Andrew in CA Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Link Schwarzenegger pleased with the decision; it's going to be appealed to the 9th Circuit pronto.
Mark Vader Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Once again the will of the people is taken away from judges. Although, as a Californian, I can not say I'm shocked.
kegtapr Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Great, there goes the resale value of my marriage.
DrDawkinstein Posted August 4, 2010 Author Posted August 4, 2010 Prop 8? Enlighten me. also known as prop H8. it was passed in California and basically outlawed gay marriage.
Mark Vader Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 also known as prop H8. it was passed in California and basically outlawed gay marriage. Ignorant people refer to it as that.
DrDawkinstein Posted August 4, 2010 Author Posted August 4, 2010 Once again the will of the people is taken away from judges. Although, as a Californian, I can not say I'm shocked. i know far many more people that are against it than for it. both straight and gay. and i dont care about the vote. all elections and voting in this country are effed. in this case, the mormons saw to it that their will was imposed on others. http://mormonsfor8.com/
DrDawkinstein Posted August 4, 2010 Author Posted August 4, 2010 Ignorant people refer to it as that. ok Mark, I'm not going to fight you on this. we obviously strongly disagree, and neither of us will be changing each other's minds. theres a reason i stay far from the swamp that is PPP. nothing good comes out of arguing politics or religion, especially politics AND religion, and especially on the internet
Just Jack Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 ok Mark, I'm not going to fight you on this. we obviously strongly disagree, and neither of us will be changing each other's minds. Ummm... sorry, got to remind you this is the Internet. You two have to duke it out for 30+ pages of hate filled spiel while the peanut gallery throws in some comments/jokes here and there. So get the gloves on and get going!
DrDawkinstein Posted August 4, 2010 Author Posted August 4, 2010 Ummm... sorry, got to remind you this is the Internet. You two have to duke it out for 30+ pages of hate filled spiel while the peanut gallery throws in some comments/jokes here and there. So get the gloves on and get going! ha, see my addtional edit!!
Andrew in CA Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 This is definitely not the end of this case, though. It's going to the 9th Circuit, and then hopefully to the US Supreme Court, if they grow a pair and grant review.
DrDawkinstein Posted August 4, 2010 Author Posted August 4, 2010 This is definitely not the end of this case, though. It's going to the 9th Circuit, and then hopefully to the US Supreme Court, if they grow a pair and grant review. definitely not over. nothing is that simple, right? but for a lot of people in love, it's a step in the right direction.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 but for a lot of people in love, it's a step in the right direction. How sweet.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Q: what's the point of having direct propositions when some over-officious judge can just decide it's not law? I mean, why not just have judges run the whole country?
Chilly Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Q: what's the point of having direct propositions when some over-officious judge can just decide it's not law? I mean, why not just have judges run the whole country? Are you asking why a judge can rule a law unconstitutional?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Are you asking why a judge can rule a law unconstitutional? No, I'm asking what the point is in having anyone but judges run the place.
....lybob Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Link Schwarzenegger pleased with the decision; it's going to be appealed to the 9th Circuit pronto. let the state perform legal civil unions and let religious or social institutions perform marriage why is this so freaken hard- one is the union of legal/financial entities the other the union of spiritual/emotional entities.
TheMadCap Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 let the state perform legal civil unions and let religious or social institutions perform marriage why is this so freaken hard- one is the union of legal/financial entities the other the union of spiritual/emotional entities. agreed. Probably due to the ultra-religious would be my guess...
kegtapr Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 No, I'm asking what the point is in having anyone but judges run the place. When the prop beng voted on allows the majority to discriminate against the minority, then yes, an over-officious judge can just decide it's not a law. Come on Joe, the Constitution is there to protect everyone, not just white protestant males, you know that.
Recommended Posts