CA Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

[RokiLothbard]

What if they threaten to pull non-profit status. If the feds want to, they can easily make it happen. Maybe it's not likely, then again I won't put anything past them.

If that happens, it'll be in the very long run. We'll all be screwed by that point in time and this will be a very minor point by then. Having adequate ammo will be much more important.

 

[LibertyVox]

Typically, in countries where 'gay rights' have been codified into law, churches have progressively lost all rights to oppose homosexuality, including teaching against it from the pulpit. They have rights because they are individuals, not because they are gay. But the emphasis on protecting them as gays is a privilege, which comes at the expense of individual rights, and even religious freedom to oppose them as a group.

What other historic religious rites should also be diluted into state group priveleges? If a government judge next decrees that there shalt be gay communions, and gay baptisms, or gay Passion plays, should Christians be told to butt out of that government power grab too, "in the name of liberty"?

Those countries do not have a liberal constitution. I would label their anti speech laws as progressive. Any such move in out republic would be against the constitution so we need not worry about that.
And I don't see removing the government out of an issue which should be left between individuals, their institutions, scripture and God or the lack of all that come at the expense of individual rights? Just the opposite.

No the government shouldn't do all that. And it would not happen because it would be unconstitutional. It could happen, however, if we ignore the constitution and actually start believing in the sanctity group feelings and democracy.

 

[American Nationalist]

This is also why institutions like the Catholic church will always be against 1) homosexual acts 2) contraception 3) sex outside marriage. However as a libertarian, I'm not going to stop people from doing these things (and marriage certainly should be privatised) but there's no getting away from natural law.

And the Catholic Church hierarchy does and protects all 3...with Children. Quite frankly hypocrites like the Catholic Church have no right to dictate what consenting adults do from a moral pedestal.

 

[American Nationalist]

Rights attach to individuals, not to groups. The fact that gay groups have misused the rhetoric of individual rights does not change that fact that they are actually promoting a government recognized group privilege. The judiciary is part of the government, last I heard, so I wonder why there is such 'libertarian' support for a government judge decreeing or imposing acceptance of a group privilege, over an electorate who twice voted against it. This is a victory for bigger government.

Get the government out of marriage, period.

Libertarians don't support Mob Rule, and believe in checks and balances where the courts check unconstitutional laws.

 

[James Madison]

Can the state force churches to wed homosexuals? That's crossing a pretty big line in my mind. Why not just legalize marriage certificates for same sex couples and get it over with.

Why not just eliminate all government involvement in marriage?

 

[Vessol]

Why not just eliminate all government involvement in marriage?

My preferred solution.

 

[Southron]

So an amendment to the California Constitution was ruled unconstitutional?

Why does this not make sense?

Are Judges > Constitutions?

 

[TonySutton]

So an amendment to the California Constitution was ruled unconstitutional?

Why does this not make sense?

Are Judges > Constitutions?

I think many of us here consider the 16th Amendment unconstitutional.

 

[thehunter]

I oppose the government (any branch) redefining marriage much like I oppose a government initiative to legislate the sky into being any colour you want it to be -- allowing such basic authority to rest with such a body will only further the hindrance of liberty.

 

[nobody's_hero]

The Federal Court system is on a roll!

Chicago gun laws, immigration, homosexuals, and the year isn't even up yet.

If this keeps up, we should be able to just do away with the states, altogether, by New Year's. Let everything be settled at the highest level of government from here onward.

 

[07041826]

Why limit it to humans? Shouldn't someone be able to marry his dog if he wants to. For that matter, why limit it to sentient beings?

A dog cannot give verifiable consent to marry and cannot enter into a legal or spiritual agreement.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

The part that sucks is convincing everyone that the state should be out of marriage because "it's always been that way." Sometimes I want to slam my head down on the desk...these people don't get it. I wonder if the state issuing marriage licenses affects the divorce rate. I mean, if there were no benefits from the state to be given by marriage, you just married the person because you really loved them and wanted to spend the rest of your life with them.

I'm in the, if straights can do it, homosexuals should be able to camp. But I wish the state would get out of the marriage license business.

 

[speciallyblend]

Get marriage out of the government, yes....

But in the mean time, provide it equally.

+1

 

[speciallyblend]

The part that sucks is convincing everyone that the state should be out of marriage because "it's always been that way." Sometimes I want to slam my head down on the desk...these people don't get it. I wonder if the state issuing marriage licenses affects the divorce rate. I mean, if there were no benefits from the state to be given by marriage, you just married the person because you really loved them and wanted to spend the rest of your life with them.

I'm in the, if straights can do it, homosexuals should be able to camp. But I wish the state would get out of the marriage license business.

the majority of right-wingers in the gop love more government. they do not walk the walk or talk the talk!!

 

[Petar]

I do not care what any state says on the matter, there is no such as "gay marriage," and never can be. Mark my words, God will judge this country for allowing these things to happen and abandoning our Christian heritage. He already is judging Europe for her sins, how long can He rest until He judges us?

