Prop 8 Overturned

Originally posted by §P0oONY
No... It's not.

Yes it is. You are simply and entirely wrong to believe otherwise. There is no other practical way for the system to work and I find this objection to the process surprising and depressing- it shows a certain ignorance.

Originally posted by §P0oONY
No... It's not.

Yes it is. Legal review is a long process, one that can take years to complete. If everything had to do that the law would never catch up with reality.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yes it is. You are simply and entirely wrong to believe otherwise. There is no other practical way for the system to work and I find this objection to the process surprising and depressing- it shows a certain ignorance.

I'm just the messenger. Common sense and sensible analysis says so.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I'm just the messenger. Common sense and sensible analysis says so.

Originally posted by §P0oONY
All I'm saying is give them the same legal rights.... Just don't call it marriage.

I've heard this time and time again; I don't understand it. If you have no problem with homosexuals-couples receiving the same rights as hetero-couples, why the stink over the use of a word?

If I said: "Give Black-people the same right to vote as all others, just don't call it voting in regards to Blacks." What would you say/think?

Look, what possible sensible grounds can there be for dissent?

I see one of three arguments being advocated here

- That new laws should not be subject to review. That is plainly ludicrous; all new laws are subject to a check to see if they are legitimate, else any old nonsense could be passed, like a 'ban blacks from marrying' law. In the US, this checking is done via the constitution, but all western countries do the process in some form.

- That this law has some special exemption because the people voted for it. Not at all- referendum is simply the way the law was passed; it granted it no special rights and especially not the ability to override the constitution. I don't like doing things by referendum, but all involved knew what they were doing- that they were passing a law which would then be subject to review. Indeed, the 'no' proponents directly gave the fact it was unconstitutional as a reason to junk it, so they were warned; blame those who voted yes in spite of that for wasting everyone's time

- That the legal system should review potential laws. That is absolutely insane. There is no legal system in the world that has 1% of the time needed to review laws that are not actually laws, just ideas. What a colossal waste of time that would be- far more than this episode. It is ridiculous to launch a legal review on something that is not actually a law.

Regardless of how you view it, there is no other way this could work. A law has been passed, but a review of that law has- thus far, as I am sure this will go on- found it to be illegitimate by the rules it must follow. Those who framed the law are at fault for trying to pass a dud law; those who voted for it likewise.

Originally posted by Robtard
I've heard this time and time again; I don't understand it. If you have no problem with homosexuals-couples receiving the same rights as hetero-couples, why the stink over the use of a word?

If I said: "Give Black-people the same right to vote as all others, just don't call it voting in regards to Blacks." What would you say/think?

There is no reason not to give it a different name.

To Ush: hmm................. zzz

edit

Well, what a well-reasoned counter to my argument.

If prob 8 is "illegal".

How did it it pass all of the proper process to be put on the ballot for vote by the calif people in the first place?

And should 1 judge have that much power?

Cause thats all it took.

1 judge to overturn a legal vote in the first place.

Originally posted by §P0oONY
Just to appease people... That's all.

There is no reason not to give it a different name.

To Ush: hmm................. zzz

Appeasing the majority shouldn't even be something that's given any sort of thought in something like this. They'll live, trust me. They don't have ownership of the word.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]If prob 8 is "illegal".

How did it it pass all of the proper process to be put on the ballot for vote by the calif people in the first place?

And should 1 judge have that much power?

Cause thats all it took.

1 judge to overturn a legal vote in the first place. [/B]

...have you like...read anything in this thread?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, what a well-reasoned counter to my argument.

If you're looking for an arguement you're not getitng one here buddy.

Originally posted by Peach
Appeasing the majority shouldn't even be something that's given any sort of thought in something like this. They'll live, trust me. They don't have ownership of the word.

...have you like...read anything in this thread?

If the topic bores you then don't waste time posting about it in the first place. But as you did and it was in error, it was corrected.

Don't spam a thread with useless replies again.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]If prob 8 is "illegal".

How did it it pass all of the proper process to be put on the ballot for vote by the calif people in the first place?

And should 1 judge have that much power?

Cause thats all it took.

1 judge to overturn a legal vote in the first place. [/B]

As I said above.

1. Because all laws, passed by whatever means, are subject to review after they are adopted.

2. Yes, definitely a judge should have that much power. That is their job. You are looking at it the wrong way round- the question is, should the voters of one state have the power to override the constitution on a whim? Nope, and it's the judiciary that acts to stop that.

People are acting as if this judge is just some guy who has been given an overwhelming veto he used at will. No, he is the arbitrator of a complex legal framework that has been activated by those seeking a review of a law they believe to be in error. They brought a proper legal process; he administered it.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
If prob 8 is "illegal".

How did it it pass all of the proper process to be put on the ballot for vote by the calif people in the first place?

There is essentially no vetting process for propositions. Putting one in place would be crazy. This point has been made repeatedly.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
And should 1 judge have that much power?

Cause thats all it took.

1 judge to overturn a legal vote in the first place.

One judge to overturn an illegal proposition, which is his job. In the US the Constitution (in this case the 14th amendment) comes before simple democracy and is enforced by the judiciary.

Originally posted by §P0oONY
Just to appease people... That's all.

There is no reason not to give it a different name.

Trying to appease bigotry, probably not a good idea in the long run.

There is no reason to not call it marriage. Is just as valid a sentence and carries zero bigotry.

I think SC and I are on the same page here...

Originally posted by Robtard
Trying to appease bigotry, probably not a good idea in the long run.

There is no reason to not call it marriage. Is just as valid a sentence and carries zero bigotry.

Originally posted by §P0oONY
I personally just believe Civil Partnerships are a good way foreward. They're not in anyway inferior to marriages. Why get lots of people pissed off over semantics?

Then why don't those "pissed off people" call their marriages something else, considering they've got the issues and it's just semantics?

You really don't think this issue with the use of a word isn't anything but hatred/bigotry?