Proposition 8 in California, 2008 page 49

He is saying a conservative likely to be against homosexuals should also prevent himself from judging, due to being biased.

And once again, you don’t have equal freedoms.

I’ll remind you of that if the law is ever approved by a conservative court, jhco. Though how you can claim the law is valid I don’t know, it’s clearly not under the cali constitution nor under the US constitution.

Originally posted by jhco50:

I think when a majority of the people vote to pass legislation to protect the tradition of marriage, it should stand. It was a legal vote turned over by an activist judge, who turned out to be gay. He should have excused himself from the case on grounds he was possibly biased.

Good grief, jhco…YOU are either so biased that ya’re BLIND,,,BLIND,,,BLIND.
OR, you just haven’t the ability to understand what YOU so loudly spew (sound familiar?) about America being a REPUBLIC rather than a DEMOCRACY.

REPUBLIC versus DEMOCRACY
It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

In both the Direct {ppl vote on EVERYTHING} type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the “excesses of democracy” and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority.

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution—adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment—with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term “the people” means, of course, the electorate.

More

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance. The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to “liberty and justice for all.” Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights.

Just a little somthing that shows why there is such a divisiveness along party lines.

NOW, jhco…quit bending the very rules that YOU have established by saying that America IS A REPUBLIC. YOU do this “bending” by harping on how laws—specifically Prop 8 in Calif—are made and “okayed” by the MAJORITY and therefore should be “valid”….regardless of the MINORITY RIGHTS guarenteed by the CONSTITUTION.

Hey, FBB (fellow board buddies)....sorry about the double post. I had to do it so the formating would work.

AND, quit YOUR USUAL dithering in order to avoid challenges to YOUR positions. Just answer Darkruler's question.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

jhco: I think when a majority of the people vote to pass legislation to protect the tradition of marriage, it should stand.

Completely ignoring the fact that if it is unconstitutional your constitution is worthless if it can just be voted away, I still cannot understand your statement on this matter. Since you ignored my post in the thread about homosexuals, I’ll just ask you one of my many points here once more.

Should the majority be capable of voting to allow discrimination of the minority?

Even though I sincerely doubt that YOU, jhco, will even now--w/ the Flame-of-Justice-For-All burning mightily as I hold your feet to that fire--be able to "man up" and respond to this challenge to your misconception on how laws work in America....YOU will probably just ignore all of this by calling it a rant. Such is the way of a bigoted, close-minded, greatly biased, selfish psuedo-American.

AND...for Gawd's sake,,,enough w/ this "activist judges" crap. Any jurist that makes legal decisions that the bigoted, close-minded, greatly biased, selfish psuedo-American disagrees is instantly slapped w/ that moniker. It is totally childish and makes ANY reasonable opposition look nothing but FOOLISH.

Our CONSTITUTION is the law-of-the-land...it protects each INDIVIDUAL's rights from the bullying of the majority and those infernal bigoted, close-minded, greatly biased, selfish psuedo-Americans.

Redem points this out:

Originally posted by Redem:

I’ll remind you of that if the law is ever approved by a conservative court, jhco. Though how you can claim the law is valid I don’t know, it’s clearly not under the cali constitution nor under the US constitution.

That is,,, approved by a lower court. Which is what this legal wrangling is all about....causing Prop 8 to become a benchmark case--of the SUPREME COURT--that will restore Gays' right to be "married".

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Should the majority be capable of voting to allow discrimination of the minority?

This is an interesting question for jhco. Since jhco stated, “I think when a majority of the people vote to pass legislation….it should stand.”, I would state, should the same apply to all things?

For instance, if most people in California wanted to vote to outlaw guns, should it pass (because the people have spoken)? If not, why not?

I know you don’t hold the citizens of California themselves in high regard, but I would wonder why you are defending them and their decision-making capabilities on this particular point. It feels kind of like a fair-weather friendship.

On that note, what I think he’s saying is that the constitution is immune and should never be altered, but anything that is not in the constitution can be drastically changed as per majority vote. That is where it becomes dangerous. Not only does this mean that if the majority has a certain hatred towards red-heads who adopt puppies, they can vote to disallow them from ever having a driver’s license (for example). It also means that the majority doesn’t care in a bit what happens to the minority, and they don’t care in a bit that it may just as well happen to them. It is scary, because this promotes the thought of “I want to discriminate against everything and everyone, but I’m limited in my discrimination by the constitution”.

