Gay marriage lawsuit to be filed against the state of Alabama
Return to Board  •  Menu  •  Bottom  Page 4 of 7  
Message
re: Gay marriage lawsuit to be filed against the state of Alabama
Posted by DawgfaninCa on 6/30 at 2:00 pm to los angeles tiger
quote:

The preamble of the Constitution opens with "We the People." That was completely trashed in the SCOTUS rulings. We the People have representatives that make laws for us. When DOMA was overturned, We the People was removed.
In Prop 8, we the people have an iniative process to protect the people from government to make laws for our state even when those in power do not. That was completely trashed by the SCOTUS ruling.



You're preaching to the choir.





Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by ballscaster on 6/30 at 5:34 pm to los angeles tiger
quote:

Not comparable at all. Interracial marriage doesn't change the definition of marriage - a man and a woman. You always mention this. If you are saying that you don't see the difference then you are also stating that you should be able to marry a woman, just like it has been. Two men cannot procreate. A black man and a white woman can.
None of this is relevant or has anything to do with whether or not a gay marriage ban is constitutional.

No matter who can procreate, no matter who has AIDS, and no matter whether discrimination against gays is comparable to discrimination against races, a gay marriage ban either does or doesn't violate the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

It does, of course.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by ballscaster on 6/30 at 5:36 pm to los angeles tiger
quote:

We already have Domestic Partnerships in the State of California, which give those relationships the same rights and benefits of traditional marriage.
So they're the same thing.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Vegas Bengal on 6/30 at 5:38 pm to ballscaster
quote:

None of this is relevant or has anything to do with whether or not a gay marriage ban is constitutional.

No matter who can procreate, no matter who has AIDS, and no matter whether discrimination against gays is comparable to discrimination against races, a gay marriage ban either does or doesn't violate the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

It does, of course.


This



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by ballscaster on 6/30 at 5:38 pm to los angeles tiger
quote:

The preamble of the Constitution opens with "We the People." That was completely trashed in the SCOTUS rulings. We the People have representatives that make laws for us. When DOMA was overturned, We the People was removed.
We the People don't get to vote on what part of the constitution we get to not follow. We the People did ordain and establish the Constitution, which clearly states that if we want to not follow certain parts of the Constitution, then We the People have to appoint by elections representatives to change what We the People would like changed. We the People have rules, and We the People have to follow the rules.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by MoreOrLes on 6/30 at 5:39 pm to Toddy
NM

This post was edited on 6/30 at 5:52 pm

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by S.E.C. Crazy on 6/30 at 5:44 pm to ballscaster
If you are insinuating that the framers wrote homosexual rights and abortion rights into the constitution you are FOS.

And you know this.

Perverts being perverse.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by ballscaster on 6/30 at 5:52 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:

If you are insinuating that the framers wrote homosexual rights and abortion rights into the constitution you are FOS.
Somebody in 1860-something wrote this into the Constitution:
quote:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A gay marriage ban obviously violates this. Whether or not he who drafted this even knew what "gay" was is irrelevant.


This post was edited on 6/30 at 5:54 pm

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by imjustafatkid on 6/30 at 5:55 pm to ballscaster
All that means to me is states can't infringe on federal rights. A ban on gay marriage would not infringe on that.

This post was edited on 6/30 at 5:56 pm

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by MoreOrLes on 6/30 at 5:55 pm to ballscaster
quote:

Whether or not he who drafted this even knew what "gay" was is irrelevant.


So in other words ....the intent by the author was irrelevant. Well at least your honest about your opinion



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by ballscaster on 6/30 at 6:09 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:

All that means to me is states can't infringe on federal rights. A ban on gay marriage would not infringe on that..
You're mistaken. A person has the right to not have his state government disallow him from signing a government license on account of his sex. A gay marriage ban does exactly that.


