Proposition 8 overturned in California

[Skaloop]

The bill was voted in by the majority not by the minority. That is the way it works in a democracy. That is my beef when a court disregards the will of the people in favor of an agenda.

Why does a Canadian like me who's been to the States a handful of times know more about the nature of the US government, how it is structured, and how its Constitution works than a US citizen?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Interestingly, I just looked something up today. You see, in California Family Code section 300-310, people under 18 can get married with no lower bound age limit, if they get court approval and parental permission. As such, overturning the ban on same sex marriage has resulted in California being the first state (that I know of) where man-boy (and woman-girl) marriage is legal.

This means that anyone who argues that 'a marriage that would be allowed if heterosexual should also be allowed if homosexual' is, if they realize it or not, arguing for man-boy marriage.

Of course, this also means something else. Californians were willing to ban two men from getting married, but they were not willing to ban a man from marrying a little girl. They care more about stopping homosexual marriage than stopping child marriage. I wonder if this tells you something about their morality?

 

[suzybeezy]

If I'm not married (by your definition) why does the government recognize it? Would you vote to have my marriage annulled?

I am not familiar with your marriage situation to comment. As with all my votes, I would vote according to the will of the Lord and his teachings.

except without the whole god part

Point being it would not be contrary to what he ordained.

 

[Gishin]

Interestingly, I just looked something up today. You see, in California Family Code section 300-310, people under 18 can get married with no lower bound age limit, if they get court approval and parental permission. As such, overturning the ban on same sex marriage has resulted in California being the first state (that I know of) where man-boy (and woman-girl) marriage is legal.

This means that anyone who argues that 'a marriage that would be allowed if heterosexual should also be allowed if homosexual' is, if they realize it or not, arguing for man-boy marriage.

Of course, this almost means something else. Californians were willing to ban two men from getting married, but they were not willing to ban a man from marrying a little girl. They care more about stopping homosexual marriage than stopping child marriage. I wonder if this tells you something about their morality?

They do have an age of consent though? Wouldn't age of consent overrule the lack of lower age limit?

 

[Zaac]

Judge Vaughn Walker Hands Victory to Proposition 8 Opponents -- Daily Intel

Text from the ruling:

"Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.""Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8."

Of course, there will be appeals, and this is just the first step towards going all the way to SCOTUS, but it gets the ball rolling.

So, now that it's been overturned and ruled unconstitutional, is it ethical or moral to prevent homosexuals from getting married in the state of California?

Someone dares to mention California and moral in the same sentence?

Sodom meet Gomorrah. California needs to slip on into the ocean and we can tack New York and Massachusetts to it.

 

[lawtonfogle]

They do have an age of consent though? Wouldn't age of consent overrule the lack of lower age limit?

From what I read (granted, I just skimmed over the laws), it is like Arizona, where an exception to age of consent laws are made in the case of marriage.

Yep, just reread it. Assuming consummating a marriage means what I think it does...

302. (a) An unmarried male or female under the age of 18 years is
capable of consenting to and consummating marriage upon obtaining a
court order granting permission to the underage person or persons to marry.

 

[Zaac]

Interestingly, I just looked something up today. You see, in California Family Code section 300-310, people under 18 can get married with no lower bound age limit, if they get court approval and parental permission. As such, overturning the ban on same sex marriage has resulted in California being the first state (that I know of) where man-boy (and woman-girl) marriage is legal.

This means that anyone who argues that 'a marriage that would be allowed if heterosexual should also be allowed if homosexual' is, if they realize it or not, arguing for man-boy marriage.

Of course, this almost means something else. Californians were willing to ban two men from getting married, but they were not willing to ban a man from marrying a little girl. They care more about stopping homosexual marriage than stopping child marriage. I wonder if this tells you something about their morality?

Well the courts seem to be undoing the will of the people. I guess California ain't all bad. But when I think of a bastion of liberal immorality as a state, California is at the top of the list. Aren't they getting ready to legalize pot smoking for everyone?

 

[Gishin]

I am not familiar with your marriage situation to comment. As with all my votes, I would vote according to the will of the Lord and his teachings.



