Did I Hear Right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter distracted
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

distracted

Guest
Please help me… I heard something about how California repealed the law on homosexual marriage.

Is this true??
 
On election day Californians passed proposition 8 which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. It didn’t repeal a “law” on homosexual marriage but it did overturn a court decision allowing homosexual marriage.
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
On election day Californians passed proposition 8 which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. It didn’t repeal a “law” on homosexual marriage but it did overturn a court decision allowing homosexual marriage.
Click to expand...
sorry to sound so ingornat (i don’t watch TV… or listen to news on radio even… ) but didn’t they jsut decide that gays could get married???

Who decided what??? Who overturned the court decision???
 
distracted said:
sorry to sound so ingornat (i don’t watch TV… or listen to news on radio even… ) but didn’t they jsut decide that gays could get married???

Who decided what??? Who overturned the court decision???
Click to expand...
In May the California Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; thus gay marriage became legal.

In November there was a proposition on the ballot to define marriage as legal only between a man and a woman. It passed.

There are now lawsuits to overturn the proposition but the cases have not yet been heard.

If you Google you will find more than you ever wanted to know about the topic.
 
distracted said:
sorry to sound so ingornat (i don’t watch TV… or listen to news on radio even… ) but didn’t they jsut decide that gays could get married???

Who decided what??? Who overturned the court decision???
Click to expand...
A couple of years ago the people of CAlifornia voted on and passed a law defining marraige as being between one man and one woman. The California Supreme Court, struck the law daown, calling it unconstitutional. This November, Propsition 8 was a contitutional amendment for the State of California to define marriage as between one amn and one woman. SInce it is now part of their contitution, it can’t be called uncontitutional.
 
CWBetts said:
… Propsition 8 was a contitutional amendment for the State of California to define marriage as between one amn and one woman. SInce it is now part of their contitution, it can’t be called uncontitutional.
Click to expand...
Ha…just you wait.
 
CWBetts said:
A couple of years ago the people of CAlifornia voted on and passed a law defining marraige as being between one man and one woman. The California Supreme Court, struck the law daown, calling it unconstitutional. This November, Propsition 8 was a contitutional amendment for the State of California to define marriage as between one amn and one woman. SInce it is now part of their contitution, it can’t be called uncontitutional.
Click to expand...
You underestimate the California Supreme Court.
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
In May the California Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; thus gay marriage became legal.

In November there was a proposition on the ballot to define marriage as legal only between a man and a woman. It passed.

There are now lawsuits to overturn the proposition but the cases have not yet been heard.

If you Google you will find more than you ever wanted to know about the topic.
Click to expand...
thanks… That is SO cool… I am SO thrilled when i hear of the ***poeple ***overthrowing a “supreme court” (which usually translates into “elitist”) decision… I was just reading a book about how the supreme court of the US, all through history, has based many of their decisions on “things” outside the (original intent of…) the Constitution… something they are not suposed to do. They are to uphold the laws that legislators pass… and only interpret the Constitution and make sure that the laws legislators pass do not infringe on some tangible Constitutional right… but the courts have been making up “rights” for a very long time… the right to privacy was invented in the Griswold case and then used as a basis for R v Wade… A right to privacy is mentioned in the 4th amendment but not a right to abortion… (people don’t have the right to do whatever they want just because they are in their bedroom… something the Griswold case addressed…or should have) and i don’t evne know if the ones who wrote the R v W opinion even mentioned the 4th…(?) They mentioned mostly (i bleieve) the due process clause and/or some other things but essentially, they made up the right to privacy that is supposed to support a “right to abortion”… The right to LIFE, however, is mentioned explicitly / unambiguously… in the Constitution… the 5th and 14th amendment say that
no one shall be deprived of LIFE (etc) without due process…

Obviously, Unborn babies don’t get much due process… they are executed without trial… & in the most “cruel and unusual” way possible… because the mother who brought them into existence (well, God does that… but with her help)… didn’t want him or her…
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
Indeed. I am assuming that the court will not give up its power to legislate to a mere vote of the people.
Click to expand...
not without a fight… and even then… they have been winning throughout history…

We are not a democracy… not in the strictest sense of the word… maybe not even in the loosest sense of the word…
 
CWBetts said:
A couple of years ago the people of CAlifornia voted on and passed a law defining marraige as being between one man and one woman. The California Supreme Court, struck the law daown, calling it unconstitutional. This November, Propsition 8 was a contitutional amendment for the State of California to define marriage as between one amn and one woman. SInce it is now part of their contitution, it can’t be called uncontitutional.
Click to expand...
but if it goes to the US Sup Ct, it COULD… The only good thing is that the judges we have there are supposed to be 'Catholic"… I hope they really are…

I am not saying they should go against the constitution to render a conservative opinion on the issue…anymore than it is OK for liberals to do that… but they don’t have to… There is NO right to homosexual marriage in the Const… except that judges who don’t care about the original intent of the authors of the Const. will say (hve been saying) that there is… so who knows where this will go?? I don’t think it will get passed the judges we have on the bench now… Pray that the judges live to be 100!! Or at least they don’t die until you know who is out of office…
 
There is an intensifying cultural war between Chrstians and others, to say the least. The war in California over gay “marriage” is a part of that. If we give up, American society will go under in the same way that Western European society went under, where there is no protest against abortion for example, and a society which is perhaps dying, as their dramatic decreases in population shows.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top