Prop 8 Overturned as Unconstitutional - Page 3 - 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, 03:27 PM   #41
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

one thing is for sure. the more energy we idiots and even bigger idiots in government waste on this subject, the less energy there is that could be put to some sort of good use, like curing a disease.

"for as smart as we humans claim to be, we sure do some of the dumbest shit"
ovrlnd is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old August 5th, 2010, 04:07 PM   #42
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,429
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by howell_jeep View Post
This is true. Marriage should stay in church and "civil union" would be recognized by the state.
My thoughts exactly.
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 04:15 PM   #43
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,429
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

People that don't like gays secretly want wiener shoved in their face.
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 09:29 PM   #44
pizzaman
Senior Member
 
pizzaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Independence Twsp, North Oakland County
Posts: 935
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 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.
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.
This seems to me, as well as others the extereme left's system of "if we can't vote it we'll just find a liberal judge to over rule it" attitude. This as mentioned before is the real problem.
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.


you speak as if this is the gospel, but it's only "your" opinion. I can't believe I agree with brewman. lol
The real problem here, as mentioned and agreed with by others, is that the liberals that don't agree with the majority vote, "we'll just find a liberal judge to over rule the majority vote" if we don't agree with mentality.

Last edited by pizzaman; August 5th, 2010 at 09:35 PM.
pizzaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 10:15 PM   #45
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,561
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

How is that my opinion? It is how things work in the US government. Laws can be passed, sure, but then they can also be overturned of they are found to be unconstitutional.

One judge will not make the final decision. This will go to the Supreme Court. And they have the option to make a final ruling on the Constitutional ramifications of this law, or any law for that matter.
It has been done by people for a long time. Conservative and liberal. The process and the responsibility is written in the Constitution, that was my point.
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 10:22 PM   #46
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,561
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
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.
This is at the very heart of the debate. And this is what the Supreme Court will eventually be asked to determine.

Quote:
The majority of the people seem to agree with the former, while the judges seem agree with the latter.
Majoriy of people voting in California, yes. But not by much, I seem to remember the majority was only around 52%. Heck, they can't even get anything accomplished in Washington with that kind of majority any more.

And again, the courts do have the responsibility to assure that laws are Constitutional.

Quote:
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.
I have talked with gay people who absolutely would agree with this. And some that would not.
Personally I like the idea. Let the civil union be the law of the land for all. A legal union. And then let those who want a "marriage" go to their respective house of worship.
That would also help opposite sex couples who live together yet decide not to get married.
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 10:26 PM   #47
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,091
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzaman View Post
[/COLOR]

you speak as if this is the gospel, but it's only "your" opinion. I can't believe I agree with brewman. lol
The real problem here, as mentioned and agreed with by others, is that the liberals that don't agree with the majority vote, "we'll just find a liberal judge to over rule the majority vote" if we don't agree with mentality.
Not to mention that the news staions failed to mention that the judge himself is gay. They did mention that he was a nomination from the regan years and republican but failed to say that he is gay. I believe that maybe the judge should have excluded himself as a conflict of interest as that he would rule according to emotions and not what the voters had to say.
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 10:29 PM   #48
L4CX
Out for the Summer!
 
L4CX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-07
Location: Hillsdale, MI
Posts: 4,942
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
But if it isn't a legal matter then it doesn't need a legal definition.
Yeah, but it is a Legal matter. Should it be? Probably not. But if it is a Legal matter then they should define them as different.
L4CX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 10:59 PM   #49
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,466
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
Majoriy of people voting in California, yes. But not by much, I seem to remember the majority was only around 52%. Heck, they can't even get anything accomplished in Washington with that kind of majority any more.
Yes, a small majority in what is one of the most liberal, "gay freindly" states. Marriage is defined as 1 man and 1 woman in 42 states, 30 of them included it in thier state constitution. Nearly every time it has come up for a vote anywhere in this country that people have voted "NO" to gay marriage.
brewmenn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2010, 03:25 AM   #50
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,466
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
I have talked with gay people who absolutely would agree with this. And some that would not.
Why not? Because it's not called "marriage"? Too bad. Depending on what you believe you have to agree that marriage is either something instituted by God, or it is something that is the result of thousands of years of human cultural evolution. Either way, I do not believe anyone have the right to redefine it just because it doesn't mean what they want it to mean.
brewmenn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2010, 06:57 AM   #51
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,787
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
I believe that maybe the judge should have excluded himself as a conflict of interest as that he would rule according to emotions and not what the voters had to say.
I think anyone that has an opinion on the subject would have a conflict of interest, even heterosexuals, so no, he should not have excluded himself because he's gay.
mikesova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2010, 07:08 AM   #52
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,091
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
I think anyone that has an opinion on the subject would have a conflict of interest, even heterosexuals, so no, he should not have excluded himself because he's gay.
So then a judge sits on the bench and has a case come to him about prayer in schools. He decides that yes prayer should be in schools. Then the liberal left find out he is a Christian, tell me what do you think would be said about that?
Judges excludes themselves from cases all the time time because they themselves have a vested interest in the case and could not make a disicion because of thier ties to that case.
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2010, 07:22 AM   #53
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,787
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
So then a judge sits on the bench and has a case come to him about prayer in schools. He decides that yes prayer should be in schools. Then the liberal left find out he is a Christian, tell me what do you think would be said about that?
Judges excludes themselves from cases all the time time because they themselves have a vested interest in the case and could not make a disicion because of thier ties to that case.
First, based on the statistics, i would probably assume that the judge would be christian, before he/she even ruled. Second, it would probably be appealed on the grounds of separation of church and state.

