The rights of the people of California are struck down by the Supreme Court

Or their personal genital preferences. Everyone had the SAME RULES; now, there are "special exceptions"= just the beginning...

 

It's pathetic watching conservatives desperately spew the same arguments against gay marriage they attempted for interracial marriage back in the day.

Not even "similar". Blatantly the exact same arguments.

 

What short of a right is not allowing others to live as they like ?
Gays and their deeds have no effect to you so no banning them is not a right.

 

only being able to marry some one of the same race is not the same rule for racists and people in interracial relationships

 

Junkie, that is not true at all. Not in the historical sense nor in the sense of today. There are laws on the books that are clearly bigoted as well as discriminatory.
Here is one SCOTUS recent decision that negates what you have stated:

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/u...ng-discrimination-obama-disappointed-1.333447
There are also several states of the United States that have laws prohibiting people convicted of felonies from voting.
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286
I used the above link to give a clear example and picture of my point.

As to DoMA being neutralized by the same Court, it is nothing more than the time. There are more things to come that will shock and reel the naive and faithful in a system that has entered into survival mode.

 

stig, what you are discussion is personal choice. It is the same with homosexual marriage. While I personally oppose both so-called interracial marriage and homosexual marriage, I do realize that I live in a society that is basically a free-for-all when it comes to certain practices, customs and behaviors.

 

Outdated religious beliefs? In all reality, most clear-minded people do not base their views on religion but what makes them comfortable. It also deals with logic and goals.

As to your comment about "outdated religious beliefs", the same can be said about murder, lying, stealing, rape, etc. Oops, it already has been from the onset of this history cycle.

 

um being hetero sexual is not a personal choice choosing to marry some one is but that's the same for hetero or homosexual couples or between members of different races its not a free for all its just the reasons to discriminate based on race and gender preference have turned out to be senseless and oppressive bull crap

 

The people of California do not have the right to dictate the rights of others. Civil liberties are not a voting issue. The will of the majority does not come into play.

 

In a democratic society concerned with liberty and justice, nobody has the right to do it. We are still trying to get there. Yesterday's court decision was another step in the right direction.

This is not the same thing, and I think people are misunderstanding what that decision actually means. It didn't strike down the CRA, it basically told the government they have to start checking again to determine if the problem areas are still in need of supervision and to determine if there are new problem areas.

I'm quite okay with that. The felons all had rights, they were not inherently denied them based on something they were born as or chose(like a religion), they lost them due to criminal actions they engaged in. This would happen regardless of race, creed, sexuality, religion, etc etc.

That is purely for economic reasons as the world corrects itself to a more balanced state. The U.S. wasn't going to be on top forever, so the correction has always been inevitable.

 

So you oppose the decision on the Voting Rights Act?

 

I just checked; the sky hasn't fallen. So can all the pretentious right-wing bigots please shut up now?

 

The difference between murder, rape, stealing etc., and same sex marriage, is that the former are socially unacceptable, harm people, and laws are in place to punish those who transgress. Same sex marriage harms nobody.

 

Yes, this was my concern. When key hot-button issues get decided along party lines, one is left wondering if the law means anything at all.

But this isn't really true, is it? We also have what the decision DOES. And we can get a pretty solid idea from the political record of those in the majority and in the minority what effect the court wanted to have. And I personally believe that the Court makes decisions to have effects, even if the desired effect is achieved by keeping silent.

 

Have you never heard of common law marriages where two "lovers" just live together?

That's very common in the hedonistic society that libs have created.

 

What "special exceptions"? Name one.

 

I know. I can't believe all citizens are going to be treated equally soon. Terrible! lol

 

The Court should not rule in order to achieve some desired effect, but according to what the law does or doesn't require, while being mindful of the legal precedents set by their rulings.

 

I was referring to the "dying breed" as those who take away the rights of other citizens and in terms of their contributing political perspectives. You state that I'm wrong (that they aren't a dying breed) because "more and more people support gay marriage". You then elaborate based on your generational perception of improvement in that area. And you're right when considering such selectively chosen "rights". And that would be entirely appropriate considering the context and the topic. No doubt about it. I'm with you on that.