Darkruler, the very creepy thing ya say there is that it certainly DOES APPEAR to fit what jhco has laid out for us about his ideology. I know many ppl here in Kansas who spout that same shit.

This part: what I think he’s saying is that the constitution is immune and should never be altered, but anything that is not in the constitution can be drastically changed as per majority vote. certainly does describe his understanding of CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY.

Sure, we all know the Constitution isn’t “immune”….we can AMEND it.
But, that ain’t easy….and that is by design.
It is that way to keep the fools of a currently blowing ill wind from impulsively gutting the VERY BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS right out of it.

The Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of the Land.
ALL OTHER LAWS stem from it and must coincide w/ it.

This shit that idiot neoconservatives spout about: “show me where in the Constitution is sez…”,,, automatically disqualify them selves from even being worthy of joining what is a very serious discussion of social affairs facing America ATM.

Then, these same idiots turn right around and say that “special interest” areas that they want don’t have to be in the Constitution…..just need to have a “majority vote” and it’s a done deal. They so very easily sweep under the carpet the very purpose of the Constitution: to ensure specific human rights,,whether majority or extreme minority,,are NEVER usurped by common ignorant hateful bigotry.

This behavior is extremely selfishly child-like and it should be treated thus: Ferret it out, keep an eye on it, apply existing laws to “control//regulate” it from ever gaining any real “power”.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

On that note, what I think he’s saying is that the constitution is immune and should never be altered, but anything that is not in the constitution can be drastically changed as per majority vote. That is where it becomes dangerous. Not only does this mean that if the majority has a certain hatred towards red-heads who adopt puppies, they can vote to disallow them from ever having a driver’s license (for example). It also means that the majority doesn’t care in a bit what happens to the minority, and they don’t care in a bit that it may just as well happen to them. It is scary, because this promotes the thought of “I want to discriminate against everything and everyone, but I’m limited in my discrimination by the constitution”.

Close Dark. The Constitution, although it can be changed with an amendment, rarely is. Under the Constitution, the people are supposed to be the government, or at least the last word. We elect representatives to take care of everyday business but if, in the case of Prop 8, a bill is brought forth to the people by the state, it is left for them (the majority of those who vote) to decide. In the case of Prop 8, the people (those who voted, or the majority of those who voted) voted to keep the definition of marriage…between a man and a woman. It would have also made an amendment to the state Constitution to insert that language.

The Federal Constitution is broad enough to include more than an individual. But what we fail to understand is that it does not separate out classes of people because it is not supposed to be used as a club to override state issues and the gay movement is a state issue. The states are “supposed” to have more power than the federal government and even that is limited.

This is why different states have different laws and each has a Constitution. Our country is set up with each state being a different entity. The Federal Government as it is now is overriding it’s power by a huge amount, taking powers the states should have.

Proposition 8 was a legal vote to put it’s dictates to work for the people who made it law. This law was overridden by a court, effectively overriding the people.

For those doubting Thomas’:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/1208/Gay-marriage-Court-weighs-validity-of-Prop.-8-ruling-by-gay-judge

http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/287077/

So what you’re saying is that a tyranny of the minority is acceptable as long as the constitution doesn’t disagree?

Oh, bullshit, jhco.
A person is a resident of a city, of a county, of a state, AND OF THE UNITED STATES.
Now, guess who is “at the top”?

It really DOES NOT MATTER at what level a law is made,,,,
it that law—in any way—violates the Constitution, it is subject to FEDERAL REVIEW.

Just because YOU want something to be a certain way in order to support YOUR bigoted bias….THAT doesn’t mean it is REALISTIC. YOU never answered (insert appropriate name)’s challenge to ya that if some “leftist” state were to make laws totally banning ALL guns, would THAT be okay w/ YOU?

YOU never answered (insert appropriate name)’s challenge to ya that if some “leftist” state were to make laws totally banning ALL guns, would THAT be okay w/ YOU?

I’m going to guess the only reason he would disagree that can happen is because it’s in the constitution. But it would be totally okay if it wasn’t. Which is, again, scary to hear.

It is how our laws work. The people are the last word according to our Federal Constitution. Most State Constitutions mimic the Bill of Rights of the federal document, but there after have their own laws. The Federal Constitution lays out the basic rules of how Our country works and what level of government has what responsibilities or what powers. The Bill of Rights are there to guarantee the people basic rights, protection from an overreaching federal government. States add these rights to confirm them.

