FB: Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[MonroviaCat]

I have is a voice and a vote.

True enough.  It will all be decided (at least for the time being) tomorrow.

[DutchFan2004]

tenderloin must not be of Japanese or Armenian decent.

I dont impose my religious beliefs on anyone else, neither should you or anyone else.  The comparison to animals or polygamy is a very poor example

Curious on the polygamy example being poor comparison.  Snoop why would you say that?  I believe that in a European country there are multiple civil unions now.  I agree on the animal comparison with you but was wondering how the plural marriage is not a good example in your opinion.  Not taking sides hear just curious as to your thought process.

[Sabretooth Tiger]

Sabretooth Tiger

When are you getting on the pro polygamy, close relative, marrying children and animals train? Don't they have the right to marry and be happy?

You say no and guess what?

"Do you have any idea how your rant sounds remarkably similar to what folks said about integration and interracial marriage 40-50 years ago"?

LOL

Tenderloins:

First, you should read In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757, 183 P.3d 384 (2008).  Here is the link: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF

In that opinion, the California Supreme Court said: In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry - and their central importance to an individual's opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society - the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation

The argument you make is without merit.  What Proposition 8 seeks to do is eliminate a fundamental right that exists in the California Constitution.  It seeks to take away existing rights from people because of their sexual orientation.

It has nothing to do with public health (incestuous marriages) or the state's interest in protecting youth.  It has nothing to do with oppressing barnyard animals, nor does the Mormon history of polygamy (awfully ironic much?) have anything to do with this argument.

The fact that you find homosexual relationships "disgusting" is not the issue . . . the question is why your personal aversion to this immutable characteristic should translate into a constitutional amendment to deprive a class of people of their equal protection of the law?

Dutch:  I think that the question of polygamous/multi-partner relationships is an interesting one, but not applicable to the Prop 8 analysis.  From an intellectual standpoint, it would be a long and complicated discussion as to why the state is in the marriage business at all given that it is a fundamentally religious institution.  Thus, the tension between religious freedom and the state controlling conduct in relation to polygamy or religious substance issues (peyote for example).

But in this case, Prop 8 has to do with changing the equal protections found in the California Constitution, thereby taking away an existing fundamental right based on sexual orientation.  It is an utterly different paradigm . . . and it seeks to institutionalize discrimination under the rubric of the California Constitution.

fwiw,

tooth

[Tenderloin]

snoop doog

I have a voice and a vote. Beyond that I don't impose my views on anyone.

Your criticism of polygamy as a bad example is just plain wrong. How many years ago was the thought of homosexual marriage a complete impossibility?

You really believe polygamy, particularly with the increasing Muslim population will not be next?

You are setting YOUR bar at polygamy and animals. What gives you the right to impose your views on people who want to marry multiple persons, children, relatives animals, on and on? Hmm?

The slope is slippery and homosexual marriage just makes it more so.

[DutchFan2004]

There are strong public policies against your examples that outweigh individual rights.  There are issues such as retardation that our Supreme Court have determined outweigh some individuals rights.  The common good is much more important.  The Supreme Court draws the line for us, so far it has done a pretty decent job.

Is that the job of the Court?  I thought that was the Congress' job?  

[snoop dawg]

Congress might make the law, the SC determines if it is constitutional and enforceable or not.

[DutchFan2004]

Sabretooth Tiger

When are you getting on the pro polygamy, close relative, marrying children and animals train? Don't they have the right to marry and be happy?

You say no and guess what?

"Do you have any idea how your rant sounds remarkably similar to what folks said about integration and interracial marriage 40-50 years ago"?

LOL

Tenderloins:

First, you should read In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757, 183 P.3d 384 (2008).

In that opinion, the California Supreme Court said: In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry - and their central importance to an individual's opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society - the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation

The argument you make is without merit.  What Proposition 8 seeks to do is eliminate a fundamental right that exists in the California Constitution.  It seeks to take away existing rights from people because of their sexual orientation.

It has nothing to do with public health (incestuous marriages) or the state's interest in protecting youth.  It has nothing to do with oppressing barnyard animals, nor does the Mormon history of polygamy (awfully ironic much?) have anything to do with this argument.

The fact that you find homosexual relationships "disgusting" is not the issue . . . the question is why your  personal aversion to this immutable characteristic should translate into a constitutional amendment to deprive a class of people of their equal protection the law?

Ok how does keeping some one from marrying keep them from having sex?  I again am not taking sides here just asking a question.  

[snoop dawg]

That is not the issue.

[DutchFan2004]

Congress might make the law, the SC determines if it is constitutional and enforcable or not.

enforcable?  How so?  They just determine if it is Constitutional or not correct?  They don't say that a law is ok but you can not enforce it do they?

[snoop dawg]

If the SC determines a law unconstitutional...it is unenforceable.

[DutchFan2004]

If the SC determines a law unconstitutional...it is unenforcable.

So the way you phrased it should it be they decide it is unconstitutional and unenforcable then?  Because if they decide it is Constitutional then it is enforcable correct?

[Tenderloin]

Come on Sabretoothcat and snoop dawg

8 is in response to the court ruling against the will of the people, overturning a previous vote of the people...8 will make it impossible for the court to overturn it.

As far as the rest...It has to stop somewhere. No better than before it gets going.

There is NO WAY you or the current court can rule against polygamy, close relative, marriage to children animals etc. To do so would be hypocritical. The fact that you will not acknowledge that is very telling. Potentially denying someone's rights

[Pat Coleman]

GUYS, HELLOOOO ... politics board. Thanks. Not here.

[snoop dawg]

Constitutional = enforceable
Unconstitutional= unenforceable

[Tenderloin]

You got it boss....OUT!