SMILE - it's the safest way to spread your cheeks!
The court system was never intended to override the vote.
Another shinning example of the In-Justice system out of control.
This is a MUSIC forum. Irrelevant or disrespectful posts/topics will be removed by Admin. Please report any forum spam or inappropriate posts HERE.
Moderators: bandmixmod1, jimmy990, spikedace
True...but it WAS designed to be a check to make sure that the gov't does afford everyone with equal rights as stated under our constitution.
What they're saying, here, sans, is that this is an issue that should never have been put up for a popular vote. The whole idea of affording some the rights over others is unconstitutional in concept. That's EXACTLY what the court was set up to do.
Our gov't was NOT set up as a 'majority rules' sort of thing. Check out your Thomas Jefferson, your Bill Of Rights.
No, over-riding the vote was what they did to put GWB in office. This is QUITE different.
What they're saying, here, sans, is that this is an issue that should never have been put up for a popular vote. The whole idea of affording some the rights over others is unconstitutional in concept. That's EXACTLY what the court was set up to do.
Our gov't was NOT set up as a 'majority rules' sort of thing. Check out your Thomas Jefferson, your Bill Of Rights.
No, over-riding the vote was what they did to put GWB in office. This is QUITE different.
Last edited by philbymon on Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SMILE - it's the safest way to spread your cheeks!
I am quite familiar with our governmental structure. Confusing as it is. Government and History were minors of study for me.
I don't see it as a question of equality.
Marriage is a union between man and woman by definition.
Nothing wrong with social unions that carry all the rights and burdens of marriage. It is just not " marriage "
Now some son of a bitch will want to marry his gerbil.
There are definitions in law.
To change those definitions for a special interest group?
That is unconstitutional.
I don't see it as a question of equality.
Marriage is a union between man and woman by definition.
Nothing wrong with social unions that carry all the rights and burdens of marriage. It is just not " marriage "
Now some son of a bitch will want to marry his gerbil.
There are definitions in law.
To change those definitions for a special interest group?
That is unconstitutional.
No, that is a matter for the Supreme Court to determine. Not you or I. Neither of us is qualified.
As it stands, the opinions of the many are out-weighing the needs of the few, by a single religious definition that was NEVER intended to be "one man & one woman," until it was REdefined that way in the 19th century, in THIS country, to control those pesky Mormons.
As it stands, the opinions of the many are out-weighing the needs of the few, by a single religious definition that was NEVER intended to be "one man & one woman," until it was REdefined that way in the 19th century, in THIS country, to control those pesky Mormons.
SMILE - it's the safest way to spread your cheeks!
God determined it long before the Supreme Court became a reality
And will stand in judgment long after it's all passed to dust.
Not to begin another religious debate.
Just saying, I only recognize one authority ... mine ( oops )
I mean ... er ... ah ... GOD
I still say the vote is the trump card ... the court serves the voter.
The voter does not serve the court.
Even the decision of the supreme court is based on a vote.
The Vote is the defining principal of a republic.
And will stand in judgment long after it's all passed to dust.
Not to begin another religious debate.
Just saying, I only recognize one authority ... mine ( oops )
I mean ... er ... ah ... GOD
I still say the vote is the trump card ... the court serves the voter.
The voter does not serve the court.
Even the decision of the supreme court is based on a vote.
The Vote is the defining principal of a republic.
No, the vote is the defining principle of a democracy. Our republic has fail-safes in place to protect the needs of the few, which may over-ride any vote.
We COULD have voted at any time to reinstate slavery, but our Constitution forbids it, now.
We COULD have voted at any time to reinstate slavery, but our Constitution forbids it, now.
Last edited by philbymon on Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SMILE - it's the safest way to spread your cheeks!
#119406 by Slacker G
Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:23 pm
Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:23 pm
Now isn't that up to the one who invented marriage to decide?
Your problem would seem to be a relatively minor one, to me, though. A simple matter of semantics. Would you not allow these ppl, who have devoted themselves to a monogamous relationship just as any heterosexual judeo-christian, the same insurance coverage, the same tax breaks, Social Security, credit, retirement benefits, etc?
When it comes down to it, sans, in the original text of the Bible, I truly doubt that the word they used even WAS 'marriage.' And as I said above, our gov't has already redefined the term, once, for political reasons.
When it comes down to it, sans, in the original text of the Bible, I truly doubt that the word they used even WAS 'marriage.' And as I said above, our gov't has already redefined the term, once, for political reasons.
Last edited by philbymon on Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:32 am, edited 3 times in total.
SMILE - it's the safest way to spread your cheeks!
Perhaps I am mistaken.
First off, to my knowledge no one is denying anyone any rights. Only the use of the term "marriage" and the license that goes with it.
The State of California's social union laws apply all rights equally already.
This includes insurance, pensions, ETC.
The whole movement is about normalizing perversion by calling it marriage, which it is not. Not anyone being denied any benefits already guaranteed by law.. Calling your cat , dog, does not make him a dog.
Same sex couple deserve all the rights as anyone else IMO.
That is the American way.
Though I still contend that changing a definition for a special interest group is a violation of the rights of the public as a whole.
Rights can be maintained without violating the sanctity of marriage.
Or changing legal definitions that will only lead to more chaos.
First off, to my knowledge no one is denying anyone any rights. Only the use of the term "marriage" and the license that goes with it.
The State of California's social union laws apply all rights equally already.
This includes insurance, pensions, ETC.
The whole movement is about normalizing perversion by calling it marriage, which it is not. Not anyone being denied any benefits already guaranteed by law.. Calling your cat , dog, does not make him a dog.
Same sex couple deserve all the rights as anyone else IMO.
That is the American way.
Though I still contend that changing a definition for a special interest group is a violation of the rights of the public as a whole.
Rights can be maintained without violating the sanctity of marriage.
Or changing legal definitions that will only lead to more chaos.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 216 guests