|
Health Inspectors shut down 7-year-old girl's lemonade stand (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by idoru
I really had no idea that a portion of the population in one state had the right to change our country's constitution. |
I just noticed this little gem. Where's your head? It was the California STATE constitution the CA citizens voted on, not the country's Constitution. This is hilarious; you were thinking that it's ed up that a majority of voters in a state were speaking for the entire country... but in your mind it's totally fine that a single Federal judge spoke for and overruled a majority of voters in a state on that individual state's issue. :stongue: |
|
|
| Darkarbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
I Could care less about civil rights/equality |
This coming from a supposed libertarian :stongue: |
|
|
| Banora |
| This is why we can't have nice things! :mad: |
|
|
| shaw |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
|
I approve. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| Off topic: Is Darkarbiter related to Arbiter? Is it his alt or his brother or something? Australian penpal? |
|
|
| idoru |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
I just noticed this little gem. Where's your head? It was the California STATE constitution the CA citizens voted on, not the country's Constitution. This is hilarious; you were thinking that it's ed up that a majority of voters in a state were speaking for the entire country... but in your mind it's totally fine that a single Federal judge spoke for and overruled a majority of voters in a state on that individual state's issue. :stongue: |
Where's your head? I hate to have to reference this again, but the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person... the equal protection of the laws". By amending their constitution, they denied equal rights/protection to a specific set of people, which blatantly goes against the Fourteenth Amendment. I know full well what the citizens of California voted to amend, but the simple fact is, regardless of a lack of precedent as you previously mentioned, the citizens of California voted to violate the United States Constitution. If you see it differently then so be it, but that's the way it is. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
I just noticed this little gem. Where's your head? It was the California STATE constitution the CA citizens voted on, not the country's Constitution. This is hilarious; you were thinking that it's ed up that a majority of voters in a state were speaking for the entire country... but in your mind it's totally fine that a single Federal judge spoke for and overruled a majority of voters in a state on that individual state's issue. :stongue: |
No, I think he was talking about the state imposing a law that violates one of the fundamental agreements made in the federal constitution. Thats why we have courts Kevin. |
|
|
| idoru |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
No, I think he was talking about the state imposing a law that violates one of the fundamental agreements made in the federal constitution. Thats why we have courts Kevin. |
Bam. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by idoru
Where's your head? I hate to have to reference this again, but the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person... the equal protection of the laws". |
Yes.
| quote: | | By amending their constitution, they denied equal rights/protection |
Waitasec... they denied which one? Equal rights or equal protection? The 14th amendment is a right unto itself by the way that it is worded. The context of the article ensures protection of said clearly stated right... but is lawful marital recognition an intrinsic right unto itself able to be ensured by established documents? By the state?
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_marr.html
I honestly don't know. If it is, that needs to be brought into the debate. But if marriage is not a 'right' ensured by the constitution or any such document, then what business does a federal judge have telling California what to do?
Don't fault Kevin here. I obviously can't speak for him, but I think his point is that gay rights are irrelevant here, the breach was in the constitutional jurisdiction between state and federal powers. I am sure a libertarian would just as soon agree that the institution of marriage is a mostly outdated one that the government has little business recognizing, regardless of the orientation of the people who want to be together.
Personally, I am pleased that a Federal aspect is taking responsibility and forcing this sort of change, even if marriage seems wholly unnecessary in the first place. But should drastic change be brought about by circumventing the entire system merely to push an agenda? Well, that's what's really what's at question here. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
The fact that marriage offers equal protections under the law not granted to single people gives it a status of a right of choice. It should be a right for anyone, or any couple, to be protected under the same laws, or have the choice to be protected by the same laws.
Thats why I really don't think its a big deal if its called something other than marriage, as long as it provides the same exact rights that a heterosexual couple would have under the law. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
To clarify in a way that is more clear cut way.
For example, a state passes a law that says only white people can be protected from litigation (like being sued). If you are not white then you can not be protected from being sued.
Even though there is no fundamental right expressed or denied in the constitution anywhere that says you have the right to be or not be sued, it does not give the states the ability to make a class of people that are denied OR granted special privilege under the law. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| I'm sure it'd pass in Colorado. :p |
|
|
|
|