But when the overall erosion (or taking) of what citizens normally regard as their liberties are considered, the ever growing encroachment of the US government's authority upon the everyday affairs of its citizenry (the Grand Taking of Rights) can be traced to the consequential efforts, whether ill-founded or otherwise, of both of the two political perspectives. While in many specific instances one may rightly view government as the insurer of certain rights, unfortunately, it's a two edged sword. The insurer of the specific (right) is becoming in too many areas the usurper of the many. The bipartisan decisions and efforts to trade privacy for security is just one example. Though not a bipartisan one, the efforts to address specific racial discrimination by, of all things, employing policies of racial discrimination(!) is yet another.

You are optimistically watching a seemingly healthy, growing tree in a hopefully healthy forest while I'm watching a spreading forest fire. As government stomps about the winepress of its ever increasing authority, and seeks to insure protection of this particular grape or that particular one in its protective yet highly self-serving hand, bunches are ground to pieces under its feet in the effort. It's defenders then claim what a wonderful job is being done in saving that grape and improving its conditions. And the wine becomes more and more bitter with each new decade of our Lord Protector-government's insurance schemes. But like mega-insurer AIG, it's becoming "too big to fail". Witness the problems associated with the size of Lord Protector's Defense, Social Security, and Medicare obligations as a percentage of GDP and the growing debt required to prop these insurance policies up. It's not only becoming increasingly burdensome financially, it's becoming increasingly intrusive and costly in terms of the citizen's liberties - can you spell NSA, FBI, CIA, DHS, etc?. We are thus left with a shrinking ability to shield ourselves as individuals from the (perhaps) unintended, but still crushing side effects of its powerful hand of "protection". Or maybe "its powerful protection racket" would be more a appropriate description? How we see it is a matter of how we choose to watch. When I look at the overall picture, I don't see much dying out of those who would take away our rights. Just a shift in how its accomplished.

 

Mother and grandmother raising their children / grandchildren for a decade together are of the "same sex". A marriage between them wouldnt harm anyone and yet they are denied marriage.

 

That is true because California was a unique situation that doesn't exist in any other state. California had legalized same-sex marriage where something like 16,000 same-sex couples were married (if I remember correctly) and then Prop 8 fundamentally revoked their legally married status. This had tremendous bearing on the decision by the 9th District Court where Judge Walker presided over the case because the burden was that a "State's Interest" had to be established for why the legally married status of these couples was being revoked by Prop 8. The problem was that there was no rational basis or State's interest in revoking the legally married status of these individuals. Prop 8 served no purpose but to disparage and degrade these people under the California State Constitution. California did not benefit in any ligitimate way from Prop 8 that basically revoked the legally married status of same-sex couples. That was key to the 9th District Court's decision but, as noted, this doesn't apply to any other state because no other state has revoked the legally married status of same-sex couples married within the state.

But it will come up again because many states refuse to recognize the legally married status of same-sex couples that were married in other states and then move into their state. A legally married couple in massachusetts, for example, could be married for years but if they move to Kansas all of a sudden they're no longer married. That makes no sense whatsoever and there's going to be a legal battle over it because of DOMA Section 2 on the grounds that it violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, perhaps the Unenumerated Rights Clause of the 9th Amendment, and maybe even Separation of Church and State under the 1st Amendment.

So Prop 8 being struck down doesn't directly affect any other state but it does establish Constitutional precedent that can be used in other cases related to DOMA Section 2 that effectively does the same thing when a legally married same-sex couple moves into a state that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage.

 

who has "special exceptions"?

 

I wonder how many liberals realize this is a States Rights win, something they usually hate. Also, most gay people I know are pretty successful, this means less money to their beloved government central control.

 

Agreed but it would have to be between a mother and the grandmother-in-law because the incest prohibitions would prevent a mother and daughter from marrying. Of course I oppose the incest laws because they're outdated today and violate the Inalienable Rights of the Person to form personal partnerships based upon mutual consent between adults but that is a completely different matter completely.

 

We need to step back one second. The US Congress, the State Government, and the People are all prohibited from creating law that violates the US Constitution.

The striking down of unconstitutional law doesn't violate anyone's Rights. In fact the striking down of any law doesn't inherently violate anyone's rights. Other actions may occur because a law doesn't exist that could violate a person's Rights but the lack of a law is never a violation of a person's Rights.

No one's Rights are being violated by allowing same-sex couples to marry because the "law" (i.e. Prop 8 State Constitutional Amendment) that prohibited it was struck down.