People keep saying the over turning of prop 8. But..........

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2010 6:05 AM GMT
    Is the status quo still not the same at the moment?

    because a judge has put a stay on it, so guys and girls are still not able to say I do, pending appeals, and I am sure they will happen, and still no I do will be happening, until it goes to a higher court ruling.

    It's albite like when prop 8 went to the vote people where celebrating the victory before all the eggs had hatched, and then when prop 8 was passed they went wild. But some-one had to lose and win, not every one could end up a winner, and the people of Cal said yes to prop 8. Now if it went the other way, and the people of Cal where appealing that, the opinion would be, the desion was made, leave it allown.

    Being blessed to live in a democracy, who holds referendums all over the county. I am all for the deciding of the people and not one person, saying it is unconstitutional, it was put to a vote and that should be up held, as the people decided. Sure there is a risk in a vote I may loose in a vote. But I live in a democracy and not under a dictatorship, with the ruling of one person.

    So people say : the over tuning of prop 8. It hasn't been over tuned yet, as the status quo is still the same, pending appeals. Not saying two men should not be able to have their relasionship acknowledged, but maybe not under the banner of marriage, instead of calling it "gay marriage, it's either marriage or something else that represents gay and lesbian relationships, like Civil Unions, and marriage is for heterosexuals.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2010 6:23 AM GMT
    It's like in my wonderful country. I the last federal election the majority ruled to put our left wing party in power, the watermelon party Labour, under Kevin Rudd, to Replace the Hon John Howard leader of the right wing party the liberals.

    John Howard was able to get this country back on it's feet after the last watermelon party left us with a great big debut. He got all the bills paid off, and had cash in the bank. The first thing Kevin was to do was to spend all our savings put us back into debut, and his party had to usurp him, as they knew Australia would not vote for him agin, and now they preach the propaganda how they saved us from the ression. In fact it was John Howard who saved us from it, buy having all the bills paid off, and money in the bank when labour took over.

    Now I have had to sit by watch my country be draged down into debut again, and wait for the next election, and hope the people of Australia vote out that new Australian July Goddard, save us from feather decline.

    I would of been out raged if one person could of over turned the will of the people, even if we would of been better off for it, as Australia is a democracy, not a republic with a dictator, but a democracy. God save our Queen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2010 7:32 AM GMT
    Or the last referendum Australia had was on "should we become a republic?" Or" keep Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as our head of state." The people of Australia was to vote for Her Majesty, and not the republic. yet those rat bags don't want to hear the will of the people as they did not get their way. So what right would a judge have to over tune that vote in a Democratic county, none.

    In a democracy, majority rules!

    Under a dictator ship, the minority rule.

    So in CA. The people voted for prop8. What right does a judge have to say it's not constitutional? But since he has put a stay on it, nothing yet has changed. So I'm confused as to why people are saying "now it's been over turned? It should not be "a" judges place to over turne the will of the people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2010 11:01 AM GMT
    If if emancipating the slaves had been put to a vote " by the people", would there still be slavery.
    If the womans rights had been voted on "by the people" , would they have them?

    If not for our judical branch of the government , what would keep the voters from passing Jim Crow style propositions to prevent or strip the rights from minorities?

    Not to mention many of the people that voted for it feel they were lied to and misled by the forces that were pushing to get the proposition passed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2010 11:14 AM GMT
    "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Unites States of America; and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..."
    Uh, dude, we're NOT a democracy. We're a democratic republic. The Constitution stands strong.
    Plus, we (gays) make up about 10% of the population. If we went solely by the majority rule, we'd all be dead (or still closeted and oppressed) right now.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Aug 09, 2010 12:37 PM GMT
    please allow ted olson to show you why you're completely uneducated in the matter... not to mention in english as you have no idea how to use the word "albeit" correctly.



    http://video.foxnews.com/v/4305716/ted-olson-on-fns/
  • Space_Cowboy_...

