Proposition 8 - OVERTURNED!

[Badabing]

Let's put the issue aside.....

If the people of the state have spoken and voted for one thing, what right is it of the judge to overturn it?

Whether you think gays should be allowed to marry or not, why even hold the vote if the people aren't allowed to decide.  I mean i know some of you, those that don't want to live your life, but rather have the government do it for you, wouldn't mind others making decisions for you; but if the people of the state voted for one thing, what right does that judge have to overturn it....

[Fitz66]

Let's put the issue aside.....

If the people of the state have spoken and voted for one thing, what right is it of the judge to overturn it?

Whether you think gays should be allowed to marry or not, why even hold the vote if the people aren't allowed to decide.  I mean i know some of you, those that don't want to live your life, but rather have the government do it for you, wouldn't mind others making decisions for you; but if the people of the state voted for one thing, what right does that judge have to overturn it....

A democracy is two wolves and a sheep arguing over whats for dinner.  Its a good thing we're not one..

If you held a vote in Atlanta on whether or not we should confiscate the top 1% of income earners' money and distribute it out to the rest of the city's population, guess how it' go...

We'd also have a system in place to make sure this unconstitutional act didn't last.

[Biggs3535]

Let's put the issue aside.....

If the people of the state have spoken and voted for one thing, what right is it of the judge to overturn it?

Whether you think gays should be allowed to marry or not, why even hold the vote if the people aren't allowed to decide.  I mean i know some of you, those that don't want to live your life, but rather have the government do it for you, wouldn't mind others making decisions for you; but if the people of the state voted for one thing, what right does that judge have to overturn it....

A democracy is two wolves and a sheep arguing over whats for dinner.  Its a good thing we're not one..

If you held a vote in Atlanta on whether or not we should confiscate the top 1% of income earners' money and distribute it out to the rest of the city's population, guess how it' go...

California isn't Georgia, it's Cal-i-for-ni-a.

[Bschucher]

Let's put the issue aside.....

If the people of the state have spoken and voted for one thing, what right is it of the judge to overturn it?

Whether you think gays should be allowed to marry or not, why even hold the vote if the people aren't allowed to decide. I mean i know some of you, those that don't want to live your life, but rather have the government do it for you, wouldn't mind others making decisions for you; but if the people of the state voted for one thing, what right does that judge have to overturn it....

And if the people of the state voted to no longer allow women or latinos to vote anymore.... how would that work?

[Badabing]

Let's put the issue aside.....

If the people of the state have spoken and voted for one thing, what right is it of the judge to overturn it?

Whether you think gays should be allowed to marry or not, why even hold the vote if the people aren't allowed to decide.  I mean i know some of you, those that don't want to live your life, but rather have the government do it for you, wouldn't mind others making decisions for you; but if the people of the state voted for one thing, what right does that judge have to overturn it....

A democracy is two wolves and a sheep arguing over whats for dinner.  Its a good thing we're not one..

If you held a vote in Atlanta on whether or not we should confiscate the top 1% of income earners' money and distribute it out to the rest of the city's population, guess how it' go...

I'm not saying the american public is always right(hence the last election), but there's a difference between your hypothetical and this.  They held a vote on this subject matter.  I'm sure if it the people voted for gay marriage, that it wouldn't be an issue in terms of getting it passed, but for a judge to go against the majority here isn't right if you ask me.  And as for your hypothetical....I'd expect the Rich to move out of this country and take thier business/money with them if our country ever got that bad.

[Fitz66]

Let's put the issue aside.....

If the people of the state have spoken and voted for one thing, what right is it of the judge to overturn it?

Whether you think gays should be allowed to marry or not, why even hold the vote if the people aren't allowed to decide.� I mean i know some of you, those that don't want to live your life, but rather have the government do it for you, wouldn't mind others making decisions for you; but if the people of the state voted for one thing, what right does that judge have to overturn it....

A democracy is two wolves and a sheep arguing over whats for dinner.� Its a good thing we're not one..

If you held a vote in Atlanta on whether or not we should confiscate the top 1% of income earners' money and distribute it out to the rest of the city's population, guess how it' go...

California isn't Georgia, it's Cal-i-for-ni-a.

If California held a vote to confiscate all of the income from far right wingers, how would that go?  The point is the same and the example is meaningless.

[Badabing]

Let's put the issue aside.....

If the people of the state have spoken and voted for one thing, what right is it of the judge to overturn it?

Whether you think gays should be allowed to marry or not, why even hold the vote if the people aren't allowed to decide. I mean i know some of you, those that don't want to live your life, but rather have the government do it for you, wouldn't mind others making decisions for you; but if the people of the state voted for one thing, what right does that judge have to overturn it....

And if the people of the state voted to no longer allow women or latinos to vote anymore.... how would that work?

Bringing up hypotheticals like this is the equivalent of me arguing that if gays can marry, people can then marry their dogs....it's just a stupid rebuttle...

I doubt the state would ever bring up an issue like this, they brought up the issue of gay marriage and they voted against it...what's the big deal, 44 other states agree with them.