Point being it would not be contrary to what he ordained.

I'm married to a woman, but she's agnostic and I'm atheist. Denying the Holy Spirit being the one unforgivable sin (matt 12:31-32) you would think this would matter far more than whether or not we're homosexual or not.

If you voted the way you think your God would want you to, wouldn't you be compelled to annul our marriage if given the chance?

 

[MoonLancer]

Someone dares to mention California and moral in the same sentence?

Sodom meet Gomorrah. California needs to slip on into the ocean and we can tack New York and Massachusetts to it.

I hope the state where you live is destroyed as well.

 

[Zaac]

From what I read (granted, I just skimmed over the laws), it is like Arizona, where an exception to age of consent laws are made in the case of marriage.

Yep, just reread it. Assuming consummating a marriage means what I think it does...

Meaning that the court would have to grant an adult the right to marry a child under 18. It's California. They'll do it.

 

[Gishin]

Well the courts seem to be undoing the will of the people. I guess California ain't all bad. But when I think of a bastion of liberal immorality as a state, California is at the top of the list. Aren't they getting ready to legalize pot smoking for everyone?

I hope so. Can you name a reason (preferably secular, as some people refuse to acknowledge, our government is supposed to be secular) it should be illegal while drinking alcohol is legal?

 

[Gishin]

Meaning that the court would have to grant an adult the right to marry a child under 18. It's California. They'll do it.

With parental permission. Are you against parental rights?

 

[Zaac]

I hope the state where you live is distorted as well.

It's the Bible Belt. Of course its distorted. But California is about as dysfunctional -anything- immoral -goes- state as you're gonna ever find.

If something is immoral and illegal in every other state, then by golly, somewhere in california they are breathing up an intiative to make it legal for them to do it.

 

[GQ Chris]

Voting, nor the people's Will do not matter in California.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Meaning that the court would have to grant an adult the right to marry a child under 18. It's California. They'll do it.

They might grant it to a 16/17 year old, but do you really think they will grant it to someone younger?

Then again, I have seen the court do things that are even crazier than that, so...

 

[Gishin]

Voting, nor the people's Will do not matter in California.

Human rights and the constitution doesn't seem to matter to the (52%) voters there.

 

[lawtonfogle]

With parental permission. Are you against parental rights?

Are you for allowing a young child (talking far younger than 16/17) marrying if the parents say ok?

Where I live, the parents have to consent to allow a 16/17 year old to get married, but no one younger than 16 can ever get married (until they reach 16 ).

 

[Jase]

The bill was voted in by the majority not by the minority. That is the way it works in a democracy. That is my beef when a court disregards the will of the people in favor of an agenda.

No offense, but this is why the people should not be allowed to vote the rights of others away. You don't even understand your own government. We are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. We elect the leaders who make the laws. The people have no direct say in federal law. Now, California allows a democratic style voting system, but California is a state, and is therefore subject to Federal law. If a State law violates Federal law, the courts can strike it down. It's called Checks and Balances.

The problem here, as has been pointed out, is you are not being equal in your argument. You want to deny equal rights to gays because you don't like them. But by your desired voting method, the majority could vote for your right to be a Christian to made illegal. We both know, you would be throwing a fit if the "will of the people" denied any of your rights. So why do you think its fair for you to deny other people rights?

 

[Zaac]

With parental permission. Are you against parental rights?

Parents in cults give their kids up into such relationships. So I guess the state of California might as well allow the rest of the parents to do it. The state is becoming one, big, drunk the devil's Kool-Aid cult anyhow.

Anybody know what used to happen BIBLICALLY when cultures started sacrificing their children?

 

[Skaloop]

Well the courts seem to be undoing the will of the people. I guess California ain't all bad. But when I think of a bastion of liberal immorality as a state, California is at the top of the list. Aren't they getting ready to legalize pot smoking for everyone?

Were you aware that this was a federal judge, not a California state judge, and that he is a conservative judge who was appointed by George H.W. Bush? California and liberal immorality don't really figure into his decision. It was those crazy liberal Californians who voted for the ban, but a conservative Republican-appointed judge who knocked it down.