Prop 8 Overturned as Unconstitutional - Page 2 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 5th, 2010, 09:05 AM   #21
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,232
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
Retard Slippery Slope Alert!

You and toes always have to push it don't you? Do you know how retarded you sound spouting this off in front of intelligent people? Yes, the next thing you know we will be giving special benefits to pedophiles...Do you really think this?
No you and your liberal friends will be giving special rights to pedohiles.
As for intellligence... who you? You know you think too much of yourself, your not as smart as you think. You may have a piece of paper that says it but your ignorance shines through like the sun.
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old August 5th, 2010, 09:06 AM   #22
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Another victory for the sexual deviant.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 09:07 AM   #23
howell_jeep
Last Free Man
 
howell_jeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-09-06
Location: Howell Twp, MI 48836
Posts: 10,848
iTrader: (69)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
It would seem that the main objection that most have with the idea is the terminology behind it. I would be happy if I had a recognized "civil union" from the government to receive the special rights between my spouse and I. If people wanted to take it one step further for their religion and get "married" at their church they could. I think that would make things much less toxic and objectionable.
This is true. Marriage should stay in church and "civil union" would be recognized by the state.
__________________
I SHOOT RAW!
---

Exercise your rights! Open Carry!
howell_jeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 09:11 AM   #24
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,858
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
No you and your liberal friends will be giving special rights to pedohiles.
As for intellligence... who you? You know you think too much of yourself, your not as smart as you think. You may have a piece of paper that says it but your ignorance shines through like the sun.
Yes, aber, your intelligence shines through with every misspelled word. You're right, I'm so ignorant of my liberal comrades. Behind my back, they are secretly plotting tax breaks for pedophiles who marry their victims and dog owners who take things a little too far. I wish I could find the wisdom that you have...
mikesova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 09:19 AM   #25
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,858
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by howell_jeep View Post
Popular opinion, or culture of a given people, explain most of the laws and attitudes toward other people, conduct, and ideas. I'm not asking why it is so, but if there is a reason not to allow people to form unions of more than one person.



Does this mean you would allow people to form unions with more than one person at a time?
It actually is happening right now, in many other countries. It just became taboo in this one.

I would have no problem with allowing polygamy. Shit's biblical anyway... ;)
mikesova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 09:34 AM   #26
howell_jeep
Last Free Man
 
howell_jeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-09-06
Location: Howell Twp, MI 48836
Posts: 10,848
iTrader: (69)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
It actually is happening right now, in many other countries. It just became taboo in this one.

I would have no problem with allowing polygamy. Shit's biblical anyway... ;)
OK. So I could form a union with 3 other women, have children with all of them and when I die, each one of the spouses could get my SS survivor's benefits?

Would it be ok for one of my wives to enter into a civil union with other men or women? So that I am "married" to 3 women, but one of them is also "married" to another man and has kids with that person?

Would that person be considered family?

I'm talking about only adults and people, since you need to express your willingness to enter into a contract. It will probably come a time, when science is advanced so much that it would be able to allow us to communicate with animals. In such a case, a dog could want to enter into a union with it's owner. Would that be ok if dog was of legal age? If I can make a contract for a dog (a will) why can't I make a contract with a dog?

When we become cyborgs and become part human and parts machines, does this mean that a cyborg can enter into a union with a computer?
__________________
I SHOOT RAW!
---

Exercise your rights! Open Carry!
howell_jeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 10:05 AM   #27
TJJEEP
Senior Member
 
TJJEEP's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: Orchard Lake
Posts: 2,954
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to TJJEEP Send a message via MSN to TJJEEP
Default

I really don't care if two fags find each other and decided they only want to pack each others fudge as along as they live or two lesbos find the vag they want to stick with. Let them marry and be as miserable as the rest of us.
TJJEEP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 10:14 AM   #28
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 22,065
iTrader: (22)
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
What bothers me is that it seems like the people keep voting against gay marriage, but the legislators and judges keep supporting it. If the people want marriage to be defined as the union of 1 man and 1 woman thats how it should be. And I don't see it as discrimination because it's the same for everyone. Everyone is entitled to go out and find a willing member of the opposite sex and get married. If you have decided that that is not right for you then do something else. But the majority has spoken over and over again, that "something else" is not marriage.
To me, this is the bigger issue. Regardless of the topic, if ANY topic comes up for a vote by the people, and they vote EITHER way, how is it that a judge can overule the vote? Our judges are supposed to interpret and rule on the laws, not allow or disallow the law.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 10:22 AM   #29
howell_jeep
Last Free Man
 
howell_jeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-09-06
Location: Howell Twp, MI 48836
Posts: 10,848
iTrader: (69)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
To me, this is the bigger issue. Regardless of the topic, if ANY topic comes up for a vote by the people, and they vote EITHER way, how is it that a judge can overule the vote? Our judges are supposed to interpret and rule on the laws, not allow or disallow the law.
What if there are 2 laws that contradict each other, are judges allowed to, or should they be allowed to, rule on that?
__________________
I SHOOT RAW!
---

Exercise your rights! Open Carry!
howell_jeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 10:24 AM   #30
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,722
iTrader: (40)
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
To me, this is the bigger issue. Regardless of the topic, if ANY topic comes up for a vote by the people, and they vote EITHER way, how is it that a judge can overule the vote? Our judges are supposed to interpret and rule on the laws, not allow or disallow the law.
According to Mark Levin, the judge is gay.




