cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2008 06:21 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye is still of the mindset that the collective can impose their will on the minority, never learning about our Constitution, Bill of Rights, Equality, or Humanity. Ignorance and Bigotry are their only weapon.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2008 07:40 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The majority always had have the ability to impose their will on the minority as they always had the power to change the constitution if the courts go crazy.

They also have the ability to recall judges in the California case and it they wish to just to ignore ruling they do not care for.

President Jackson did that when the Supreme Court once rule in favor of some of the Indian tribes over land issues and Jackson just wish them luck in enforcing their rulings.

With out the other two branches of government willing to support the courts their rulings are so must paper and little else and the other two branches are under the direct control of the will of the majority.

You may not be aware of this fact but the Supreme Court judges are very aware of this fact of life and I am sure you had hear the term a possible constitution crises from time to time.

When the Supreme Court ruled that Nixon needed to turn over the Water Gate tapes they did it by a 9 to 0 vote as they was aware that a narrow decision on this matter might mean that Nixon would had defiance the court order. If he had been a more popular president at the time he might had done so in any case.

Hell the congress have the power to defund the court, pack the court with extra judges, or even limit sharply their jurisdiction.

In other word if the majority get upset enough no court in the land can stand up to it.

Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2008 07:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Just what is Commissar Hawkeye's collective? One of the collectives is the flock. I know he has created an abstract in his idea of a collective. Our governor was against the passage of Prop. 8 and I don't think it takes much imagination to figure out why. As the creators of the Constitution feared, the rabble can obtain too much power and really screw everything up.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2008 07:48 pm
@Lightwizard,
The very worst enemy of the gay community is the gay community own behavior.

1950's style blacklists, name calling of the majority that currently do not support them is not the way to win friends for their cause.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2008 08:08 pm
@BillRM,
The removal of the Cherokees is another blot on American history -- on The Trail of Tears, 4,000 of the 15,000 indians died. I suppose you enjoy that.
The real story of Worcester vs. Georgia is here:
http://www.historynet.com/andrew-jackson-and-the-indian-removal-act.htm

FDR tried that packing the court scheme and failed.

Well, basically CI should answer this and I already know you're full of it.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2008 08:09 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
hawkeye is still of the mindset that the collective can impose their will on the minority, never learning about our Constitution, Bill of Rights, Equality, or Humanity


ya, you keep running your yap about how I don't know anything, but everything I say is easily confirmed. Check this out for instance
http://constitutioncenter.org/ncc_edu_Understanding_Our_Constitution.aspx
If you spend just ten minutes looking into this matter you will find out
a) that the constitution is a very fluid document, it has been interpreted in wildly divergent ways over its lifetime
B) Its current definition is not written down someplace, it reads differently to different scholars and jurists
c) equality was not very important to the founders, that was added later and then largely ignored for a hundred years, and it can be again
d)the constitution and the courts only have the power that people give to it, the courts control nobody, their rulings are obeyed out of self interest but if the courts are not in line with the population then the courts will have no power at all. As I have mentioned the courts know this. They have assumed just as everyone else has that the drive to equaliy will continue and have this set the framwork for gay equality though not acted on it. If they are worng, if gay rights does not mass muster with the majority then the courts will back down, because they will have no choice. The power is with the people, not with the courts, which is where the gay rights movement has made its error.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2008 08:13 pm
@BillRM,
It's a minority of the gay community that acts in that way and I don't always approve of it either. Tough. All of the demonstrations have been peaceful and attended by a large faction of straight people.
Hey, the blacklisting often works -- Coors buckled under it, Florida orange juice bucked under it, and I could go on it.

Oh, woe, I'm so sorry it hurts your tender little head to think gays could be so aggressive. Maybe you should go sit on the toilet and "read" the bikini issue of Sports Illustrated.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2008 08:22 pm
@Lightwizard,
I have no problem with the gay rights advocates making their appeals and using power as a tool to get what they want, that is how democracy works. I do have a problem with the claim that the majority does not matter, that the minority can use the courts to shove their will down the throat of the majority. It is a lie meant to keep the majority from exercising their prerogative and their power.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2008 09:10 pm
@Lightwizard,
Whether I agree with President Jackson or not is completely beside the point that President Jackson told the Supreme Court to go fly a kite in a lighting storm concerning one of their rulings.

Second, the packing of the court did not happen because the majority of the people did not agree with it and for no other reason.

If President Roosevelt had have popular support the court would had been pack.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2008 09:17 pm
@Lightwizard,
It not my feelings that are hurt in fact I am amused that the far fringes of the gay community is helping to dig their own grave, in spite of having the PC cause of all PC causes.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2008 10:05 pm
Hawkeye10 - How daft are you? Gays can boycott or blacklist as they please. Just like how Christians can blacklist and boycott stores because they say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."