    Posts: 3738

    Aug 09, 2010 1:05 PM GMT
    shocked-face.jpg
  • Celticmusl

    Posts: 4330

    Aug 09, 2010 1:11 PM GMT
    Thankfully, most laws in the U.S. are not created by popular vote. Those that are created by popular vote still need to be constitutionally sound. This should not be a surprise to any U.S. citizen with an 8th grade level of education.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2010 1:27 PM GMT
    calibro saidplease allow ted olson to show you why you're completely uneducated in the matter... not to mention in english as you have no idea how to use the word "albeit" correctly.



    http://video.foxnews.com/v/4305716/ted-olson-on-fns/


    Wow. I want to shake his hand... but meeting him would probably make me cry.
  • Gaymer

    Posts: 111

    Aug 09, 2010 1:51 PM GMT
    calibro saidplease allow ted olson to show you why you're completely uneducated in the matter... not to mention in english as you have no idea how to use the word "albeit" correctly.



    http://video.foxnews.com/v/4305716/ted-olson-on-fns/


    Wow, finally a smart republican/conservative who goes back to constitutional rights instead of privileged classes' rights vs. minority rights. Booya!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2010 1:58 PM GMT
    In America, we have a system of Constitutional checks and balances. The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government have the authority to ensure that the other branches aren't overstepping their power, or abusing the people (minorities included).

    The Legislative makes the law, the Executive enforces the law, and the Judicial interprets the law. But if the Legislative makes a law that infringes upon the rights of the people and is thus unconstitutional (like Prop 8 ), then the Judicial has to step in.

    Just because the people voted for it by majority doesn't make it constitutional. The Founding Fathers put those safeguards into our Constitution to ensure things like this wouldn't happen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2010 1:58 PM GMT
    Lapinblanc said If if emancipating the slaves had been put to a vote " by the people", would there still be slavery.
    If the womans rights had been voted on "by the people" , would they have them?

    If not for our judical branch of the government , what would keep the voters from passing Jim Crow style propositions to prevent or strip the rights from minorities?

    Not to mention many of the people that voted for it feel they were lied to and misled by the forces that were pushing to get the proposition passed.


    It doesn't really matter. At the end of the day a majority of anything is deciding the definitions for right or wrong and how things are going to be. If the majority REALLY wants to win they can just use force/war. No matter how far you go back it's a majority rule. No it's not always fair but that's the only way it can be. A constitutional republic (what we are) is absolutely the most fair system in the world because there are so many factors that keep the balance of power and from one group injuring another. But it's still not always fair because fair is impossible

    Keeping in mind that on a persona level, I think the judges decision was right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2010 2:06 PM GMT
    aunty_jack said
    It's albite like... the desion was made, leave it allown.

    So people say : the over tuning of prop 8....


    No, they don't say that. That would be as silly as saying "CLINTON BODY COUNT!!!!"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2010 2:13 PM GMT
    mocktwinkle said, "At the end of the day a majority of anything is deciding the definitions for right or wrong and how things are going to be. No matter how far you go back it's a majority rule."


    Please see Loving vs the State of Virginia, and pay close attention to the following while you read about it.

    ..first, from http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm

    "In 1967, about 72% were opposed to interracial marriage. This was the year when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage everywhere in the U.S. 14
    In 1991, those adults opposed to interracial marriage became a minority for the first time."

    Now read all of this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2010 2:14 PM GMT
    calibro saidplease allow ted olson to show you why you're completely uneducated in the matter... not to mention in english as you have no idea how to use the word "albeit" correctly.



    http://video.foxnews.com/v/4305716/ted-olson-on-fns/


    WOW, what an amazing speech!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2010 2:17 PM GMT
    meninlove said mocktwinkle said, "At the end of the day a majority of anything is deciding the definitions for right or wrong and how things are going to be. No matter how far you go back it's a majority rule."


    Please see Loving vs the State of Virginia, and pay close attention to the following while your read about it.

    ..first, from http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm

    "In 1967, about 72% were opposed to interracial marriage. This was the year when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage everywhere in the U.S. 14
    In 1991, those adults opposed to interracial marriage became a minority for the first time."