This post was edited on 6/30 at 6:11 pm

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by ballscaster on 6/30 at 6:12 pm to MoreOrLes
quote:

So in other words ....the intent by the author was irrelevant. Well at least your honest about your opinion
You and I each have the right to not have a state government disallow us from signing government-sanctioned agreements on account of sex, regardless of what is in said government-sanctioned agreement.


This post was edited on 6/30 at 6:13 pm

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Vegas Bengal on 6/30 at 6:16 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:

Perverts being perverse.

You know, when you were on the chain gang and caught the holy spirit from that religious group that came to preach to you, you clearly missed part of what they were preaching.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by NC_Tigah on 6/30 at 6:18 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:

You know, when you were on the chain gang and caught the holy spirit from that religious group that came to preach to you, you clearly missed part of what they were preaching.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by DawgfaninCa on 6/30 at 6:25 pm to ballscaster
quote:

None of this is relevant or has anything to do with whether or not a gay marriage ban is constitutional.

No matter who can procreate, no matter who has AIDS, and no matter whether discrimination against gays is comparable to discrimination against races, a gay marriage ban either does or doesn't violate the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

It does, of course.



That's just your own ignorant opinion since the SCOTUS was given an option by Brown and Harris that allowed the SCOTUS not to have to make a ruling on that question and they chose that option.

Now it will be years if ever before a case challenging SSM bans makes its way to the SCOTUS.





Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by ballscaster on 6/30 at 6:35 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:

That's just your own ignorant opinion since the SCOTUS was given an option by Brown and Harris that allowed the SCOTUS not to have to make a ruling on that question and they chose that option. Now it will be years if ever before a case challenging SSM bans makes its way to the SCOTUS.
Good luck. You seem to be emotionally tied to this.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by S.E.C. Crazy on 6/30 at 6:51 pm to ballscaster
No one in 1860 was for abortions or homosexuality either. Sigh .




Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by DawgfaninCa on 6/30 at 6:53 pm to ballscaster
quote:

We the People have rules, and We the People have to follow the rules.


And the Courts don't have the legal authority to make the rules. They can only interpret the rules and decide whether the rules are Constitutional.

Here in California, as well as in some other states, We, the people, can make the rules through the initiative process when our elected legislators refuse to make the rules We, the people, want them to make.

Unless a rule made by We, the people, though the initiative process is eventually ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS on legitimate grounds then a ruling by the SCOTUS that doesn't rule on the question but only allows the ruling of one lower court judge to overturn the will of the people is just going to add fuel to the fire.





This post was edited on 6/30 at 6:55 pm

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by ballscaster on 6/30 at 6:58 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:

No one in 1860 was for abortions or homosexuality either. Sigh .
Irrelevant



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by SammyTiger on 6/30 at 7:02 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:

Unless a rule made by We, the people, though the initiative process is eventually ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS on legitimate grounds then a ruling by the SCOTUS that doesn't rule on the question but only allows the ruling of one lower court judge to overturn the will of the people is just going to add fuel to the fire.


District federal courts don't have any say in this?



Reply  •  Back to Top  •  Refresh
Return to Board
Jump to Page   

           Page 4 of 7           

 

 Message Boards
 Tiger Rant
 Recruiting Board
 SEC Rant
 Saints Talk
 Pelicans Talk
 More Sports Board
 Soccer Board
 O-T Lounge
 Tech Board
 Outdoor Board
 Movie/TV Board
 Music Board
 Political Talk
 Money Talk
 Fark Board
 Gaming Board
 Fantasy Sports
 Food and Drink Board
 Ticket Exchange
 Help Board
 

 Other Options
 >> Search
 

 SECRant.com Links
 SEC Rant
 SEC Recruiting
 SEC Tickets
 Off-Topic Board
 

 Geaux.com Dining Guide
 New Orleans
 Baton Rouge
 

 Site Features (Full Version)
 Home Page
 LSU Football Schedule
 LSU News/TD News Wire
 Pick'em Home Page
 
Back to top
Sign In 
View in: Desktop
Copyright ©2014 TigerDroppings.com.