Your approval is worthless, why would a gay person give a damn? Sure the majority matters, but it is not as powerful as you imagine it to be. Everything has limits; everything has checks.

This isn't gays versus straights either. The way you illustrate this struggle shows how little you know. Many straight people want gays to have these rights too.

You may not like how gays express their frustration, but complacency only lets people like YOU walk over them. I think they are perfectly entitled to make some noise. Having said that, it's been mostly peaceful demonstrations, so you focusing so narrowly on such a minority of actions only shows how biased you are.

You're a bigot. I suspect you don't like the title. I don't have to cater to your ego, and soften that reality.

T
K
O
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2008 10:32 pm
@Diest TKO,
The boycottt is stupid as the majority if it get annoy enough can drive every gay own business in the state out of business in weeks and what can the gay community said as they are the one that started an economic war?

Kind of like Mexico attacking the US it is silly given the balance of power.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2008 03:54 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

The boycottt is stupid as the majority if it get annoy enough can drive every gay own business in the state out of business in weeks and what can the gay community said as they are the one that started an economic war?

Kind of like Mexico attacking the US it is silly given the balance of power.

Yeah sure. Whatever.

What I see is a bunch of CA businesses learning who their customers are... were. Lots of buyer's remorse in CA in support of Prop8.

What gay owned businesses Hawkeye? Style industry? Entertainment? What? How?

Think more before you post.
K
O
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2008 06:34 am
@Copper Seth,
Copper Seth wrote:
Debra Law wrote:
Marriage is a fundamental right....Every denial or deprivation of a fundamental right must be necessary to serve a compelling state interest. Each denial or deprivation must be analyzed on its own merits.


Where is your citation for this one? Because you are confusing several issues of Constitutional Law. When refering to Equal Protection and discrimination, the courts use that test ONLY when the class is "SUSPECT", or meets three criteria. In re Marriage Cases waived the most important one, immutable characteristic, simply because religion cannot be discriminated against and it is not an immutable characteristic. This is because *everybody with me now* religion gets its own Constitutional provision protecting it from discrimination. (In re Marraige Cases, p. 842; Cal Const Art 1 Sec 4). Religion has never been subject to Equal Protection analysis. That analysis is preserved for unconsidered distinctions, such as race. Gender doesn't even that get kind of scrutiny. It gets intermediate scrutiny. Other classifications get rational basis review, which means that the gov only has to have a rational basis for distinguishing along the lines it does (age falls under this category).


CopperSeth:

Based on my previous post, do you now understand that gay couples who are denied the right to marry have more than one cause of action (claim) arising under the state constitution? (1) They have a claim against the state for denial of a fundamental right (marriage); and (2) they have a claim against the state for discrimination in violation of the equal protection clause. Under the federal constitution, fundamental rights are secured against state denials or deprivations under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the CA state constitution, the Declaration of Rights, Article I, provides the following:

Section 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

Section 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws....

An individual's right to marry is a fundamental liberty interest secured by the constitution against state deprivation. Thus, homosexual couples who have been denied the right to marry have standing to sue the State for a violation of the due process clause of the state constitution. The court applies the strict scrutiny test. It is unconstitutional for the state to deprive any person of a fundamental right unless doing so is necessary to serve a compelling state interest.

Homosexual couples who have been denied the right to marry may ALSO sue the State for a violation of the equal protection clause. Persons similarly situated must be treated the same by the government. Because homosexual persons belong to a minority group that has been historically subjected to adverse treatment, discrimination, and stigmatization, the CALIFORNIA Supreme Court ruled that they belonged to a suspect class. The Court applied strict scrutiny.

You don't "believe" that sexual orientation is an immutable trait, but that's not relevant. The Court noted some controversy over this issue. The Court cited a Canadian case which stated, "whether or not sexual orientation is based on biological or physiological factors, which may be a matter of some controversy, it is a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or changeable only at unacceptable personal costs." Regardless of whether homosexuality is an "immutable" trait, the Court said immutability is NOT invariably required. The Court said, "Because a person's sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of one's identity, it is not appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment." The Court also said:

"[O]ur decisions make clear that the most important factors in deciding whether a characteristic should be considered a constitutionally suspect basis for classification are whether the class of persons who exhibit a certain characteristic historically has been subjected to invidious and prejudicial treatment, and whether society now recognizes that the characteristic in question generally bears no relationship to the individual's ability to perform or contribute to society. Thus, 'courts must look closely at classifications based on that characteristic lest outdated social stereotypes result in invidious laws or practices....This rationale clearly applies to statutory classifications that mandate differential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation.'" (Internal citations omitted.)

Thus, your allegation that immutability is the most important factor and that the Court waived that factor "simply because religion cannot be discriminated against and it is not an immutable characteristic" is FALSE. Again, the Court stated that immutability is not invariably required because OTHER factors are MORE IMPORTANT. Similarly, the Court considers discrimination based on religion to be suspect and would also apply strict scrutiny.