[spartan]

If the people of the state have spoken and voted for one thing, what right is it of the judge to overturn it?

Let's put the issue aside.....

If the people of the state have spoken and voted for one thing, what right is it of the judge to overturn it?

Whether you think gays should be allowed to marry or not, why even hold the vote if the people aren't allowed to decide.  I mean i know some of you, those that don't want to live your life, but rather have the government do it for you, wouldn't mind others making decisions for you; but if the people of the state voted for one thing, what right does that judge have to overturn it....

government do it for you, wouldn't mind others making decisions for you; but if the people of the state voted for one thing, what right does that judge have to overturn it....

Because it is the California STATE Constitution. For example if California (seeing as we are talking about that State) voted for a State Constitutional Amendment that only gave the right to vote to white people, I don't think people would complain if it was struck down in a Regional Federal Court. Regardless of his motives, the one good thing this Judge has done is to throw it at the doors of the SCOTUS to identify if this is a US Constitutional issue or not. Can't say I would be happy if they rule in his favor, but he raises some good issues albeit not bullet proof IMO.

[Biggs3535]

Let's put the issue aside.....

If the people of the state have spoken and voted for one thing, what right is it of the judge to overturn it?

Whether you think gays should be allowed to marry or not, why even hold the vote if the people aren't allowed to decide.� I mean i know some of you, those that don't want to live your life, but rather have the government do it for you, wouldn't mind others making decisions for you; but if the people of the state voted for one thing, what right does that judge have to overturn it....

A democracy is two wolves and a sheep arguing over whats for dinner.� Its a good thing we're not one..

If you held a vote in Atlanta on whether or not we should confiscate the top 1% of income earners' money and distribute it out to the rest of the city's population, guess how it' go...

California isn't Georgia, it's Cal-i-for-ni-a.

If California held a vote to confiscate all of the income from far right wingers, how would that go? �The point is the same and the example is meaningless.

The "point" is that the people of the state voted on the issue twice and got it wrong twice.  It's not a good point.  There is no "right" being taken away.  We don't have a "right" to marriage.

[Fitz66]

Let's put the issue aside.....

If the people of the state have spoken and voted for one thing, what right is it of the judge to overturn it?

Whether you think gays should be allowed to marry or not, why even hold the vote if the people aren't allowed to decide.� I mean i know some of you, those that don't want to live your life, but rather have the government do it for you, wouldn't mind others making decisions for you; but if the people of the state voted for one thing, what right does that judge have to overturn it....

A democracy is two wolves and a sheep arguing over whats for dinner.� Its a good thing we're not one..

If you held a vote in Atlanta on whether or not we should confiscate the top 1% of income earners' money and distribute it out to the rest of the city's population, guess how it' go...

California isn't Georgia, it's Cal-i-for-ni-a.

If California held a vote to confiscate all of the income from far right wingers, how would that go? �The point is the same and the example is meaningless.

The "point" is that the people of the state voted on the issue twice and got it wrong twice. �It's not a good point. �There is no "right" being taken away. �We don't have a "right" to marriage.

We don't have a "right" to vote, either - that doesn't mean we can justify stripping someone of it without cause. 

Same goes here.

[Biggs3535]

We don't have a "right" to vote, either - that doesn't mean we can justify stripping someone of it without cause. 

We don't have the right to vote?

Nobody is being stripped of any rights.

[Badabing]

We don't have a "right" to vote, either - that doesn't mean we can justify stripping someone of it without cause.�

We don't have the right to vote?

Nobody is being stripped of any rights.

Looks like somebody needs to brush up on their Constitution.

[Fitz66]

We don't have a "right" to vote, either - that doesn't mean we can justify stripping someone of it without cause.�

We don't have the right to vote?

The only thing the Constitution says abort voting is that nobody can be denied on the grounds of gender (which, I might add, originally failed in the Senate)

http://www.slate.com/id/2190372

[Biggs3535]

I can save everybody a lot of time and trouble.  Here is the thread (13 head-banging pages) from the first time the courts reversed the vote of the people:

http://www.pewterreport.com/forum/index.php?topic=23622.0

[Bschucher]

Let's put the issue aside.....

If the people of the state have spoken and voted for one thing, what right is it of the judge to overturn it?

Whether you think gays should be allowed to marry or not, why even hold the vote if the people aren't allowed to decide. I mean i know some of you, those that don't want to live your life, but rather have the government do it for you, wouldn't mind others making decisions for you; but if the people of the state voted for one thing, what right does that judge have to overturn it....

And if the people of the state voted to no longer allow women or latinos to vote anymore.... how would that work?

Bringing up hypotheticals like this is the equivalent of me arguing that if gays can marry, people can then marry their dogs....it's just a stupid rebuttle...

I doubt the state would ever bring up an issue like this, they brought up the issue of gay marriage and they voted against it...what's the big deal, 44 other states agree with them.

May be stupid but thats precisely (marrying a dog) what many bring up on this issue Bada...  My only point is that large groups of voters can get it wrong on an issue if the "rights" of a minority are involved.