Edit: third, if that ever happened, which it won't, unless judges start taking crazy pills... I would love to read their decision. :)
mikesova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2010, 07:52 AM   #54
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,113
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
Majoriy of people voting in California, yes. But not by much, I seem to remember the majority was only around 52%. Heck, they can't even get anything accomplished in Washington with that kind of majority any more.

And again, the courts do have the responsibility to assure that laws are Constitutional.
A majority is a majority, just ask Al Gore.

It was passed as an amendment to the constitution, which by definition, makes it constitutional.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2010, 08:30 PM   #55
booblinker
Trailer Trash
 
booblinker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-29-06
Location: Leonard, mi
Posts: 9,938
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to booblinker
Default

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage_trial
__________________
-2001 Tahoe original 5.3 4x4 only 435k
-Down to 2 three wheelers
-1985 V65 Magna
-1978 F100
-1973 CT70 with 125cc motor
booblinker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2010, 09:22 AM   #56
ScOoTeR
hoo dat. wat.
 
ScOoTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 21,523
iTrader: (35)
Mentioned: 9 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.
W/O reading the rest of the thread before I post this - you're wrong.

The definition of marriage is the union of two people under God. There are pretty clear rules in the bible that says ONLY between man and woman.

What needs to happen is that homosexuals adopt a union that leaves "marriage" out of it - and then the government needs to acknowledge that union so proper spousal benefits can be distributed.

Gay people want married for the same reason we all do - we find someone special, and want to spend the rest of our lives with them. In our society, it is the social norm for people to get married when this happens - and without it, something feels incomplete.

The sooner homosexual unions take the form of something other than "marriage" the sooner they will be accepted. For many Christians, I believe it is an honest slap in the face when they see a same-sex marriage. They see it as a union under God that CLEARLY breaks the fundamental requirements for marriage.

As long as the gays keep calling it Marriage, the Christians will continue to oppose (IMHO). When that happens, this controversy will slowly fade away.
__________________
@clarkstoncracker
ScOoTeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2010, 10:15 AM   #57
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,787
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScOoTeR View Post
W/O reading the rest of the thread before I post this - you're wrong.

The definition of marriage is the union of two people under God. There are pretty clear rules in the bible that says ONLY between man and woman.

What needs to happen is that homosexuals adopt a union that leaves "marriage" out of it - and then the government needs to acknowledge that union so proper spousal benefits can be distributed.

Gay people want married for the same reason we all do - we find someone special, and want to spend the rest of our lives with them. In our society, it is the social norm for people to get married when this happens - and without it, something feels incomplete.

The sooner homosexual unions take the form of something other than "marriage" the sooner they will be accepted. For many Christians, I believe it is an honest slap in the face when they see a same-sex marriage. They see it as a union under God that CLEARLY breaks the fundamental requirements for marriage.

As long as the gays keep calling it Marriage, the Christians will continue to oppose (IMHO). When that happens, this controversy will slowly fade away.
While I completely agree with almost everything you say here(
here\\\\\\\\\\'s where I said it a little more boiled down
), I must interject and say a couple things (for the sake of arguing). First, in your scenario, would all people get a legally recognized civil union or just gays?

Second of all, whatever the biblical definition says marriage is, doesn't really matter in terms of the U.S. Law, would you agree?

Third, what makes you think that Christianity owns the term marriage? You don't think that people were married before Christianity? Why does their definition hold any more water than another faith or culture?

Last edited by mikesova; August 17th, 2010 at 10:18 AM.
mikesova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2010, 11:44 AM   #58
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,561
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
A majority is a majority, just ask Al Gore.

It was passed as an amendment to the constitution, which by definition, makes it constitutional.


But (and this is for arguments sake only), if it is found to be unconstitutional within the confines of the U.S. Constitution, that would supercede the state constitution.

Yes, and Gore had the majority.....in the popular vote.
Bush had the majority in the electoral vote.
The Supreme Court essentially ruled that the electoral superceded the popular.
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2010, 04:58 PM   #59
Chiefwoohaw
Pokerob is my B*tch!
 
Chiefwoohaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 11,507
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

I'm amazed by how hard mike fights for gay rights. It's like a black guy taking up the cause of the kkk
Chiefwoohaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2010, 06:34 PM   #60
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,091
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiefwoohaw View Post
I'm amazed by how hard mike fights for gay rights. It's like a black guy taking up the cause of the kkk
too funny Chief
aber61 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 06:51 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 0.38127 seconds with 82 queries