alright, not a religious issue

lets use an example i tried with the demon yesterday

i don't like what you're saying, and if i get enough people together, we can vote on your freedom of speech?

to clarify, not only vote on your freedom of speech, but waste valuable state funds on something that is a clear cut case of sexual discrimination.

But could it be considered a religious issue due to the Mormon churches involvement and funding? As I understand it they were the main financial backers for one side of this issue.

He didn't "ignore" federal law. He ruled on it's validity. There's a difference. What you're suggesting is that the judge should have taken a look at Prop 8 and said, "Well, it's federal law so, it stands!"

How old are you?

I really don't care if they get married or shacked up or civil unionized
One judge that by law had a conflict of interest threw out the votes of 7 million voters

I use stuff like this to get out of jury duty, like show up in a NRA t-shirt

No, but then the USA is not a Democracy anyways, but I do agree with the statement above that this has hurt the Democratic process. What part of "the majority of Californian voters banned same-sex marriage" dont you understand?

It's fun being in the majority trying to keep a group of people under your thumb eh bigot?

Been married twice, by a juctice of the peace , once in a church, once in my families property.
Both times the justice read from a bible

I always get out of jury duty by telling the court exactly what I think of the police. Never had to serve on a jury yet. :)

what part about universal suffrage, emancipation, and freedom of speech don't you understand?

Prop8 couldnt even have been on the ballot if federal law had no allowed it, unfortunately for advocates of same-sex marriage federal law ALREADY ruled that LEGAL marriage is defined as a union between a male and a female. So let me get this straight, our federal representative created a law that federally in essence banned same-sex marriage, then voters in California banned same-sex marriage and then ONE HOMOSEXUAL judge decides he doesnt like that so he tries to pick it apart with an opinion and suddenly you all think the Supreme Court will overturn the will of the federal government and majority of people? :error:error

I guess we'll find out, won't we. :)

My money is on SC upholding the judge's decision.

He ignored federal law? Are you quite sure about that?

The section on conclusions of law is actually fairly detailed, and includes quite a bit of case law citation for something that he "ignored." :2 cents:

How can you even make that idiotic comparison, HOMOSEXUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE and they DID VOTE on this bill. It is not illegal to be gay. I fail to see the comparisons you are drawing? You simply cannot have a RIGHT TO EVERYTHING that you deem important to you morally or personally when it overturns the majority of voters.

its not fear people don't want gays getting married. :2 cents: if they allow it their turning their back on their beliefs. :2 cents:

Is that a fact? Well then, federal law must now allow that Marijuana is legal for those over 21, because that's on the ballot here. :)

So you don't care if gays are allowed to marry or not, you are concerned that people voted on an issue and a judge overruled that vote, thereby hurting the democratic process.

I meant to say "WOULDNT" have been on the ballot if Federal law did not give states the right to put it on the ballot. Regardless, wouldnt or couldnt essentially the same thing.

Last time I was up for Jury duty, I told them that the arresting officer was my next door neighbor growing up, it was a murder trial. They got rid of me fast.

I told him later and bought him a beer for his help

do you believe that sodomy should be legal?




.

I have honestly never been called for jury duty...maybe they know something I don't...

Personally no I dont REALLY care about same-sex marriage, I do care about the increasing loss of voters rights and states rights. Absolutely this is dangerous for this country no matter which way you slice it.

Unfortunately I think liberals and most Democrats WANT this erosion to happen so we can have a socialist country ruled exclusively essentially by one entity(the federal government) and to give more weight to minority opinion and law than majority.

I have not looked at sodomy law but as I understand it based on common knowledge I believe its a states rights issue, and legal in some areas and illegal in others. I see nothing wrong either way. This is why we are called the UNITED STATES of America. Do you think Sodomy should be a federal law?

Wouldn't or couldn't is irrelevant. Now you're talking about the states right to make their own laws. That's been around for quite some time. But they still cannot just make laws willy-nilly that violate constitutional rights, are discriminatory, or otherwise ill-conceived, no matter how many damn people vote it into law.

And that's where judges come in. It's their job to decipher, interpret, and rule on the validity of the measures passed by the state. This one was found to be full of shit, and the judge did his job & rightfully shit-canned it.