Gays have the same rights, according to the Constitution as everyone else. They are citizens of the US. What gays are doing is trying to expand their rights, by laws, to gain more legislated rights than everyone else. Marriage is not protected by the federal documents, it isn’t even mentioned in them. Like I said before, it is a state level issue.

It is not a tyranny of the minority as they also have the right to vote. As everyone is equal, they have that right. It is up to them to use it instead of trying to override the popular vote. They are taking from the majority to pusue their agenda.

Here is our Constitution:
http://www.backwoodshome.com/article_index.html

These are the Federalist Papers. You can see the thinking behind our Constitution.:
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/

Originally posted by jhco50:

It is how our laws work. The people are the last word according to our Federal Constitution. Most State Constitutions mimic the Bill of Rights of the federal document, but there after have their own laws. The Federal Constitution lays out the basic rules of how Our country works and what level of government has what responsibilities or what powers. The Bill of Rights are there to guarantee the people basic rights, protection from an overreaching federal government. States add these rights to confirm them.

Pretty much “accurate” so far. That is IF ya understand that ""the people are the last word.."" to NOT MEAN a majority of actually HAVE THE LAST WORD…as via some shitty law like denying Gays the right to marry.

Gays have the same rights, according to the Constitution as everyone else. They are citizens of the US. What gays are doing is trying to expand their rights, by laws, to gain more legislated rights than everyone else.

What on earth are YOU talking about? Who is filling YOUR HEAD w/ this shit? Are YOU actually THAT DENSE that YOU are unable to understand basic govt.? Just because BIGOTED, HATEFUL, INTOLERANT, HATEFUL neoconservatives are soooooooo afraid they will “lose” something if Gays “gain” something—something that YOU admit is a right (by merely being an American) in the first place—that they go beserk and run around like the sky is falling.

Marriage is not protected by the federal documents, it isn’t even mentioned in them.

OH, YES IT IS.
And, please…Please…PLEASE, can ya drop this crap about: ""it’s NOT in the Constitution"". It’s there, jhco, as in all laws—at ANY LEVEL of govt.—that have been made UNDER THE CONSTITUTION’s established SUPREME LAW of the land.

Like I said before, it is a state level issue.

NO…like we have been trying to drill into that closed mind of yours: AT ANY LEVEL OF GOVT.,,the laws made HAVT TO PASS the litmus test of being CONSTITUTIONALY LEGAL. Now, just how hard is THAT to understand? High schoolers do.

It is not a tyranny of the minority as they also have the right to vote. As everyone is equal, they have that right. It is up to them to use it instead of trying to override the popular vote.

The RIGHTEOUS minority doesn’t have to do a fucking thing…other than contest a bad law in a Federal Court as being against their CIVIL RIGHTS. It is the CONSTITUTION that will override ANY wrongful popular vote that is contested in the proper higher court.

They are taking from the majority to pusue their agenda.

They are taking NOTHING from the fucking “majority”….which just might not be as much “majority” as YOU want to believe. AND, Gay’s “agenda” is to be treated fairly, equally, and have the SAME RIGHTS THAT ARE GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

Here is our Constitution, You can see the thinking behind our Constitution.>

YES, we can see it perfectly.
It is YOU who can’t…
WHY? Because YOU want to twist the truth to fit your BIGOTED, HOMOPHOBIC agenda.

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Should the majority be capable of voting to allow discrimination of the minority?

This is an interesting question for jhco. Since jhco stated, “I think when a majority of the people vote to pass legislation….it should stand.”, I would state, should the same apply to all things?

For instance, if most people in California wanted to vote to outlaw guns, should it pass (because the people have spoken)? If not, why not?

I know you don’t hold the citizens of California themselves in high regard, but I would wonder why you are defending them and their decision-making capabilities on this particular point. It feels kind of like a fair-weather friendship.

What is to answer? Prop 8 was brought to the people for a vote and they voted to make it law. Yes, it should stand. The gays could bring forth their own bill and use the legislative process as such, but they have seen the public opinion. Thus they feel the need to usurp this legislation through the courts knowing the public has spoken.

California has and does limit gun ownership in California. They don’t bring it to the people for a vote, they do it behind the scenes. I would love to see them bring it to a vote.