    Now read all of this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia


    What about it? I already know all of this. Just because I believe in pushing for what's right under the constitution doesn't mean that the reality of life means that it all comes down to a majority deciding (whether their decision is promoting freedom or equality or not) how things are going to be.

    If the supreme court upholds the decision of Walker, the people will have to decide if they are going to revolt or if it's useless to keep fighting since no one is really getting injured or harmed. But it's still in the hands of the majority no matter which way you cut it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2010 2:18 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Lapinblanc said If if emancipating the slaves had been put to a vote " by the people", would there still be slavery.
    If the womans rights had been voted on "by the people" , would they have them?

    If not for our judical branch of the government , what would keep the voters from passing Jim Crow style propositions to prevent or strip the rights from minorities?

    Not to mention many of the people that voted for it feel they were lied to and misled by the forces that were pushing to get the proposition passed.


    It doesn't really matter. At the end of the day a majority of anything is deciding the definitions for right or wrong and how things are going to be. If the majority REALLY wants to win they can just use force/war. No matter how far you go back it's a majority rule. No it's not always fair but that's the only way it can be. A constitutional republic (what we are) is absolutely the most fair system in the world because there are so many factors that keep the balance of power and from one group injuring another. But it's still not always fair because fair is impossible

    Keeping in mind that on a persona level, I think the judges decision was right.


    You are so right, oh well if its not fair its not fair. I mean mob rule is the way to go!

    You have this horrible habit of saying incredibly stupid things.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2010 2:20 PM GMT
    Lapinblanc said If if emancipating the slaves had been put to a vote " by the people", would there still be slavery.
    If the womans rights had been voted on "by the people" , would they have them?

    If not for our judical branch of the government , what would keep the voters from passing Jim Crow style propositions to prevent or strip the rights from minorities?

    Not to mention many of the people that voted for it feel they were lied to and misled by the forces that were pushing to get the proposition passed.

    The Founders, especially Jefferson, understood the danger of what they termed the "tyranny of the majority." It was one of the arguments colonists used in saying we should retain some form of monarch, a person who would be above politics, the protector of the people, a kind of "super judge."

    Despite what has come down to us Americans in legend, and what even the Colonists said in their slogans, King George III was no tyrant, and wasn't the problem. Parliament and the Ministers were, and Colonial leaders like Jefferson knew it. If they had any complaint, is was that the King wasn't engaged enough in controlling his ministers. George III was actually a rather good King, very hard-working and instrumental in moving the British to the Constitutional Monarchy they have to this day.

    And so the Founders worried that without a monarch, the citizens of the new US would have no protections against a simple majority of voters, who might discriminate against the minority, as we witness today. Read the Federalist Papers and you will see this discussed.

    The solution, to satisfy the monarchists and other objectors to a democratic republic, was to have a single written Constitution, something the British lacked. And the creation of a Supreme Court, that could arbitrate disputes. Limited in scope at first, under Chief Justice Marshall at the turn of the 19th Century the principle of Judicial Review was asserted, and it guides our country to this day.

    Contemporary Republicans may rail against "activist judges" (unless the case goes in their favor when they bring the issue themselves), but the principle is as old as the country itself. The courts are our monarch, our refuge of last resort, that hold the Constitution as a shield against the tyranny of the majority. It says we all have basic rights, that no one may vote away from us. So the Founders intended, and so the courts uphold. This is what Republican Fascists choose not to understand.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2010 2:20 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    mocktwinkie said
    Lapinblanc said If if emancipating the slaves had been put to a vote " by the people", would there still be slavery.
    If the womans rights had been voted on "by the people" , would they have them?

    If not for our judical branch of the government , what would keep the voters from passing Jim Crow style propositions to prevent or strip the rights from minorities?

    Not to mention many of the people that voted for it feel they were lied to and misled by the forces that were pushing to get the proposition passed.