And they can stop that due to the wonderful "checks and balances" we have, which in the end seems to work pretty damn good.

Yes, one judge stopped 7,000,000 votes for a law. That's by design.
__________________
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 10:24 AM   #31
FORD FLARESIDE
in hockey, size matters
 
FORD FLARESIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-09-06
Location: Comstock Park
Posts: 22,055
iTrader: (24)
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
To me, this is the bigger issue. Regardless of the topic, if ANY topic comes up for a vote by the people, and they vote EITHER way, how is it that a judge can overule the vote? Our judges are supposed to interpret and rule on the laws, not allow or disallow the law.

X2
one APPOINTED judge overturned approx. 7,000,000 REGISTERED voters. If he can do it on this topic he can do it on any, so ask yourself, "Why even vote?"
FORD FLARESIDE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 11:11 AM   #32
ouchman
Senior Member
 
ouchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-11-06
Location: Burton, MI.
Posts: 2,315
iTrader: (17)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via Yahoo to ouchman Send a message via Skype™ to ouchman
Default

Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	855c057a08f947b2c468ccbb2b75d859_0.jpg
Views:	84
Size:	40.6 KB
ID:	66086  
__________________
support the sport- www.GLFWDA.org - member

Quote:
Dear Travelers,
You won't see London and you won't see France, until we see your underpants!
Sincerely, TSA Officers
ouchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 11:39 AM   #33
L4CX
Out for the Summer!
 
L4CX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-07
Location: Hillsdale, MI
Posts: 4,996
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
I disagree, the right thing will eventually happen. It happened with emancipating the slaves, womens suffrage, civil rights, etc.
I think, like many other in this thread, that the right thing thing to do would be up hold what the people voted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
Retard Slippery Slope Alert!

You and toes always have to push it don't you? Do you know how retarded you sound spouting this off in front of intelligent people? Yes, the next thing you know we will be giving special benefits to pedophiles...Do you really think this?
Hm....I didn't realize we were in the presense of Intelligent people.

You may not like the thought process but it is valid. It's just drawing the line in a different place, that place, in this case, was denied by a single Judge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
It would seem that the main objection that most have with the idea is the terminology behind it. I would be happy if I had a recognized "civil union" from the government to receive the special rights between my spouse and I. If people wanted to take it one step further for their religion and get "married" at their church they could. I think that would make things much less toxic and objectionable.
That sounds like something I've said before. If Marriage is Defined as a man and a women then lets keep it that way and let them come up with a new name for it. If they really just wanted to have the benefits then I would think they would be happy to call it something different. If they want "What thier parents had" (Marriage) that would be impossible because thier parents were opposite Sex. If they want that they should find some one of the opposite sex.
L4CX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 12:40 PM   #34
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,566
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
To me, this is the bigger issue. Regardless of the topic, if ANY topic comes up for a vote by the people, and they vote EITHER way, how is it that a judge can overule the vote? Our judges are supposed to interpret and rule on the laws, not allow or disallow the law.
This, from the above linked article, says it all to me:

Quote:
Perhaps the most important political finding that Walker made was his conclusion that the fact that Prop 8 passed as a voter initiative was irrelevant as "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Constitutional rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. And this judgement was based on this Judges understanding (and interpretation) of the Constitution as it applies to equal treatment of all under the law.

I am sure you can find people who will vote to take away voting rights from all but landowners (it has been mentioned on this site), yet it would be a moot point since the Constitution (through the amendments) guarantees all citizens that right.

This issue will go to the Supreme Court and they will look long and hard at that pesky little document written, oh, so long ago. And they will determine what will and will not be constitutionally guaranteed to each individual regarded this subject.

Oh, and for anyone who believes I am making a Liberal statement here, wrong. This statement is based on how this country was founded and how the system in this country was established an implemented.
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 12:47 PM   #35
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,127
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
According to Mark Levin, the judge is gay.




And they can stop that due to the wonderful "checks and balances" we have, which in the end seems to work pretty damn good.

Yes, one judge stopped 7,000,000 votes for a law. That's by design.
No it is not by design. The checks and balances all happened already at the state level and the state constitution was amended legally.

One detail being left out here. The state law passed by a majority of the people of that state amended that state's constitution and it was over turned by a Federal judge.

How does a Federal judge have any authority over the state constitution? I thought we were a republic of soverign states. I guess the Calf. State Constitution is now just another piece of ancient paper that has no authority. So the governor and the state legistature can all go home now and just pass all power to Washington DC. That should at least get them out of bankruptcy, problem solved.

This battle will now go to the Federal Supreme court where it will most likely be overturned once again by a 5-4 vote and the amendment will stand. Despite the fact that the Federal Court's have no authority to override state law according to the originalist reading of the Federal Constitution.

