Gov. Brown is no fool

[hasserl]

Looks like a ban on gay marriage to me.

Looks like a definition to me:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"

Neither the words "ban" or "gay" or any words even close to them are even mentioned. Using your logic it is also a ban on the marriage of dogs to cats. There are many different living arrangements that some may want to be considered as "marriage", the proposition clarified the terms of what would be "valid or recognized" in CA. IF you want to call it a ban on gay marriage, so be it; but to be intellectually honest you also need to call it a ban on all forms of marriage besides that of "between a man and a woman"; to call it a ban on gay marriage shows bias, and the accompanying intellectual dishonesty that always comes with it. The most intellectually honest description is to call it what it is, a definition of the term "marriage".

And therein lies the importance of this argument, you just want to redefine the term to meet what you want it to mean, as if your definition some how has more merit than anyone elses.

[hasserl]

Yes, it did, so ruled Judge Vaughn Walker. He found that it was a clear violation of the Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses, and that it failed "to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license."

His ruling has been appealed, but has not been overturned.

And Judge Vaughan Walker has proved to be an activist judge decreeing his personal preference over that of the people of the state.

As I've posted around here before, beware of your embrace of the judicial review process; which is likely as corrupted as every other branch of government. The power of judicial review is a power the courts have claimed for themselves, and if you want to see what a government of unelected jurists as the ultimate arbiters of "rights" looks like, take a look at Iran.

Marriage is a fundamental building block of society, and as such it is a fundamental right of any society to define the terms of what marriage is. No court has a legitimate right to force a definition of marriage onto a society. Remember that rights are not granted to people by government, rights are inherent and inalienable. The right to define the core building blocks of a society legitimately rest with that society, regardless of how much power a government usurps for itself. And when it takes up power that was never granted and denies the people fundamental rights, it acts illegitimately. Therefore it doesn't matter what Judge Walker, or any other court decides, the right of the people of California to define the terms of marriage reside with the people and no others.

[hasserl]

It is supposedly a fundamental right under the California constitution to do, but it still needs to be in compliance with the federal constitution and federal law.

Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

14A trumps California Constitution, just like 14A would trump a California constitutional amendment allowing the state government to ban the possession of handguns by civilians....

Prop 8 applies equally to all and therefore is not contrary to 14A. Gray, we've already hashed this out. No matter how much circular reasoning you use it doesn't pan out.

[themailman]

Lol, CA gun owners are just as jaded as the anti's apparently. Go ahead and get in bed with the enemy, I'm sure they will make it worth while for you.

"But he supports gun rights because he made a law limiting gun rights. Its good, ok guys."

Wow.

[Skidmark]

<snip> Therefore it doesn't matter what Judge Walker, or any other court decides, the right of the people of California to define the terms of marriage reside with the people and no others.

See previous post by Gray Peterson. The people of California can approve whatever referendums they like, but they may not violate the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. If we (the people of California) had passed a law defining "arms" to be slingshots (let's call it a ban on guns), could I count you among those of us who would fight to show such a looney decision was in direct violation of the 2A?

[Stonewalker]

hasserl, I think I am being intellectually honest, that is one of my goals when I assert anything and when I learn anything. Prop 8 was an "effective ban" on gay marriage. That was it's intention.

As rt66paul said above, it would be better if the government wasn't involved in the marriage business at all, other than for clerical census data. Having any force against it seems anti-liberty and statist though. Marriage is a cultural thing. Our laws need stay the eff out of culture. I wonder where the government gets it's authority to regulate marriage in the first place?

[Gray Peterson]

Marriage is a fundamental building block of society, and as such it is a fundamental right of any society to define the terms of what marriage is.

Society doesn't have rights. Individuals have rights. Why would you ever say such a thing unless you're a collectivist?

[Stonewalker]

Gray, in terms of principles, rights and liberty I've yet to find fault with any of your words in the year and a half that I've been active on CGN... Are you some kind of liberty robot?

[hasserl]

See previous post by Gray Peterson. The people of California can approve whatever referendums they like, but they may not violate the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. If we (the people of California) had passed a law defining "arms" to be slingshots (let's call it a ban on guns), could I count you among those of us who would fight to show such a looney decision was in direct violation of the 2A?

The supreme law of the land is that rights are granted by our creator and they are inalienable; the Constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes and protects them. If a jurist interprets any part of the Constitution to violate the inalienable rights of the people than that interpretation is wrong and illegitimate.

If any jurist/court, including the SCOTUS, was to uphold a law banning guns could I count on you among those of us who would fight to show such a looney decision was in violation of our inalienable rights and therefore illegitimate and beyond the court's or the government's authority.

hasserl, I think I am being intellectually honest, that is one of my goals when I assert anything and when I learn anything. Prop 8 was an "effective ban" on gay marriage. That was it's intention.