We are as Israel was in the days of the prophets. Despite all the reminders of our Christian heritage that are chiseled on the very halls of power in this country, we ignore them at our own peril and do not teach our children what they mean. Can we violate the greatest command and expect the rest of the Law to protect us from the hordes of blasphemers more emboldened than ever by the acceptance of their behavior as normal?



Also see:

http://www.massresistance.org/

The irony here is that this shit is totally gay.

 

[Baptist]

This is a Constitutionally sound decision, in line with the 14th Amendment.

I disagree. The Bill of Rights applies to the feds not the states. Just because some judges, 50 years after the fact, decided that they were going to selectively make SOME rights contained in the BoR apply to the states, does not mean that it is in line with the 14th Amendment. It means that activist judges pervert the Constitution to achieve a desired agenda. The Bill of Rights does not apply to the states, therefore California is allowed to ban gay marriage.

I want government out of marriage period. But Constitutionally speaking, the court was wrong with this ruling.

 

[Baptist]

So an amendment to the California Constitution was ruled unconstitutional?

Why does this not make sense?

Are Judges > Constitutions?

This argument would make sense if a state judge ruled. However, it was in federal court. So yes, an amendment to the California Constitution was ruled unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution.

 

[American Nationalist]

I disagree. The Bill of Rights applies to the feds not the states. Just because some judges, 50 years after the fact, decided that they were going to selectively make SOME rights contained in the BoR apply to the states, does not mean that it is in line with the 14th Amendment. It means that activist judges pervert the Constitution to achieve a desired agenda. The Bill of Rights does not apply to the states, therefore California is allowed to ban gay marriage.

I want government out of marriage period. But Constitutionally speaking, the court was wrong with this ruling.

You may disagree, but you are uninformed and bigoted. The 14th Amendment is very clear, it clearly applies to state law, in section 1, it says, " 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."

You are ignoring the Constitution to promote your throwback religious agenda.

 

[Baptist]

You may disagree, but you are uninformed and bigoted. The 14th Amendment is very clear, it clearly applies to state law, in section 1, it says, " 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."

You are ignoring the Constitution to promote your throwback religious agenda.

No need for name calling and ad hominem attacks. I said I wanted the government out of marriage period so cool your emotions and read my text more carefully. If I am uniformed and bigoted, then so is Tom Woods. Listen to his speech on the 14th Amendment.

Question, American Nationalist. If the 14th Amendment was meant to make the Bill of Rights apply to the states, then why didn't any of the drafters of the 14th Amendment say so? Also, if the 14th Amendment was supposed to make the BoR apply to the states, why did courts wait 50 years to rule that way? Lastly, if the 14th Amendment makes the BoR apply to the states, they why has the court over the past 90 years ruled that only some of the BoR applies to the states? Shouldn't all of the BoR apply to the states then?

Uninformed and ignoring the Constitution? Try not to name call in your next post. And please answer my questions.

[edit] BTW, you are the one with a throwback agenda. No need to take us back to Ancient Greece and Roman bath houses. Come on man!! We've progressed beyond that! Progressive arguments don't work. We are not dealing with anything that has not been promoted and banned a dozen times already over the past 5,000 years.

 

[American Nationalist]

No need for name calling and ad hominem attacks. I said I wanted the government out of marriage period so cool your emotions and read my text more carefully. If I am uniformed and bigoted, then so is Tom Woods. Listen to his speech on the 14th Amendment.

Question, American Nationalist. If the 14th Amendment was meant to make the Bill of Rights apply to the states, then why didn't any of the drafters of the 14th Amendment say so? Also, if the 14th Amendment was supposed to make the BoR apply to the states, why did courts wait 50 years to rule that way? Lastly, if the 14th Amendment makes the BoR apply to the states, they why has the court over the past 90 years ruled that only some of the BoR applies to the states? Shouldn't all of the BoR apply to the states then?

Uninformed and ignoring the Constitution? Try not to name call in your next post. And please answer my questions.

[edit] BTW, you are the one with a throwback agenda. No need to take us back to Ancient Greece and Roman bath houses. Come on man!! We've progressed beyond that! Progressive arguments don't work. We are not dealing with anything that has not been promoted and banned a dozen times already over the past 5,000 years.

I insulted you, but I didn't engage in an ad hominem attack, I didn't attack the validity of your premise through my insults. I attacked the validity of your premise by citing the 14th Amendment. I certainly see a need for insults, considering we are talking about you imposing your religious views through the state apparatus and denying people equal protection under the law.

If Tom Woods doesn't think the 14th Amendment applies to the states, than he is stupid and bigoted. He is stupid, at least in this case, because I bet he has read it, and it is very clear in it's application to state law as well as Federal law. He is also bigoted in that he supports applying his personal prejudices through the state apparatus.

The Founders didn't have a 14th Amendment. But the writers of the 14th Amendment did make it clear that it applied to the states. All states must provide equal protection under the law.

And the Founders were inspired by the Roman Republic and the Athenian Government model. But bathhouses have nothing to do with equal protection under the law, and bathouses were used by homos and heteros, so I have no idea what you are trying to get at.