The fact that you are so upset over what is a shining example of the process in action, tells me you are either extremely homophobic, or simply uneducated.

all these things were against public opinion.. so the example does a great job in trying to show you that people shouldn't be allowed to vote on rights that are based in discrimination

:2 cents::2 cents:

There are lots of things against majority public opinion that are legal, the DIFFERENCE here is this was an issue put on the ballot and passed by the voters, this is HOW we make our laws. The judge is the one discriminating against the majority voters of California not the other way around.

The only other REAL precedent based on your loose comparison that can be made is Jim Crow laws, those were ill conceived and verys specific laws that could and were easily picked apart. Same-sex marriage is not even close to segregation.

Technically EVERY LAW is discriminatory to someone.

I am glad that this is not about gay people having the right to marry someone of their choosing. Really when it comes down to it, people are people and love is love and if two people have found each other and wish to spend their lives together than there can be no more visible way to show this love to the world than through marraige.

As for the erosion of voters (individuals) and states rights, it seems there are quite a few people who are concerned of this lately. However I don't follow that liberals and democrats are to be blamed for this.

you mean 52%.. and apparently that 52% didn't get the memo that this wasn't a religious issue when they collected 25 million dollars from Mormons, who, by the way, are from several different states who took part in 'the legal process' of the one state

look, i know you're never going to admit you're making an error of logic, and I'm just going to leave this as is. but i do hope you consider my point regarding the very real dangers in allowing public to be able to arbitrarily decide who gets what rights, and who doesn't.

Do you think a judge would overturn a law against sodomy just because he likes to fuck chicks in the ass?





.

I live in an area where with the small population you have a better chance of being called, they get your address from your voting record, been getting it more since I went independent, about 6 months ago, just told them what I do for a living, didn't even make it to the courtroom

When you give the minority vote the majority weight in law the system breaks down. Not to say the system isnt already broken, it is very much in the process of breaking.

Whats going on here is basically the homosexual equivalent of the race card being played.

I guarantee you it would be on his mind and he would look for ways to make it legal. Legal opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

The fact that he is gay makes complete sense of why and how he chose to pick apart Prop8 and I am pretty sure subliminally the conservative judges f the Supreme Court will take this into account. They will probably work extra hard to poke holes in his opinion and uphold the will of the voters and states rights.

Thats why the first words of this post were YA DUN GOOFED :)
A straight judge ruling this way would have been so much better for the fags.

Lol! A normal judge?

:ugone2far

You're way out in the deep end. Every law is not discriminatory. That's ridiculous. The judge didn't discriminate against anyone. Equally ludicrous.

WP:

The judiciary (also known as the judicial system or judicature) is the system of courts which interprets and applies the law in the name of the sovereign or state. The judiciary also provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the judiciary generally does not make law (that is, in a plenary fashion, which is the responsibility of the legislature) or enforce law (which is the responsibility of the executive), but rather interprets law and applies it to the facts of each case.

This branch of government is often tasked with ensuring equal justice under law. It usually consists of a court of final appeal (called the "supreme court" or "constitutional court"), together with lower courts.

The judicial branch has the power to change laws.

LINK

That's bullshit. No one is forcing people to enter gay marriages. If gay marriage is against your beliefs, don't get gay married.

Eating lobster is forbidden in the bible, but you don't see those who don't eat lobster for religious reasons trying to forbid other people from eating it by enacting laws to make it illegal. They simply don't eat it and go about their lives.

I always wondered why polygamy is against the law. Anyone know why?

1. Yes every single law is discriminatory to someone, this is why laws are VOTED upon.
2. The judge discriminated and/or ignored the state of Californias right to have this issue on the ballot, Federal laws right to allow the state of California to have this issue on the ballot and the majority of voters who voted to pass this issue on the ballot.

he's gay! that's what he means :2 cents:

i guess my sarcastic wit backfired on me, no one got it.

1. Murder law isn't discriminatory. Theory blown.
2. The judge didn't "discriminate" or "ignore" California's "right" to have this issue on the ballot. It WAS on the ballot. More than once. It passed, and the judge deemed it stupid.