    It doesn't really matter. At the end of the day a majority of anything is deciding the definitions for right or wrong and how things are going to be. If the majority REALLY wants to win they can just use force/war. No matter how far you go back it's a majority rule. No it's not always fair but that's the only way it can be. A constitutional republic (what we are) is absolutely the most fair system in the world because there are so many factors that keep the balance of power and from one group injuring another. But it's still not always fair because fair is impossible

    Keeping in mind that on a persona level, I think the judges decision was right.


    You are so right, oh well if its not fair its not fair. I mean mob rule is the way to go!

    You have this horrible habit of saying incredibly stupid things.


    So what are you saying? That I'm wrong? lol. Like I said, at the end of the day majorities rule no matter what it is. That's why you simply have to push for freedom and liberty as much as you can. Our constitutional republic is amazing the way it works and it safeguards so much freedom for so many people and it's something to really appreciate.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Aug 09, 2010 2:21 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    calibro saidplease allow ted olson to show you why you're completely uneducated in the matter... not to mention in english as you have no idea how to use the word "albeit" correctly.



    http://video.foxnews.com/v/4305716/ted-olson-on-fns/


    WOW, what an amazing speech!



    I really respect this guy after this interview. He did FOX NEWS and Conservatives proud
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2010 2:28 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    mocktwinkie said
    Lapinblanc said If if emancipating the slaves had been put to a vote " by the people", would there still be slavery.
    If the womans rights had been voted on "by the people" , would they have them?

    If not for our judical branch of the government , what would keep the voters from passing Jim Crow style propositions to prevent or strip the rights from minorities?

    Not to mention many of the people that voted for it feel they were lied to and misled by the forces that were pushing to get the proposition passed.


    It doesn't really matter. At the end of the day a majority of anything is deciding the definitions for right or wrong and how things are going to be. If the majority REALLY wants to win they can just use force/war. No matter how far you go back it's a majority rule. No it's not always fair but that's the only way it can be. A constitutional republic (what we are) is absolutely the most fair system in the world because there are so many factors that keep the balance of power and from one group injuring another. But it's still not always fair because fair is impossible

    Keeping in mind that on a persona level, I think the judges decision was right.


    You are so right, oh well if its not fair its not fair. I mean mob rule is the way to go!

    You have this horrible habit of saying incredibly stupid things.


    So what are you saying? That I'm wrong? lol. Like I said, at the end of the day majorities rule no matter what it is. That's why you simply have to push for freedom and liberty as much as you can. Our constitutional republic is amazing the way it works and it safeguards so much freedom for so many people and it's something to really appreciate.


    What I'm saying is you sound like an ignoramus. You fail to understand the basics of soceity and how it works, nor how it works against others in your favor. You think every thing is just perfect and we have a perfect system. Your stupidity is rivaled only by how unbelievably smug you are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2010 2:32 PM GMT
    aunty_jack said

    Being blessed to live in a democracy, who holds referendums all over the county. I am all for the deciding of the people and not one person, saying it is unconstitutional, it was put to a vote and that should be up held, as the people decided. Sure there is a risk in a vote I may loose in a vote. But I live in a democracy and not under a dictatorship, with the ruling of one person.


    You misunderstand the meaning of constitutional democracy. Basic human rights guaranteed by the constitution cannot be removed by a majority vote. The kind of democracy you seem to like brought us Nazi Germany.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2010 2:34 PM GMT
    lol, mock, the majoity did NOT rule when it came to Loving vs Virginia, which is why we posted it rather than just say you were wrong. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2010 2:35 PM GMT
    I would put Patticakes on ignore if his trolling wasn't so amusing (especially how if no one responds, he bumps his own threads to just stoke the flames).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2010 2:38 PM GMT
    i think chris wallace did a great job expressing just about every "conservative" (i.e., religious conservative) objection to this decision. and thank god for ted olson's lucid, well-spoken responses.

    this is NOT judicial activism, and it follows a true conservative thought process: marriage is the thing to protect and all forms of it, be they interracial or same-sex, add to its enrichment.

    this is not anywhere close to being a standard liberal ideal. with the exception that it is about homosexuals, there is no hint in this decision to over-turn anything or create something new where something else did not exist.

    this vid clip needs to be shared on everyone's facebook and email list-serve.