Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 163

Thread: Gay Marriage ruling

  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by shakin318 View Post
    This is the most disturbing aspect of what happened. Whatever anyone thinks about gay marriage or any other issue, the fact that judicial tyranny overruled the will of the people is horrendous. But that's the way the left rolls; lose on an issue within the parameters of the democratic process, just sue and count on overreaching activist courts to legislate (unconstitutionally) from the bench.
    Yes. That noted leftist Scalia.

  2. #82
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    Quote Originally Posted by shakin318 View Post
    This. The point is that the decision on these two cases have to be taken in context together. Constitutional amendments/barriers to same-sex marriage passed by states can now be overridden.
    That's not a new development as of today. You always knew courts could rule on constitutionality of law. A governors' refusal to appeal also has always been a possibility, but unlikely because of the political ramifications of refusing the will of the people. Let's not pretend this is going to open the floodgates for others to make a similar decision that will destroy them 99% of the time.

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    Doggin, you out there?

    I'm curious about this claim that Prop 8 actually still stands based on the CA Constitution requiring an appellate decision, which now does not exist ( yet), as the Ninth's was vacated.

    In fact, prior to that decision, the CA Supreme Ct ruled it constitutional.
    I'm not sure what the CA Constitution has to do with it. Here's the way it works:

    1) State constitutional challenges are handled in state courts. That is, Prop 8 was challenged as violating the California constitution, and the CA Supreme Court upheld it.

    2) Federal constitutional challenges are handled in federal court. Judge Walker ruled Prop 8 violated the federal constitution. Given that the Ninth Circuit decision was vacated, that decision stands - and Prop 8 is dead as a doornail.

    BTW, I completely agree with your take on both decisions.

  4. #84
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    742 Evergreen Terrace
    Posts
    11,555
    Quote Originally Posted by shakin318 View Post
    The ruling trashed state's rights, in yet another power grab by the federal government. To strict constitutionalists, this is troubling. You're free to interpret and celebrate the decision however you choose. I'll agree to disagree.
    This is what's missed by 99% of today's "winners." I'm pleased with today's decision, but it's a Pyrrhic victory plain and simple.

  5. #85
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    I'm not sure what the CA Constitution has to do with it. Here's the way it works:

    1) State constitutional challenges are handled in state courts. That is, Prop 8 was challenged as violating the California constitution, and the CA Supreme Court upheld it.

    2) Federal constitutional challenges are handled in federal court. Judge Walker ruled Prop 8 violated the federal constitution. Given that the Ninth Circuit decision was vacated, that decision stands - and Prop 8 is dead as a doornail.

    BTW, I completely agree with your take on both decisions.
    Thanks, that's clear.

    It appears the claim is based on the italic text below.

    Walker issued a stay "to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal" (from wikiP). I don't fully understand that piece - why do this? Is that linked to the section below of the CA Constitution or is there another reason? This stay still needs to be lifted either way.

    An administrative agency ... has no power:
    (a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;
    (b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
    (c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.


    As of now, no appeal exists yet. Can the stay be lifted?

  6. #86
    Now Tim Tebow and his fiance can finally get married and he can stop with this whole "I'm just a virgin" bs.

  7. #87
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    I'm quite certain I'm more versed on Darwinism than you are. Reading some isolated, unproven postulate with an obvious agenda means little in the grand scheme.

    Those Cheyenne surely rose to dominance, by the way. Can't wait for the moment the men of Bravo come to rescue me from the apocalypse.

    Bottom line is without those supposed mighty gay warriors, the straight dudes would have survived. Switch it all, and the Cheyennes wouldn't have made it past a single generation. The fact that you believe otherwise reveals how deeply buried you are in propaganda, not science.
    Umm, no. As long as you argue from survival of the individual organism, you're flatly wrong. My point was not to "prove" that the Cheyenne were successful, merely that from a more complex adaptation and selection point of view, behaviors that appear to be contrary to selection MAY actually serve it. As I mentioned, self-sacrifice of the individual in service of protecting the herd occurs repeatedly in nature. Species survival, and individual survival are not equivalent. Nor is individual and gene selection the same.
    Last edited by long island leprechaun; 06-27-2013 at 08:35 AM.