I don’t dislike all Californians. The problem I have had with Californians stems to a period several years ago when many California residents fled the state. They settled in several states and spent a lot of money. This increased the goods of essentials, like housing. But they didn’t stop there. They left California because of politics and when they got to their new states, went to work on changing those laws to match California,s laws. You think they have a bad name in your state, you should see how Oregon feels about them.

Originally posted by jhco50:

California has and does limit gun ownership in California. They don’t bring it to the people for a vote, they do it behind the scenes. I would love to see them bring it to a vote.

I have contacts in California politics; from what I understand, some of the gun laws did come to a vote, and they passed. The NRA was there, and whatever other organization would lobby in favor of the gun laws, and more often than not, they passed. It looked like it was what the people wanted, as the process was before the state assembly and fairly transparent.

The first question: If they voted to outlaw all guns, would that be OK with you? was a rhetorical one, because it will never happen, but it would make you think about how you would feel if “the people” spoke, and it was against an issue that is near and dear to you.

You think they have a bad name in your state, you should see how Oregon feels about them.

I was afraid of that, but they don’t seem to have a bad name in my state. Actually, my state seems to be comprised of about 1/2 Californians, so the whole self-loathing thing wouldn’t really work. Every time I’ve told someone I’m from California, they’ve usually displayed anywhere from neutral (“Oh, OK.”) to polite interest (“Really? I bet they have a lot to do there.”). I’ve met some people here who are actually moving westward in search of a more exciting life.

Well Twilight, it seems the people spoke. If they were willing to vote to limit their gun freedoms, it’s how it should be.

Yes, I know. Texans in your state used to be the bad guys, but Californians made them good guys. Most of the people I know in my area would be neutral to sighs. :) Right now, excitement is not what people are looking for when they move, they are trying to find work.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Yes, I know. Texans in your state used to be the bad guys, but Californians made them good guys.

What? Do you mean Californians > Texans?

Most of the people I know in my area would be neutral to sighs. :) Right now, excitement is not what people are looking for when they move, they are trying to find work.

Some of the younger people I’ve met stop and ask me about California. Maybe it makes no difference where they go to school but they seem to think it’s golden and want to be where the action is. It is a beautiful state.

Yes, but the Texans are really happy about it. They spent years in that slot, LOL.

I have heard how beautiful it is out there. There is a lot of history as well. Someday maybe I will get to see it. I would like to see Washington, too. A friend of mine just got back from Texas and he said it really looked bad down there. It looked all shriveled up. My brother said when he drove a truck cross-country the most beautiful state he ever saw was Idaho. I can’t even imagine that.

I still don’t understand why it should be allowed to vote for limiting other people’s freedoms.

Originally posted by jhco50:

What is to answer?

Unfortunately, YOU don’t even know the question.

Prop 8 was brought to the people for a vote and they voted to make it law.

Yes, they did vote to make it a “law” that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Yes, it should stand.

WHY? Because it aligns w/ YOUR BIGOTED idololgy concerning Gays? AND,,,,NO, it shall NOT STAND. Upon reaching the Supreme Court….it will be struck down….AS IT WELL SHOULD BE.

The gays could bring forth their own bill and use the legislative process as such,

WHAT FUCKING “LEGISLATION”? In AMERICA, one doesn’t need legislation to obtain//retain their RIGHTS. Our Constitution already does that.

but they have seen the public opinion

SO?…. So what? Since when,, IN AMERICA—a Republic—under our CONSTITUTION,, does “public opinion” mean shit when it comes to Constitutional RIGHTS? This is why the Founding Fathers made the Constitution—The LAW of the Land—hard to change. Thus negating the foolishness of “popular opinion” of whim.

Thus they feel the need to usurp this legislation through the courts knowing the public has spoken.

After reading the above, DO YOU SERIOUSLY think anyone isn’t laughing at THAT fool statement?

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

I still don’t understand why it should be allowed to vote for limiting other people’s freedoms.

DR, it’s NOT “allowed”. At least if ya’re thinking along the lines of “permited”. Bigoted idiots can VOTE and pass legislation that limits ppl’s rights. BUT, upon being contested in Court…..such “laws” are struck down as being UNconstitutional.

jhco knows this (at least he SHOULD), but his bigotry about Gays obviously “allows” him this distortion of facts he is sooooo “proud” of touting.