CA marriage decision trumps the people's vote

OneNewsNow ^ | 5/16/08 | Ed Thomas

[BlackbirdSST]

What is required is just the opposite. The constitution doesn't have to specifically address every version of somebody's new idea of what something is. Judges and Justices are required to apply the text of the law as originally intended when the law was legislated and written.

I'm guessing you don't understand the function of Government and the relationship of the Courts with a particular States Constitution, as in a Republic not a Democracy (puke). The Courts judge the Constitutionality of a Law, whether that Law is enacted by the Legislature or by some act of the Mobocracy for that given State.

By your standard, the State Legislature or the Mob (read that Democracy, puke again) can enact any Law they care to regardless of the wording of the Constitution. For instance, the Mob or the Legislature could get together and say as a matter of Law, Slavery is legal for anyone with red hair and freckles, thus leaving all the redheaded/freckled amongst US with no legal recourse. Surely you jest?

You want this done right? Start a move for a Constitutional Amendment. Then it can't be ruled Unconstitutional, can it?

Say the fedgov woke up this morning and kicked abortion back to the States, guess what your recourse is to stop your State from allowing the killing of the unborn. That's right, a Constitutional Amendment stating that it ain't gonna happen here.

I asked if California's Constitution states a ban on Gay Marriage. Considering that you or no-one else can provide the text of that I'll consider that a resounding no. It really is not relevant to state that a law was enacted yesterday or a hundred years ago. It was challenged and the ruling stands. You/me/we don't have to like it. Ain't FReedom grand? Blackbird.

[Jim W N]

By your standard, the State Legislature or the Mob (read that Democracy, puke again) can enact any Law they care to regardless of the wording of the Constitution.

Absolutely not. Someone has to bring charges of unconstitutionality and if the law is unconstitutional, a court of integrity must strike the law down. What I've been saying all along.

Start a move for a Constitutional Amendment. Then it can't be ruled Unconstitutional, can it?

Took the words right out of my mouth.

It really is not relevant to state that a law was enacted yesterday or a hundred years ago.

One has to know, or discover if necessary, the intention of the lawmakers or our laws mean nothing. A hundred years ago the law was intended to protect the union of a man and a woman. It certainly was not the lawmakers intent to protect homosexual unions. Therefore the Constitution does not in any way protect homosexual marriages. So the Cal Supreme Court has just willfully and blatantly ignored the test and intent of the Constitution and invented a right that does not exist in the Constitution. This should be an impeachable offense.

[manc]

so to some the state has to say it bans two men marrying
and if not then it’s OK and the court is alright in what it did

By that logic every sicko who want to marry something should be explained in the state constitution.
does it have to mention marrying a goat
marry a daughter
have 7 wives etc

No it doesn’t that would be so stupid and uncalled for

it only has to say marriage is between a man and a woman

lets face it the founding fathers would have never have thought of this and if they had they most certainly had wrote the word between but back then they would have never thought two perverted men poke each other and then say it’s normal so they should be married

we know that it says a man and a woman but of course the libs and queers find their lawyers to poke a hole in it

question is where do we go from here, what’s next on the agenda
after all many libs were up in arms about the polygimists yet think two men who commit unnatural sick disgusting acts should marry

mind boggles on this

[BlackbirdSST]

In the end it doesn’t matter what we think. The Court ruled. What are you going to do now? I’m not ready to say that the Founders thought of Gay Marriage per say, but they certainly knew the depravity of the human species, btw, check out some of them clothes and hats of the era (they knew gays), but this is today. The attempts to thwart this have failed. How many more efforts are you willing to take, how much more time in man hours, and other expense are you willing to endure, just to place this issue back before the Courts? You do know each and every attempt WILL be challenged? Right? If you have enough citizens approval, amend your Constitution and be done with it. You are right, you’re going to have more depravity to battle ahead, so the wording has to be clear. Blackbird.

[manc]

exactly what we are doing here inFlorida as other states have done

out of curiosity why are you so feeling strong against stopping homo’s getting so called married?
would you feel so strong as to me having more than one wife,. do you feel strong about those polygamists, do you feel that it would be OK for a woman to marry her daughter?

Or do you feel this strong just about homosexuals?

We don’t know new rules or laws as anyone with half a brain certainly knows that queers getting married is not what was meant in any of the constitution or even talked about back then.

But seeing as we have a small segment of this population think it’s normal, natural for two men to poke each other or have two women wearing strap ons then there will always be a fight against them

They were not content to do their dirty deeds in private, now they want the world to know what they are like and then brainwash our children to thinking it’s OK for this disgusting act to be acceptedOf course they tell us it’s their private business and yet jump around on their top toes telling us at every minute what they like.

I look forward to your answers

[manc]

Sorry if their are mistakes in that as I have my 3 children running around here and causing distractions .

It’s a beautiful thing it is too, seeing your children healthy and happy being children and looking at them reminding you of the woman I love

[manc]

it is not us who challenged the law it is the homosexuals who did.
first in Massachusetts where I lived and moved straight after that sham marriage was brought about.

Yes I will fight, I will donate money so long as these homosexuals keep trying to pervert our laws.

I will tell my children that it is not natural and that these homosexuals do need mental help

think of it
two women , both acting manly, it then comes to sex so they now pretend one is a man with a strap on

come on are you telling me these two women are not in a mental state

two men doing what they do and no one can tell me that it’s normal behaviour and that nature intended for this for if nature did then they would be able to have children of their own , they cannot.
and why is it they have to act like women a lot of the time

[manc]

a lot of homo’s keep trying to cionvince themselves that in time everyone wil accept them and their perverted sick lifestyle
they won’t

they hang around together and tell themselves all this , they try to convince themselves they are normal

they are not and they are only kidding themselves iof they ever think they will be accepted of all the people