  8. #88
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    You've got your bible wrong, as the very term "Onanism" (derived from the name of Judah's son Onan) ought to tell you
    Yup, you're right. Poor memory on my part. Whatever happened to Noah, it wasn't masturbation. Interesting that the traditional belief about masturbation was the it was equivalent to abortion, since it was wrongly believed that a man's semen contained the entire essence of the person.

  9. #89
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,190
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Yup, you're right. Poor memory on my part. Whatever happened to Noah, it wasn't masturbation. Interesting that the traditional belief about masturbation was the it was equivalent to abortion, since it was wrongly believed that a man's semen contained the entire essence of the person.
    Hey. God told Lot's daughters to get their dad drunk and f*ck him in a cave.

    That's them biblical morals everyone has heard so much about.

  10. #90
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Umm, no. As long as you argue from survival of the individual organism, you're flatly wrong. My point was not to "prove" that the Cheyenne were successful, merely that from a more complex adaptation and selection point of view, behaviors that appear to be contrary to selection MAY actually serve it. As I mentioned, self-sacrifice of the individual in service of protecting the herd occurs repeatedly in nature. Species survival, and individual survival are not equivalent. Nor is individual and gene selection the same.
    You clearly don't understand. Individual survival and reproduction certainly are crucial to the propagation of the random genetic mutation. A species can not rely on that random mutation occurring every generation if it is to benefit from it over extended time. If opposable thumbs appeared and its benefitiaries were never able to pass it on, we wouldn't have come very far hoping it would just keep coming back for a small percentage every cycle. Survival of the fittest means the individuals best adapted to live in an environment pass on those adaptations.

  11. #91
    As much as I'm glad that the Equality of Marriage ovement is getting a ig buff, in looking at the "how" her t's rather disturbing and a further move from democracy to authoritarianism.

    Put simply, we're seeing far too much "executive Discretion" resulting in entire areas of law being unenforced by a selct fewin power in an executive branch in violation of the will of the people.

    Two examples: We elect leaders, leaders vote for Immigration laws. Immigration Laws go unenfrced by the Executive over a long period, elading to an untenable (claimed) situation and the decision toc ompletely stop enforcin large portions of the law, and that then used as the basis to force new laws....new laws that the exuctive can then pick and choose which parts to enforce. For example, I certainly hope no one thinks the border will b any better secured if this pending law passes.

    In Marriage, In CA, the people voted ina Referrendum. They voted,like it or not,to ban gay marriage. The Government chose not to defend the law the people voted for, thus leading to the SC. decision that the folks defending it lacked stading to do so, thus it was defeated via non-defense. In short a few executives in CA Govt. overruled te will of millions of CA citizen with their own policy desire, and won.

    I am not a fan ofour executive branches, state offedral, having so much power to simply nullify law they disagree with as a few in leadership see fit. It's a dangerous precedent for the future IMO.

    I want and support marriage equallity (civil contract equallity). I do not want to get there by further giving the tny minority of elected executives almost authoritarian power to decide what law is or is not worth enforcing or defending when those laws were passed by duly elected legislatures. Thats not how the balance was supposed to be maintained between branches of Govt.

    We, as a people, seem very happy to continue to provide more and more power to fewer and fewer individuals, and to trade portions of or individual freedoms for some small amounts of ease and comfort. Not a good tact IMO.

  12. #92
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    31,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    You have no "point". You can't ok SSM and ban polygamy and NAMBLA couplings now based on some arbitrary rate of practice. Because there are 1-5% Americans who could be SSM ready and .001 are polygamists.

    Despite the lib losers in these parts and your vested interest in the ruling, most Americans didn't want to bless either and Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg, Unwise Latina and It's Pat just blessed this abomination anyway.

    More troubling, the will of people through referendum (Prop 8) is being swept aside in favor of executive branch decision.
    Quote Originally Posted by shakin318 View Post
    This is the most disturbing aspect of what happened. Whatever anyone thinks about gay marriage or any other issue, the fact that judicial tyranny overruled the will of the people is horrendous. But that's the way the left rolls; lose on an issue within the parameters of the democratic process, just sue and count on overreaching activist courts to legislate (unconstitutionally) from the bench.
    EDIT.

