California Supreme Court strikes down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconst

**Carlos_E** · 05-15-2008, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

does your b/f work for a pharmaceutical company or something...

Originally Posted by DSM4Life

No but his job does call for him to travel constantly which sucks but we manage.

thegodfather was trying to say he hooked up with him.

**DSM4Life** · 05-15-2008, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by Carlos_E

thegodfather was trying to say he hooked up with him.

thegodfather

**SMCengineer** · 05-15-2008, 06:04 PM

Haha, owned

**thegodfather** · 05-15-2008, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by Carlos_E

thegodfather was trying to say he hooked up with him.

dude it was a different area code, that doesnt count...

**DSM4Life** · 05-15-2008, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

dude it was a different area code, that doesnt count...

**SMCengineer** · 05-15-2008, 06:15 PM

^^bloodtests don't lie.

**thegodfather** · 05-15-2008, 08:23 PM

Im the biggest supporter of individual liberty and civil rights, and I support their lifestyle and their right to live how they want....and look how they treat me!! lol

**Carlos_E** · 05-15-2008, 08:28 PM

Schwarzenegger says he respects court's marriage ruling

SACRAMENTO—Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is vowing to uphold the California Supreme Court's ruling striking down a state ban on gay marriage.

The Republican governor issued a brief statement shortly after the court announced its decision Thursday.

The governor said, "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling."

He also reiterated his previously stated opposition to an anti-gay marriage initiative proposed for the November ballot. That initiative would write a ban on same-sex unions into California's constitution.

Last month, Schwarzenegger told a gathering of gay Republicans that he would fight the initiative.

The governor has twice vetoed legislation that sought to legalize gay marriage, saying the issue should be decided by voters or the courts.
Schwarzenegger did not address the court's ruling in his address to a technology conference in Sacramento Thursday morning.

**thegodfather** · 05-15-2008, 08:37 PM

When will people realize that they have no right to tell others how to live their lives. The religious zealouts are the worst offenders in this case. They are always trying to interject THEIR morality unto others! Nothing pisses me off more than that, and that is the reason we have substances that are outlawed. As I said previously, it has nothing to do with those substances being dangerous, but merely the percieved MORAL implications of using those substances. Morals should NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER be legislated, morals are to be decided in the home privately, they are a private matter which an individual can CHOOSE to live by or not.

**Tock** · 05-15-2008, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by paulzane

Welcome to Sodom and Gomorrah .... the end of the world as we know it!!

Dunno what you have to worry about . . .
Today's Bible verse:

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
--Ezekiel 16:49 New International Version

49: Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
50: And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
--Ezekiel 16:49 King James Version

**Tock** · 05-15-2008, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by smokethedays

Ok I have a serious question here:
When a gay couple adopt a child, don't u guys think the child will grow impacted heavily by the non-traditionl family he/she has?

Nope.

When people adopt a child, they are scrutinized carefully before they can adopt. Biological parents aren't checked out like that . . .

And look at all the screwed up kids that come from dysfunctional heterosexuals marriages. Can gay people do any worse than that? Probably not . . .

**B.E.N.** · 05-17-2008, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Gators

I have a problem w/ it because the people of CA voted AGAINST it, then along comes activist judges and strike it down. I personally agree w/ the biblical interpretation, but the people of a state should be able to vote about it.

This is the point being overlooked. Whether pro or con on this subject, the PEOPLE/CITIZENS said NO in a vote.

Our elected officials don't listen to the people in an alarming fashion.

'That government of the people, by the people, for the people'...really???? The 'people' (majority) spoke.

**SMCengineer** · 05-17-2008, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by B.E.N.

This is the point being overlooked. Whether pro or con on this subject, the PEOPLE/CITIZENS said NO in a vote.

Our elected officials don't listen to the people in an alarming fashion.

'That government of the people, by the people, for the people'...really???? The 'people' (majority) spoke.

It's not being overlooked and it's not a government of the people by the people either. The California government, like the federal government, is a republic not a democracy. The elected officials vote on specific legislation, and their vote is supposed to represent the people, but if the Judicial branch of Californias government deems the law unconstitutional than they override it. It's a system of checks and balances and it's setup so every branch is restricted including the representative body. This prevents a majority or mob rule.

**thegodfather** · 05-17-2008, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Blome

It's not being overlooked and it's not a government of the people by the people either. The California government, like the federal government, is a republic not a democracy. The elected officials vote on specific legislation, and their vote is supposed to represent the people, but if the Judicial branch of Californias government deems the law unconstitutional than they override it. It's a system of checks and balances and it's setup so every branch is restricted including the representative body. This prevents a majority or mob rule.

Exactly...In our system of "democracy," it does not mean that ANY decision that the "MAJORITY" of the people comes to is actually legitimate. Suppose that 51% of Californians decided to enslave black people, or to execute people with blonde hair. That could very well happen, and the Judicial branch would be there to over ride this decision because it is unconstitutional. Checks&Balances, it is good to see they still actually work, although less and less as time goes on.

**Carlos_E** · 05-17-2008, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by B.E.N.

This is the point being overlooked. Whether pro or con on this subject, the PEOPLE/CITIZENS said NO in a vote.

Our elected officials don't listen to the people in an alarming fashion.

'That government of the people, by the people, for the people'...really???? The 'people' (majority) spoke.

Look at history. The majority said no to ending slavery. The majority said no to integration. The majority said no to interracial marriage. If our government and courts listened to "the people", where would we be as a society?

**DSM4Life** · 05-18-2008, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Carlos_E

Look at history. The majority said no to ending slavery. The majority said no to integration. The majority said no to interracial marriage. If our government and courts listened to "the people", where would we be as a society?

+2 ss

**SMCengineer** · 05-18-2008, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Carlos_E

Look at history. The majority said no to ending slavery. The majority said no to integration. The majority said no to interracial marriage. If our government and courts listened to "the people", where would we be as a society?

What's interesting is that Democracy is an inherently left ideology.

**Coop77** · 05-18-2008, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by B.E.N.

This is the point being overlooked. Whether pro or con on this subject, the PEOPLE/CITIZENS said NO in a vote.

Our elected officials don't listen to the people in an alarming fashion.

'That government of the people, by the people, for the people'...really???? The 'people' (majority) spoke.

The court did not "decide the issue", they interpreted the CA constitution. That's the role of the supreme court. They basically said if the people want this, they need to change the CA constitution - which will likely happen in Nov.