One Judge vs 7 million votes - Page 2

AVGWarhawk · 08-05-10, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

IIRC California passed some law that requires a public referendum on just about everything.

Sounds like CA to me!

Lets vote on it and see how you feel about it. Then we will ignore what general concensus shows.

No wonder the state is broke.....

TLAM Strike · 08-05-10, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Sounds like CA to me!

Lets vote on it and see how you feel about it. Then we will ignore what general concensus shows.

Well yea, if they went by consensus half the state would be part of Mexico.

August · 08-05-10, 02:11 PM

If that is unconstitutional, and it very well may be, then i'd think the laws against polygamy should be unconstitutional as well right?

AVGWarhawk · 08-05-10, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Well yea, if they went by consensus half the state would be part of Mexico.

The illegals are getting past the voting booth checkers again?

AVGWarhawk · 08-05-10, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

If that is unconstitutional, and it very well may be, then i'd think the laws against polygamy should be unconstitutional as well right?

Good question sir!

mookiemookie · 08-05-10, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

If that is unconstitutional, and it very well may be, then i'd think the laws against polygamy should be unconstitutional as well right?

I don't see how the two are at all similar. Marriage to multiple partners is fundamentally different than marriage to the partner (singular) of your choice.

AVGWarhawk · 08-05-10, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I don't see how the two are at all similar. Marriage to multiple partners is fundamentally different than marriage to the partner (singular) of your choice.

Huh? You need to clarify that one bub!

mookiemookie · 08-05-10, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Huh? You need to clarify that one bub!

Marriage to one person is completely different than marrying a bunch of people?

AVGWarhawk · 08-05-10, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Marriage to one person is completely different than marrying a bunch of people?

How is that? Please explain the two some difference than three some in the sack.

TLAM Strike · 08-05-10, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

The illegals are getting past the voting booth checkers again?

Where I live they never check for ID or anything. I just gave my name, my name was on the list and I walked in the booth.

frau kaleun · 08-05-10, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

If that is unconstitutional, and it very well may be, then i'd think the laws against polygamy should be unconstitutional as well right?

I don't know the exact wording of those laws, but if they specify that marriage can only exist between two individuals, and no more than that number, then they are addressing the number of spouses one person can have and not which two people can marry each other where only two people are involved to begin with.

If they bring sex into the issue by stating that a man cannot be married to more than one woman at a time, well, nothing's changed there. A man still can't be married to more than one woman at a time. (He can't be married to more than one man at a time either.) As long as the law doesn't specify that marrying a woman is his only option for wedded bliss, it shouldn't be affected by this judge's ruling.

Sailor Steve · 08-05-10, 02:42 PM

Well, it looks like James, The Frau, Mookie and Krashkart said it all, so there's not much for me to add. It's not about "One judge versus seven million voters", it's about rights, and what rights are guaranteed and what rights are not. The judge's ruling was based on the evidence given and on the Constitutionality of the laws passed.

I'm not even arguing if the judge is right or wrong at this point. It will be heard by an Appelate Court, and if need be the Supreme Court. At this point it's not about Gay Rights, the voters or anything else. It's about the law. Did the voters pass a law that goes against the Constitution? That has yet to be finally determined.

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

If that is unconstitutional, and it very well may be, then i'd think the laws against polygamy should be unconstitutional as well right?

I'll let you know when it happens.

AVGWarhawk · 08-05-10, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

I don't know the exact wording of those laws, but if they specify that marriage can only exist between two individuals, and no more than that number, then they are addressing the number of spouses one person can have and not which two people can marry each other where only two people are involved to begin with.

If they bring sex into the issue by stating that a man cannot be married to more than one woman at a time, well, nothing's changed there. A man still can't be married to more than one woman at a time. (He can't be married to more than one man at a time either.) As long as the law doesn't specify that marrying a woman is his only option for wedded bliss, it shouldn't be affected by this judge's ruling.

I think that is against my civil rights. I should be able to have more then one wife. I think that law is unconstitutional. It should be overturned. I don't care who voted for it.

August · 08-05-10, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I don't see how the two are at all similar. Marriage to multiple partners is fundamentally different than marriage to the partner (singular) of your choice.

But what is so fundamentally different about it? They're still consenting adults, correct? Being married to one person does not legally prevent someone from sleeping with another person. In fact a group of three or more consenting adults can live like they are in a polygamous marriage and it's only the formalization of this arraignment that the government can prohibit.

Zachstar · 08-05-10, 03:05 PM

When a survey was made about integration of African Americans into a single non-segregated system in the late 40s. The VAST VAST VAST Majority of GIs polled said it was wrong.

If the Civil Rights laws depended on a vote we might have still been segregated today.

The rights of people can't come up for a vote.

08-05-10, 02:11 PM	#18
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,206 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	If that is unconstitutional, and it very well may be, then i'd think the laws against polygamy should be unconstitutional as well right? __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

08-05-10, 03:05 PM	#30
Zachstar Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shreveport, Louisiana Posts: 1,956 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	When a survey was made about integration of African Americans into a single non-segregated system in the late 40s. The VAST VAST VAST Majority of GIs polled said it was wrong. If the Civil Rights laws depended on a vote we might have still been segregated today. The rights of people can't come up for a vote. __________________