California Attorney General Asks State Supreme Court to Void Gay Marriage Ban

  • Thread starter Thread starter peregrinus_WA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
psr13 said:
Well-educated community in a liberal state? Seriously? CA is known to be quite a liberal state, but this bill passed there. That was a very condescending statement. I thought the liberal party was the party of tolerance? Not the party of name calling and being elitist.
Click to expand...
What did you read in my post as as “name calling” and "elitism?
 
StAnastasia said:
Under the California constitution they have a right to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
To which I said (sigh):
"I don’t get it.
If California is going bankrupt with USD40 Billion deficit and there would probably be not enough resources to get get by with basic services, why prioritize precious dollars to provide legitimacy to all immoral gay marriage?

I think Maslow does not apply in gay communities such as in California."

To which the responses I got were not even remotely corresponding.
 
Chancellare said:
If California is going bankrupt with USD40 Billion deficit and there would probably be not enough resources to get get by with basic services, why prioritize precious dollars to provide legitimacy to all immoral gay marriage?..To which the responses I got were not even remotely corresponding.
Click to expand...
Under the California constitution, opponents of Proposition 8 have a right to appeal its constitutional validity to the supreme court. At issue is whether marriage is a basic human right, for such a right cannot be taken away by simple plebiscite. Whether Californians like the expense or not, opponents have a right to challenge Prop 8.

SttAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
Under the California constitution, opponents of Proposition 8 have a right to appeal its constitutional validity to the supreme court. At issue is whether marriage is a basic human right, for such a right cannot be taken away by simple plebiscite. Whether Californians like the expense or not, opponents have a right to challenge Prop 8.

SttAnastasia
Click to expand...
Ah…switching tactics now…probably a pretty good idea since your financial argument sunk like a stone. 😃

As a Catholic, why do you support Gay Marriage? Do you oppose Church teaching? Do you disagree with the Pope and the Magisterium? What is your Catholic stance on this issue?
 
RobertLGarrett said:
As a Catholic, why do you support Gay Marriage? Do you oppose Church teaching? Do you disagree with the Pope and the Magisterium? What is your Catholic stance on this issue?
Click to expand...
How do you draw the conclusion that I support gay marriage?
 
StAnastasia said:
Under the California constitution, opponents of Proposition 8 have a right to appeal its constitutional validity to the supreme court. At issue is whether marriage is a basic human right, for such a right cannot be taken away by simple plebiscite. Whether Californians like the expense or not, opponents have a right to challenge Prop 8.

SttAnastasia
Click to expand...
Which provision, or are you only assuming that the right is explicit?
 
RobbyS said:
Which provision, or are you only assuming that the right is explicit?
Click to expand...
At issue is whether revoking the right of same-sex couples to marry is a constitutional revision rather than an amendment, since an amendment requires the prior approval of two thirds of each house of the California legislature. The supreme court will consider whether Proposition 8 is a legal amendment to the constitution, or merely a revision. I don’t know what the legal ramifications are ih the latter case.
 
StAnastasia said:
How do you draw the conclusion that I support gay marriage?
Click to expand...
Your previous post inferred that you believe it is a basic human right - either that or that you are neutral about that determination. If not, why do you keep coming to the defense of the challenge of Proposition 8?
 
peregrinus_WA said:
You knew this was comingI am calling for a complete boycott of California. They are already morally bankrupt. We need to financially bankrupt them. Only then will they get the hint.
Click to expand...
What I would like to know is why these gay groups aren’t appealing to the FEDERAL supreme court. I mean, their ultimate goal is to get gay “marriage” legalized nation-wide.

Or, maybe they don’t realize California isn’t its own country?😛
 
StAnastasia said:
Under the California constitution, opponents of Proposition 8 have a right to appeal its constitutional validity to the supreme court. At issue is whether marriage is a basic human right, for such a right cannot be taken away by simple plebiscite. Whether Californians like the expense or not, opponents have a right to challenge Prop 8.

SttAnastasia
Click to expand...
There exists a basic definition of legal requirements to qualify for legal marriage. Same-sex marriage requires an amendment to such definition. It is not only gays who have the exclusive rights to demand such amendments. Such amendment itself becomes discriminatory to non-gays such as incestuous, polygamous, under-aged, HIV-infected, and a host of other consensual but similarly deficient unions.
 
RobertLGarrett said:
It has absolutely nothing with the fact that Catholics can boycott California …:
Click to expand...
I think it has something to do with it.
If the Roman Catholic Church allows its Catholic theology professors to teach that homosexual marriage is OK, then it is more than just the state of California that should be boycotted.
 
RobertLGarrett said:
Your previous post inferred that you believe it is a basic human right - either that or that you are neutral about that determination. If not, why do you keep coming to the defense of the challenge of Proposition 8?
Click to expand...
I am trying to articulate for you why there might be opponents to Proposition 8. I don’t know that describing why they are challenging it in itself constitutes a defense of that challenge. 🙂

For the record, I think the state should get out of the marriage business altogether, and grant only contracts of civil union. Let churches and synagogues marry or not marry whom they will. 👍

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
At issue is whether revoking the right of same-sex couples to marry is a constitutional revision rather than an amendment, since an amendment requires the prior approval of two thirds of each house of the California legislature. The supreme court will consider whether Proposition 8 is a legal amendment to the constitution, or merely a revision. I don’t know what the legal ramifications are ih the latter case.
Click to expand...
I am not sure of the language of the proposition since Brown monkeyed around with it. but the intent is simply to affirm the traditional legal definition of marriage. If you read “Black” you will see that the Court took it upon itself to redefine the term. The Court may reject any attempt to override it by populare vote. IAC, the Court seems out to gut the provision that established the people’s right to overturn its will. Given that so few states go along with the state Court, it would seem to be out of step, not the people, but this is, in effect, a coup d’main.
 
bobzills said:
I think it has something to do with it.
If the Roman Catholic Church allows its Catholic theology professors to teach that homosexual marriage is OK, then it is more than just the state of California that should be boycotted.
Click to expand...
A single Bishop and/or College is not the “Roman Catholic Church.” People can boycott the State of California, the College and complain to the Vatican about one of her Bishops. Your argument is not logical or based in reality.
 
StAnastasia said:
I am trying to articulate for you why there might be opponents to Proposition 8. I don’t know that describing why they are challenging it in itself constitutes a defense of that challenge. 🙂

For the record, I think the state should get out of the marriage business altogether, and grant only contracts of civil union. Let churches and synagogues marry or not marry whom they will. 👍

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Okay. Well, thank you for the clarification. Your position is contrary to the teaching of the Church, but I realize some Catholics don’t care what the Church teaches…
 
RobertLGarrett said:
A single Bishop and/or College is not the “Roman Catholic Church.” People can boycott the State of California, the College and complain to the Vatican about one of her Bishops. Your argument is not logical or based in reality.
Click to expand...
The argument is simply that the push for same sex marriage goes beyond California. Even if California were to ban same sex marriage, my argument is that it would still be here due to the fact that it is being promoted in many other areas.
 
bobzills said:
The argument is simply that the push for same sex marriage goes beyond California. Even if California were to ban same sex marriage, my argument is that it would still be here due to the fact that it is being promoted in many other areas.
Click to expand...
Okay…I agree with that…what does it have to do with boycotting the Catholic Church, which was your original argument? :confused:

We need to fight against the imposition by courts of “gay marriage” anywhere it occurs. Since we live in a representative democracy, there may be cases where people actually vote it in - though I haven’t seen it yet. Short of a US Constitutional Amendment, there isn’t much we can do about that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top