Your allegation that "Religion has never been subject to Equal Protection analysis" is also FALSE. The fact that a person is specifically protected against discrimination on the basis of religion under another section of the state constitution does not alter the equal protection analysis. "Religion" is the suspect classification that is subject to scrutiny. The Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution also subjects discrimination on the basis of religion to strict scrutiny.

Quote:
Unless a classification trammels fundamental personal rights or is drawn upon inherently suspect distinctions such as race, religion, or alienage, our decisions presume the constitutionality of the statutory discriminations and require only that the classification challenged be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.


City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303 (1976).
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/427/297.html

There are many cases and controversies wherein an injured party has invoked the equal protection clause to remedy discrimination based on religion. One case that comes to mind concerns a prisoner who was not allowed to burn incense when he practiced his religion. He was Wiccan. However, the prison authorities allowed Native Americans to burn items when they practiced their religion. The prisoner had a claim under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment AND a claim under equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

With respect to the State of California, your allegation that gender discrimination is not subject to strict scrutiny is also FALSE. Under the FEDERAL constitution, gender is subject to heightened scrutiny called intermediate review. However, the State of California may interpret its own STATE constitution to afford its citizens greater protection. The California Supreme Court has done so:

Quote:
In enforcing the California Constitution’s equal protection clause, however, past California cases have not applied an intermediate scrutiny standard of review to classifications involving any suspect (or quasi-suspect) characteristic. Unlike decisions applying the federal equal protection clause, California cases continue to review, under strict scrutiny rather than intermediate scrutiny, those statutes that impose differential treatment on the basis of sex or gender.


In re Marriage Cases
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF

Copper Seth wrote:
So, please, again, I implore you to only refer to the law when you know it. Otherwise, you spread bad information for everyone to see. I'm really tryign to save you from yourself, as much as everyone else from your mistaken information.


Rolling Eyes

YOU haven't displayed any knowledge at all concerning the law and you're "imploring" me to shut my mouth? You're the one spreading the blatantly FALSE information. Implore yourself.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2008 06:49 am
@Diest TKO,
So gays are not doctors or lawyers or trade people or small busines owners of all typles!!!!!!!!!

Did no know that they was so worthless thank for telling me this as it came as somewhat of a surprise.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2008 12:12 pm
@BillRM,
The Supreme Court decision had loopholes, probably on purpose, in stating that the indians could occupy land but not own it. Jackson took advantage of the loopholes.

Roosevelt, in fact, in speeches and on his weekly radio broadcast has swayed public opinion in favor of the packing of the court. As it worked out, it died in a committee over Constitutional concerns, and FDR didn't need it anyway. The one conservative judge had come over to the New Deal side and the legislation became unfettered law. FDR was able to make four appointments to the USSC which further assured his legislation would stand. Read history -- it's entertaining and you might learn something, instead of spouting out that FDR did not have popular support. He didn't have enough to get the reorganization of the court through the legislature. I know, I know -- they were elected by the people. How much legislation and wars get initiated without public support? Depends on how arrogant and dangerously impulsive our leaders become. I guess you could say, the Republicans found out in the last two elections.


0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2008 12:16 pm
@BillRM,
There's not an effective way of telling how the "fringe" of the gay community will influence the California SC, governor Ahnold, and Attorney General Jerry Brown, who has recently changed his opinion to strike down Prop 8. What you believe is inconsequential. Get yourself prepared for having your feelings hurt -- hope you have an electric toilet seat.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2008 12:19 pm
@BillRM,
Hint, Bill -- other than ads in gay publications and gay sites, gay lawyers, doctors, et al don't advertise that they are gay. Do you think a rainbow flag is hanging out on their shingle? I'm sure religious right straight people (the vanguard of the anti-gay marriage cabal) run right out and purchase The Advocate so they can "blacklist" or boycott these professionals. Bullcrap.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2008 12:31 pm
@Lightwizard,
it is pretty likely that the cal SC will strike prop 8, then the question is will the supremes be forced to look at the case and go on record again re gay rights, years before they want to do so. I think that they might, they need to clarify if Lawrence v Texas is intended to nullify majority rights, the ability to use legislatures and propositions to address gay rights. Laurence Tribe for instance thinks it probably does, TKO has used that line of reasoning here in this thread. But in actuality we don't know what the court meant then, nor how the current court would go.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2008 12:32 pm
@Lightwizard,
I guess you could boycott "Brothers and Sisters," or "Milk," or "Six Feet Under," because of the gay characters. Or Joe Schumacher who directed one of the best films about Vietnam, "Tigerland" or maybe Ben and Jerry's ice cream.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Prop 8?
  3. » Page 43
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 12/18/2014 at 01:22:40