Lords of Death Forums Lords of Death Forums LoD General Discussion Prop 8 won barely in Cali

Two things about this are bullshit. First, why can you amend the constitution in Cali with a simple majority? That makes no sense to me. But if the people who wanted Prop 8 to stick, on the next ballot they should introduce an amendment that require 60 or 65% voting in favor of an amendment to actually amend the constitution. That way it will be a real pain to get rid of Prop 8.

Secondly, why the hell is the government "marrying" people? If it is a religious thing, then it should be limited to churches etc and the state should only give civil unions.

Quote:

---

Also in California marriage is considered a fundamental right which is how interracial marriages were legalized in the 1940s.

---

It is a privilege. The only rights we Americans have are located in our constitution.

Your support of our mob ruled system is what took so damn long for these types of marriages to be legalized.

I don't know about all your rhetoric above in regards to Flea but I do agree if those were your views of Prop 8.

lol.

I would rather the states not recognize marriage period.

Your assumption was that I was pro prop-8 because you are quick to judge. I was just merely explaining how a system based on preferential treatment condones discrimination, while showing a double standard. Prop 8 is an example of this mob ruled discrimination that I speak of.

I don't have to get personal and attack your religion, or call you anti-american. I can debate rationally and on topic, as your personal attack is a sign of concession.

The governments recognition of marriage is an intrusion into our liberty. Marriage alone whether or not to allow gays in on this privilege would still be preferential to non-married couples.

Your next argument going to be that health care is a right to all?

The fact is there was never meant to be a social bill of rights because that would require legislative morality. And you sure as hell don't want my christian values imposed onto you.

Our founders did not set up a democracy, they set up a constitutional republic. They in no circumstance wanted certain rights abridged, but Hamilton feared that if rights were named in a "Bill of Rights" then others liberties would be subject to mob rule. He was right. You support mob rule, I do not.

I am against a system that abridges liberty. Class warfare like welfare, subsidies, entitlements, redistributive programs and tax shifts do exactly this. Form lobbyists for a mob ruled system where legislators can provide preferential treatment to certain groups and entities. I do not have a social obligation to anyone.

I would not vote for discrimination.

Not saying its right or wrong. Right or Wrong (in this case) boils down to OPINION, because it comes down to people's personal beliefs. However, the FACT is that the majority of Californian's do not want Gay marriages... Period. Since when is the opinion stronger than the fact. That is what I find unfortunate.

Now with that said, the gay community has every right to follow the laws and process to have this repealed. But until then, I feel that the WILL OF THE PEOPLE should be upheld... regardless of whether I agree or not.

That's kinda the point of voting, right? Otherwise, why even bother to show up at the polls.

-Bal.

Exactly.

I am trying to explain to Stretch that he supports a system of "will of the people", unless he disagrees with their will.

In a constitutional republic, the will of the people was not meant for social constructionists because this type of legislation led to moral decree.

The Judiciary was created to interpret and uphold law. Laws are created by our legislators whom represent the "will of the people". Judges are subservient to the "will of the people" as it is writ.

The "will of the people" is built upon mob rule as demonstrated in our numerous methods of class warfare. Read "Classic Liberalism"

If you read the arguments that transpired during the creation of the constitution, it lends a better perspective of its intention.

The federalist papers

california is a piece of shit state anyway. everyone who lives there sucks huge amounts of dick. the people there are garbage and its being overrun by mexicans and its ran by this guy.

honestly i bet this didnt affect a single gay couple. if they wanted to get married bad enough they'd do it in a state that recongnized it, then move there, and leave behind the state that will soon sink and nobody will miss..

Quote:

---

We both know the groups which moralize legislation is the on right. Terry Schiavo ring a bell or memory of a goldfish again? The judiciary certainly interprets the law and that is exactly what I am talking about. See the 14th amendment for why separate but equal does not work. Judges are not subservient to the people. The founders did not intend them to sway their interpretation of the law with the will of the people which is why they are appointed for life terms. Read your history as this can be found in the Federalist papers you so cite.

---

You are trying to be clever by changing the meaning of my analysis in regards to judiciary responsibilities.

I clearly stated that:

Quote:

---

The Judiciary was created to interpret and uphold law. Laws are created by our legislators whom represent the "will of the people". Judges are subservient to the "will of the people" as it is writ.

---

I did not mention nor insinuated that "to sway their (Judges) interpretation of the law with the will of the people". I was pretty clear that judiciary responsibilities include interpretation and to uphold the law, legislators write the law on behalf of the people. Nice try

So you agree mob rule was never the intention of the bill of rights? Also since you read the 14th amendment you would concede that your view on social programs is anti-14th amendment, as is prop 8?

Which I stated here:

Quote:

---

Your assumption was that I was pro prop-8 because you are quick to judge. I was just merely explaining how a system based on preferential treatment condones discrimination, while showing a double standard. Prop 8 is an example of this mob ruled discrimination that I speak of.

---