    Let's reset it

    Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."[2][3][4]
    By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition effectively overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California's State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election.[5] The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California,[6] nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008.[7][8][9]
    After the elections, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle).
    United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.[10] Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal.[11][12] A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed the federal district court's decision on February 7, 2012,[13] but the stay remained in place as appeals continued to the U.S. Supreme Court,[14] which heard oral arguments on March 26, 2013.[15]
    On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in Hollingsworth v. Perry that the proponents of Proposition 8 did not have legal standing to appeal the U.S. District Courts' ruling, since the state government refused to defend it.[16] Same sex marriage in California does not resume until the federal district court removes the stay of effect that prevents its ruling of unconstitutionality from reversing the amendment to the state constitution.[17][18][19]

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    Thanks, that's clear.

    It appears the claim is based on the italic text below.

    Walker issued a stay "to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal" (from wikiP). I don't fully understand that piece - why do this? Is that linked to the section below of the CA Constitution or is there another reason? This stay still needs to be lifted either way.

    An administrative agency ... has no power:
    (a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;
    (b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
    (c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.


    As of now, no appeal exists yet. Can the stay be lifted?
    The stay was to prevent his ruling from being enforced while there was still a possibility it could be overturned by a higher court. There is no longer any such possibility; therefore, there is no stay.

    That piece of the CA Constitution simply says that administrative agencies can't make their own determinations on constitutionality.

  14. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Yup, you're right. Poor memory on my part. Whatever happened to Noah, it wasn't masturbation. Interesting that the traditional belief about masturbation was the it was equivalent to abortion, since it was wrongly believed that a man's semen contained the entire essence of the person.
    Not really, no. Just that it was a waste of potential life (which semen is, in fact).

  15. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Hey. God told Lot's daughters to get their dad drunk and f*ck him in a cave.

    That's them biblical morals everyone has heard so much about.
    You may want to go back and reread the bible if you're going to make silly comments about it; after all, accuracy matters, right?

  16. #96
    Heyyyy....what's going on in this thread?

  17. #97
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,762
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    So, to be clear:

    Your marriage includes immoral, idiotic, and unnatural qualities?

    Surprising.
    Quiet freak, an ambulance chaser like you who can't get elected dog catcher and thinks its bad for a DB to run an INT in for a TD, among other idiotic beliefs amd notions has no G-d damn business making ad hominem attacks on me.

    Please limit your asinine comments to doling out quack legal advice to your fellow crypto-liberals who wouldn't know a knish from the Knesset, thanks.

    Now back to the bottom of the barrel you crawled out of.
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-27-2013 at 12:49 PM.

  18. #98
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,762
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Hey. God told Lot's daughters to get their dad drunk and f*ck him in a cave.

    That's them biblical morals everyone has heard so much about.
    You don't like the Bible, fine, but why do you persist with this particular falsehood? Autobiographical? Sounds good to you?

    Makes you sound extra dumb.

  19. #99
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,762
    Quote Originally Posted by detjetsfan View Post
    Now Tim Tebow and his fiance can finally get married and he can stop with this whole "I'm just a virgin" bs.
    You sound like Jason Collins' type, y'all could have a double napkin ring ceremony...

  20. #100
    So...I wonder if "my marriage is reduced" folks plan on getting divorces now since their hetro-marriage is now corrupted by this ruling, and hence they can no longer enjoy/tolerate being int he same civil class as gays?

    Maybe Chuches could replace Marriage with "Holy Relgious Unions" for the faithful and then bar all not of the faith (including gays) from getting them?

    This is a great example of how faith-based Republicans have cut off their own noses to spite thier faces (and Conservatives who care more about Governmental Authoritarianism than if gays get to have weddings).

    By standing so vehemently against marriage Equallity (civil) they directly helped create the events that this ruling is the end result of, where State executives have now been granted power to over-rule the democratic process and duly passed legislation by simply not enforcing it and not defending it in court. Same way those same Republicans, who march in line with their party when it comes to Amnesty, helped create that mess too.

    Hey, next up abortion in Texas. Wonder what THAT eventual ruling will give to Government in terms of new powers to screw the people.

    If Democrats didn't have Faith-based Republicans, they'd have to invent them. They win because of them. We may be a Conservative nation, but we're a liberal social nation today and will be for as far as I can see going forward, more so with each passing day and passing old (R) voter.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us