BTW, I support anyone being able to marry anyone else for any reason they see fit, so long as it is consensual, but I don't support marriage of any type being a legal matter. The government at any level should not have a say in the status of your relation to anyone else. All legal matters involving custody, wills, etc can be solved by the parties involved using contract law. The status of your relationship with anyone is a personal matter and not the business of the states or the State.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 01:00 PM   #36
FORD FLARESIDE
in hockey, size matters
 
FORD FLARESIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-09-06
Location: Comstock Park
Posts: 22,055
iTrader: (24)
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
This, from the above linked article, says it all to me:



Constitutional rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. And this judgement was based on this Judges understanding (and interpretation) of the Constitution as it applies to equal treatment of all under the law.

I am sure you can find people who will vote to take away voting rights from all but landowners (it has been mentioned on this site), yet it would be a moot point since the Constitution (through the amendments) guarantees all citizens that right.

This issue will go to the Supreme Court and they will look long and hard at that pesky little document written, oh, so long ago. And they will determine what will and will not be constitutionally guaranteed to each individual regarded this subject.

Oh, and for anyone who believes I am making a Liberal statement here, wrong. This statement is based on how this country was founded and how the system in this country was established an implemented.
Okay, your words are colorful and well scripted, I will give you that.

But common sense tells many of us that his decision was based on Bias. Not Law. So your argument, as well written as it is, does not change the mind of Millions of people in this country. Don't expect people to be happy with this decision. Common man needs to respect common man.
FORD FLARESIDE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 01:36 PM   #37
L4CX
Out for the Summer!
 
L4CX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-07
Location: Hillsdale, MI
Posts: 4,996
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
No it is not by design. The checks and balances all happened already at the state level and the state constitution was amended legally.

One detail being left out here. The state law passed by a majority of the people of that state amended that state's constitution and it was over turned by a Federal judge.

How does a Federal judge have any authority over the state constitution? I thought we were a republic of soverign states. I guess the Calf. State Constitution is now just another piece of ancient paper that has no authority. So the governor and the state legistature can all go home now and just pass all power to Washington DC. That should at least get them out of bankruptcy, problem solved.

This battle will now go to the Federal Supreme court where it will most likely be overturned once again by a 5-4 vote and the amendment will stand. Despite the fact that the Federal Court's have no authority to override state law according to the originalist reading of the Federal Constitution.

BTW, I support anyone being able to marry anyone else for any reason they see fit, so long as it is consensual, but I don't support marriage of any type being a legal matter. The government at any level should not have a say in the status of your relation to anyone else. All legal matters involving custody, wills, etc can be solved by the parties involved using contract law. The status of your relationship with anyone is a personal matter and not the business of the states or the State.
Very Interestingly put. I Agree. At least the last part. It's really hard in this case because "Interpretation" is everything. They really need to come up with a Legal name for Marriage though, Civil Union works....but already has a Negative Stigma.
L4CX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 01:45 PM   #38
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,127
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L4CX View Post
Very Interestingly put. I Agree. At least the last part. It's really hard in this case because "Interpretation" is everything. They really need to come up with a Legal name for Marriage though, Civil Union works....but already has a Negative Stigma.

But if it isn't a legal matter then it doesn't need a legal definition.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 01:47 PM   #39
ovrlnd
HURL SCOUTS
 
ovrlnd's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-23-07
Location: Westland, Michigan
Posts: 10,003
iTrader: (14)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to ovrlnd
Default

good. I am glad gays get to be married.
ovrlnd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 02:31 PM   #40
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,551
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
This, from the above linked article, says it all to me:



Constitutional rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. And this judgement was based on this Judges understanding (and interpretation) of the Constitution as it applies to equal treatment of all under the law.

I am sure you can find people who will vote to take away voting rights from all but landowners (it has been mentioned on this site), yet it would be a moot point since the Constitution (through the amendments) guarantees all citizens that right.

This issue will go to the Supreme Court and they will look long and hard at that pesky little document written, oh, so long ago. And they will determine what will and will not be constitutionally guaranteed to each individual regarded this subject.

Oh, and for anyone who believes I am making a Liberal statement here, wrong. This statement is based on how this country was founded and how the system in this country was established an implemented.
Yes, it pretty much comes down to how you define "equal treatment". On one hand it could be argued that limiting marriage to 1 man and 1 woman is equal treatment because it applies to everyone in the same way. Everyone has the right under the law to find a willing member of the opposite sex and get married. On the other hand equal treatment could mean that no distinction should made between “man” and “woman” and thus a union between any 2 people should be treated the same regardless of the gender of those 2 people.

The majority of the people seem to agree with the former, while the judges seem agree with the latter.

My personal view, as I have stated here previously, is that we should:
1) Review all laws that apply to “marriage” and decide why they exist. That is, why does the law treat these 2 people differently than any other random 2 people. Two possible reasons might be so that they can plan a life together, or to allow them to more easily raise children together. The laws should then be revised to assure that the benefits provided are actually provided to the people intended.
2) The word “marriage” should be removed from the laws so that it can go back to being defined by the people and non-government institutions. i.e. churches and religions. Create a legal “civil union” that any 2 people can apply for.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:28 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.44365 seconds with 81 queries