As rt66paul said above, it would be better if the government wasn't involved in the marriage business at all, other than for clerical census data. Having any force against it seems anti-liberty and statist though. Marriage is a cultural thing. Our laws need stay the eff out of culture. I wonder where the government gets it's authority to regulate marriage in the first place?

I like that being intellectually honest is a goal, but I don't think you are following that in this case. No matter whether you favor gay marriage or not you should be alarmed and concerned about Judge Walker's decision.

Prop 8 may have in effect banned gay marriage, but it then also banned any other form of marriage that is not between one man and one woman. If there is no definition than the term is meaningless; or, in order for the term to have any sort of meaning it also has to be defined.

The question being held here is who has the right to set the definition, the people or the courts? If you say the people, then you aren't being honest if you also support Walkers decision. If you say the courts, than you're abdicating power to the courts that were never intended for them to hold. Power once abdicated is exceedingly difficult to reclaim. This is exceptionally foolish to do. If you favor gay marriage, then work with the legislative process to have the definition include it, don't abdicate power to the courts to decree law from the bench.

Society doesn't have rights. Individuals have rights. Why would you ever say such a thing unless you're a collectivist?

Hmmm, the people (Society) don't have rights huh? Where have I heard things differently before? Oh yeah, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Your point is simple minded and foolish. People have rights individually and collectively.

i.e.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution#The_Right_of_Revolution_as_an_individual_or_collective_right

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution

In political philosophy, the right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is the right or duty, variously stated throughout history, of the people of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests. Belief in this right extends back to ancient China, and it has been used throughout history to justify various rebellions, including the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_exist

[hasserl]

Gray, in terms of principles, rights and liberty I've yet to find fault with any of your words in the year and a half that I've been active on CGN... Are you some kind of liberty robot?

Hopefully you've just been enlightened.

[Gray Peterson]

The supreme law of the land is that rights are granted by our creator and they are inalienable;

US Constitution, Text Version

The text of the constitution, did searches for "God" and "creator". Zero results.

[Gray Peterson]

Gray, in terms of principles, rights and liberty I've yet to find fault with any of your words in the year and a half that I've been active on CGN... Are you some kind of liberty robot?

No, but I can do the robot...*does "the Robot" dance move*

In all seriousness, though, I have a basic argument when it comes to stuff involving the subject matter at hand: "Liberty is the answer".

Government does not, nor should they, have the power to do TSA-style grope checks before issuance of a license which regulate's a fundamental right (sound familiar?). Hasserl can bring up John Locke, and the right to revolution and the rest of it, but he seems to be suggesting that the right to revolution means that individuals or groups have a right alter forms of government or otherwise use the government to oppress individuals.

Basically, if a "society" can overthrow a government by force, the same society has the same right to use the power of government to oppress a group or an individual. Nothing can be further from the truth.

[oaklander]

I am seriously not as smart as either of you (just ask Gray). But I do think that we can't pick and choose what rights we support. By "right" - I mean something that the government has no business doing. I want my government to do BASIC THINGS. I do not like the idea of them getting into personal business. Who I marry, what guns I like, what color my car is, stuff like that.

That is the common sense argument.

Anything past that is intellectually dishonest. Either you want government to get small, or you want them to say large. To me, after actually SEEING WITH MY OWN EYES HOW MESSED UP OAKLAND GOVERNMENT IS - I am going to vote "small government" from now on. And it DOES NOT MATTER what the party is. If there is a fricken MARTIAN party, I will vote for them - if they promise to make government smaller.

Funny thing is - the internet is causing that to happen. But that is another topic.


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

[Sgt Raven]

Which defense of marriage act are you talking about? The federal one? Proposition 22? Be more specific.



If California passed at the ballot box via initiative a constitutional amendment stating that handgun possession was to banned to civilians, it would violate the 14th amendment and specifically McDonald, and lawsuits would be immediately filed, probably with a TRO (and a TRO would easily be granted in this particular case given the strength of McDonald).

Proper way to amend a state constitution on paper doesn't meet it passes federal constitutional muster. See Reitman v. Mulkey

I was talking about the Fed DOMA and Prop 8. If one is constitutional then so is the other and DOMA should have been gone years ago.

Also I have said in many a thread, a State recognized union should be a 'Civil Union' and be simple contract law.

[Sgt Raven]

.......snip......

Right now, there are too many laws. And most of them just waste taxpayer money on things which are not life and death matters!
........snip......

Quoted the most important part and made it large.