their own agenda. Some judges have wacky ideas like legalizing gay marriage, other judges have wacky ideas like banning gay marriage.

Progress comes through change. Dont fight it.

this is great for Bas, and Clovis!


j/k guys there had to be some digg in here somewhere

quote:

Originally posted by BLOWZO this is great for Bas, and Clovis! j/k guys there had to be some digg in here somewhere

Don't worry, you're about the 8th person to say this.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen i wonder, would you guys get upset if a court was able to make abortion illegal if the will of the people had just voted in favor of legal abortions? I know id be furious I am not against gay marriage, just against activist judges using their legal position to forward their own agendas'. If we allow this, it could get ugly. Just because we are in favor of the outcome, doesnt mean we should be ok with the process in which it came about

activist judges, lol... this is just the kind of ignorance conservatives rely on to charge their base. if "the people" voted on a ban against interracial marriage and the supreme court ruled that ban was unconstitutional, would you be singing the same tune? or would you argue that the judges are doing their job by interpreting what is legally enforceable according to the state constitution? your abortion analogy is flawed for the simple fact that banning abortion is yet another theft of civil liberty while yesterday's ruling is an affirmation of it.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen i wonder, would you guys get upset if a court was able to make abortion illegal if the will of the people had just voted in favor of legal abortions? I know id be furious I am not against gay marriage, just against activist judges using their legal position to forward their own agendas'. If we allow this, it could get ugly. Just because we are in favor of the outcome, doesnt mean we should be ok with the process in which it came about

The California legislature passed bills that legalized gay marriage twice. (Republican) Arnold vetoed both times claiming it's up to the (conservative) court to decide about the constitutionality of the ban. How is this "judicial activism"?

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen i wonder, would you guys get upset if a court was able to make abortion illegal if the will of the people had just voted in favor of legal abortions? I know id be furious I am not against gay marriage, just against activist judges using their legal position to forward their own agendas'. If we allow this, it could get ugly. Just because we are in favor of the outcome, doesnt mean we should be ok with the process in which it came about

LOL. You cannot be serious. Activist judges? No, they are just doing the right thing.

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH activist judges, lol... this is just the kind of ignorance conservatives rely on to charge their base. if "the people" voted on a ban against interracial marriage and the supreme court ruled that ban was unconstitutional, would you be singing the same tune?

you dont get my point. If the people voted to ALLOW gay marriage and a supreme court had ruled that unconstitutional i would be singing the same tune and think the court was wrong, it has not much to do with the ISSUE but the PROCESS.

Anyway, i think most would agree that this will probably be short lived anyway, and unfortunatly isnt much of a victory for the gay community

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen you dont get my point. If the people voted to ALLOW gay marriage and a supreme court had ruled that unconstitutional i would be singing the same tune and think the court was wrong, it has not much to do with the ISSUE but the PROCESS. Anyway, i think most would agree that this will probably be short lived anyway, and unfortunatly isnt much of a victory for the gay community

the process is sound, it works the way it was designed to work by its authors. just because the majority decides one thing by voter initiative doesn't mean their decision is even constitutional to begin with. when you talk about banning things, the issue of constitutionality immediately arises. when you talk about allowing things, there is no issue of constitutionality, only social acceptance. the constitution exists to protect rights, not traditions. for all the state is and should be concerned, marriage is a legal contract between two people. it is not some divine union that should be religiously defined as between man and woman. the issue here boils down to religious discrimination and separation of church from state.

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH the process is sound, it works the way it was designed to work by its authors. just because the majority decides one thing by voter initiative doesn't mean their decision is even constitutional to begin with. when you talk about banning things, the issue of constitutionality immediately arises. when you talk about allowing things, there is no issue of constitutionality, only social acceptance. the constitution exists to protect rights, not traditions. for all the state is and should be concerned, marriage is a legal contract between two people. it is not some divine union that should be religiously defined as between man and woman. the issue here boils down to religious discrimination and separation of church from state.

what about ganja!!!

quote:

Originally posted by 72hrpartyanimal what about ganja!!!

there are a lot of laws and institutions in this country that are blatantly unconstitutional. drug laws are amongst the worst. the history of every drug law in this country is grounded in racism and discrimination and has nothing to do with public health and safety. the marihuana tax act was designed to push mexican migrant workers out of the south and protect tobacco. the controlled substances act basically took the power to regulate drugs out of the hands of congress and into the hands of an illegal institution known as the dea. the dea has the power to ban any drug for any reason whether it's true or not.

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH there are a lot of laws and institutions in this country that are blatantly unconstitutional. drug laws are amongst the worst. the history of every drug law in this country is grounded in racism and discrimination and has nothing to do with public health and safety. the marihuana tax act was designed to push mexican migrant workers out of the south and protect tobacco. the controlled substances act basically took the power to regulate drugs out of the hands of congress and into the hands of an illegal institution known as the dea. the dea has the power to ban any drug for any reason whether it's true or not.

craziness!!! fuck the DEA! they're some crooked ass bitches.

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH there are a lot of laws and institutions in this country that are blatantly unconstitutional. drug laws are amongst the worst. the history of every drug law in this country is grounded in racism and discrimination and has nothing to do with public health and safety. the marihuana tax act was designed to push mexican migrant workers out of the south and protect tobacco. the controlled substances act basically took the power to regulate drugs out of the hands of congress and into the hands of an illegal institution known as the dea. the dea has the power to ban any drug for any reason whether it's true or not.

there goes rich, injecting "substance" and "style" into yet another thread, thanks bud

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen there goes rich, injecting "substance" and "style" into yet another thread, thanks bud

you play ignorant, i play sensible. we both have our roles here

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.