|
|
Post by ferrous on Jul 29, 2008 8:26:02 GMT -5
Breaking News!
It seems our very own Attorney General Jerry "Moonbean" Brown has taken time off from his waging war on Global Warming to help defeat Prop. 8.
In a move applauded by same-sex marriage proponents, Brown's office changed the language on the ballot title and summary of Prop. 8 to say that the measure seeks to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."
[Petitions circulated to qualify the initiative for the ballot said it would amend the state constitution "to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."]
[Political analysts on both sides suggest the language change would make the passage of the initiative more difficult, noting that voters might be more reluctant to pass something that makes clear it is taking away existing rights.
Existing rights that were granted by a 4 to 3 vote of judges when the court voided the will of the people.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 29, 2008 12:47:02 GMT -5
"Existing rights that were granted by a 4 to 3 vote of judges when the court voided the will of the people."
By the "will of the people" are you referring to polling data? Do you really think our liberties should be determined by polling data?
The language calls this what it is: It "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry." People can see that giving gays the right to marry has not caused the sky to fall like the Right predicted, so why would they take it away?
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Jul 29, 2008 12:53:56 GMT -5
"Will of the people" would be the ballot initiative passed overwhelmingly & voided by an enlightened judge.
Millions of people vote, unelected lawyer negates.
Oh, and it seems that polling data is used regularly to justify running from Iraq.
Good for the goose?
|
|
|
|
Post by ferrous on Jul 30, 2008 8:29:31 GMT -5
"Existing rights that were granted by a 4 to 3 vote of judges when the court voided the will of the people." By the "will of the people" are you referring to polling data? Do you really think our liberties should be determined by polling data? The language calls this what it is: It "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry." People can see that giving gays the right to marry has not caused the sky to fall like the Right predicted, so why would they take it away? The right for homosexual couples to marry was granted to them by a divided court against an over 60% vote of the voters in the State of California. I have no idea where you come up with a notion of "polling data." Again, my feeling about homosexuals wanting to get married is of no concern. What does concern me are partisan judges and now our Attorney General taking legal actions that can be considered as politicking. The word change by Jerry Brown is a play on semantics to suggest that a no vote on Prop 8 would be denying certain individuals of their rights, rights not granted to them by constitution law but by a slim majority of judges (4 to 3.) Prop 8 would put back into place the will of the people declaring that marriage is between a man and a wife. If homosexual activists wish to challenge this law, they must do it in the polls and allow the voters to decide whether they wish to amend the constitution and allow other forms unions to marry. Then again I would still be against it as my feeling are one that the church should regulate marriages while the state should oversee civil unions. I urge a "yes" vote on Prop 8. Not because I am against homosexuals marrying, but because I am against partisan judges denying the will of the people. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 30, 2008 14:49:20 GMT -5
The fact that we are voting on it is letting the will of the people prevail. I don't understand why, if you are not against homosexuals getting married, you would vote no just because you're "against partisan judges denying the will of the people."
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 1, 2008 7:37:47 GMT -5
It is called backlash. Get used to it, more will be coming.
|
|
|
|
Post by ferrous on Aug 1, 2008 8:45:28 GMT -5
Saunterelle write; "if you are not against homosexuals getting married, you would vote no just because you're "against partisan judges denying the will of the people."]
If I was the type to smite or exalt, ole Saunterelle would get an exalt on that one.
Imagine people voting on ethics rather than emotions (or propaganda.)
Jerry Brown has decided to change the wording in Prop. 8 from: "to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" to say that Prop. 8 seek to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."
Brown is assuming that these rights granted by these partisan judges over-trump the will of the voters. This is a chance to send a clear message to our elected officials (a chance we didn't have on Prop 187) that we the voters can at anytime over rule those that seem to think that they know what is best
Yes, I will vote yes on Prop. 8 not because I am for or against homosexuals marrying but because I am against partisan judges, politicians, and Attorney Generals denying the will of the people.
Prop 8 is reversing an attempt by judges to void the vote of the people. Whether it has anything to do with homosexual marriages is a side note.
If at some other time this matter is brought before the people, then it will be the people and not courts who will decide it.
I again urge a yes vote on Prop. 8.
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Aug 2, 2008 17:34:22 GMT -5
We already did this.
A lawyer incapable of making a living (a judge) voided it.
How many more times do we vote on this issue before our lawyers/judges/messiahs hear us?
|
|
|
|
Post by digger on Aug 6, 2008 0:20:48 GMT -5
The will of the people must be upheld at all costs, no matter how unpopular the subject. To allow a judge or group of judges to rule from the bench and distort the will of the people is un-American and should not be tolerated.
|
|
|
|
Post by ferrous on Aug 7, 2008 8:41:46 GMT -5
The voters of California proved that point when we removes Chief Justice Rose Bird and her allies Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin from the States High Court bench.
[Chief Justice Rose Bird had voted against the death penalty in all 61 cases that came before her. This led Bird's opponents to claim that she was substituting her own opinions and ideas for the laws and precedents upon which judicial decisions are supposed to be made.]
Sound familiar?
|
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Aug 7, 2008 20:57:44 GMT -5
As a conservative leaning libertarian, I'm mixed on this one.
I don't feel it is the state's (of Fed's business) to legislate morals. For this reason, I am against banning bay marriage.
On a personal level, I do not support that lifestyle. However, I realize that lifestyle doesn't harm anyone else, and it is not my business who other people want to marry.
As long as people do not hurt other people, let them live their lives without government interference. The Government has become a big enough big brother as it is...
|
|
|
|
Post by digger on Aug 8, 2008 10:06:52 GMT -5
I don't feel it is the state's (of Fed's business) to legislate morals. But what about the will of the people? When put to a vote, and the people move in overwhelming majority in one direction, what right does a court have to come and overturn the decision of the voters? |
|
