Got your wedding invite yet????????
Hotshot
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 13,589
Likes: 2
From: NW burbs of chicago
back when I was 17, while in boyscouts, we went to key went on a sailing trip. We were in a store when a VERY hot chick came in and kissed the VERY hot chick behind the counter. It made my trip!!!!
Post Fiend
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 24,418
Likes: 3
From: San Francisco, Ca.
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 0
Postmaster
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,077
Likes: 1
From: None of your business
I'll throw in my $.02. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but I'm Catholic and that's my belief. I'm free to believe that and others are free to believe whatever they want.
However this is a land that is supposed to be ruled by the people for the people. The people of California voted to not let same sex couples marry. They allowed for domestic partnerships, which offer the same benefits as marriage, without actually using the word marriage and all that goes along with it in the spirtual sence. Sounds like a pretty good compromise to me.
But 4 judges decided to rule against the will of the people. That's what angers me. The people voted but they don't care, they will do what they want.
Now polygamists I just don't get. More than one wife? Are you crazy?
Mike
However this is a land that is supposed to be ruled by the people for the people. The people of California voted to not let same sex couples marry. They allowed for domestic partnerships, which offer the same benefits as marriage, without actually using the word marriage and all that goes along with it in the spirtual sence. Sounds like a pretty good compromise to me.
But 4 judges decided to rule against the will of the people. That's what angers me. The people voted but they don't care, they will do what they want.
Now polygamists I just don't get. More than one wife? Are you crazy?
Mike
Post Fiend
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 24,418
Likes: 3
From: San Francisco, Ca.
There's a constitutional amendment slated for the November ballot to overturn
the courts ruling, but needs at least 694,354 valid signatures, and by mid-June.
Majority approval needed:
The amendment would need majority approval from voters to pass.
It would overturn Thursday's ruling on the right to marry, although the section
of the decision banning discrimination based on sexual orientation would remain in place.
As stated by the S.F. Chronicle.
So it's not a done deal.
the courts ruling, but needs at least 694,354 valid signatures, and by mid-June.
Majority approval needed:
The amendment would need majority approval from voters to pass.
It would overturn Thursday's ruling on the right to marry, although the section
of the decision banning discrimination based on sexual orientation would remain in place.
As stated by the S.F. Chronicle.
So it's not a done deal.
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 1997
Posts: 23,165
Likes: 18
From: Enjoying the real world.
The law was struck down as unconstitutional. That can happen with any law. The constitution is there to provide for the rights of the people, and is the highest law in the land. The people cannot simply pass laws which subvert the rights of others, and that's why we have a constitution (among other things). Otherwise, Jim Crow laws would still be around because it was the will of the majority at the time they were enacted.
If the people don't like their state or federal constitution there are provisions for changing them - they can't simply *****-nilly pass laws and not expect their constitutionality to be tested.
As to what is "natural" you could make the same argument for heterosexual couples using birth control.
If the people don't like their state or federal constitution there are provisions for changing them - they can't simply *****-nilly pass laws and not expect their constitutionality to be tested.
As to what is "natural" you could make the same argument for heterosexual couples using birth control.
Postmaster
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,077
Likes: 1
From: None of your business
I think they voted on this in like 01. How did this not surface until just recently? How did it go before the voters if it's not constitutional? Is there that little oversight in CA?
Mike
Mike
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalytic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 1997
Posts: 23,165
Likes: 18
From: Enjoying the real world.
The constitutionality of laws isn't determined by voters or the legislature -- its determined solely by the courts. The people can vote in any law they wish without it being tested for its constitutionality. Someone has to challenge the law in court after the fact.
Postmaster
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,077
Likes: 1
From: None of your business
I know, but 7 years later on something this big? Seems like if it was that clear cut, then it would have been figured out a lot quicker, especially in CA. I really don't see how it was overlooked for this long.
Mike
Post Fiend
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,983
Likes: 2
That would be all well and good, but right now, same-sex partners under no legally binding contract are offered insurance by corporations and even some public entities. Case-in-point: there are no provisions in Indiana for same-sex partnerships, marriages, etc. However, I know for a fact that a public entity (Purdue University) offers health insurance to same-sex partners of their employees. They do not do this for heterosexual couples who are not under any sort of legal contract. That is discrimination. And, why limit it to one partner? What about polygamy? Why is that any different if all involved agree to the arrangement?
Can't have it both ways...
Jason
Can't have it both ways...
Jason
