Active Users:563 Time:20/12/2025 08:51:29 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Let's just be clear about which amendment is which. Dreaded Anomaly Send a noteboard - 05/08/2010 11:50:57 PM
The point is sexual preference is not protected under the Constitution. The 14th amendment only protects certain named groups is we expand to include any and every group almost any law can over turned. If it we expand to include any group a small group of judges think it should cover we are no longer following the Constitution.

I support gay marriage but I do not support judges creating the law as they see fit.


The 14th Amendment protects the life, liberty, and property of US citizens from being infringed upon without due process, and says that all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection clause were the areas in which Prop 8 was ruled to be unconstitutional.

The 15th Amendment says that citizens' rights are protected regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." This did not enter into the judge's ruling.

I invite you to read the judge's conclusions (starting on page 109), which I've linked twice now in this thread and will link for a third time:
Court Order
Reply to message
Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional ironclad - 04/08/2010 10:40:50 PM 1466 Views
Thank God. *NM* Ghavrel - 04/08/2010 10:52:30 PM 419 Views
Amen. *NM* Dannymac - 05/08/2010 02:09:24 AM 481 Views
Good news, but as the article says, it'll go all the way to the SC. Legolas - 04/08/2010 10:55:58 PM 797 Views
So then is that how we do it? Jeordam - 04/08/2010 11:01:19 PM 936 Views
Of course. ironclad - 04/08/2010 11:04:59 PM 828 Views
His point was ßelals Girl - 04/08/2010 11:40:14 PM 973 Views
Yeah but: What Ghavrel said below *NM* ironclad - 05/08/2010 08:01:02 AM 468 Views
And again... ßelals Girl - 05/08/2010 06:08:56 PM 696 Views
To quote my property professor: "Can I make you think like a Californian?" Tom - 05/08/2010 06:39:48 PM 741 Views
well that is sort of the idea of how democracy works snoopcester - 04/08/2010 11:06:57 PM 823 Views
I'm not the one who came up with the referendum system, you do realize. Legolas - 04/08/2010 11:11:13 PM 818 Views
The referendum system, in my opinion, has been a failure, especially in CA. Dreaded Anomaly - 04/08/2010 11:46:21 PM 910 Views
democracy has been a failure in CA. random thoughts - 05/08/2010 02:42:21 PM 683 Views
No. It just shows the problems of a crazy electorate. Tom - 05/08/2010 03:29:21 PM 829 Views
I think you made my point *NM* random thoughts - 05/08/2010 03:35:00 PM 437 Views
About Californians being crazy, yes. *NM* Tom - 05/08/2010 04:53:32 PM 407 Views
we vote fro way to much crap in general random thoughts - 05/08/2010 02:41:19 PM 776 Views
Yeah, I agree. Legolas - 05/08/2010 04:11:34 PM 760 Views
my one recent dealing with our criminal justice random thoughts - 05/08/2010 04:25:30 PM 787 Views
Yes, you still have to abide by the Constitution, even if a lot of people don't like it. *NM* Ghavrel - 05/08/2010 12:07:44 AM 423 Views
Amend the Constitution to alter the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't like it. *NM* Tom - 05/08/2010 01:09:51 AM 498 Views
just a devil's advocate position here, but.... moondog - 05/08/2010 04:23:43 AM 849 Views
Marriage is either an economic status regulated by law or a religious institution. Tom - 05/08/2010 05:13:17 AM 872 Views
There are certain things that should not be decided by a vote... Dannymac - 05/08/2010 02:02:45 AM 849 Views
I do agree with you on that. Hell yes, and on a subject like this in particular. nossy - 05/08/2010 02:17:24 AM 877 Views
Re: I do agree with you on that. Hell yes, and on a subject like this in particular. snoopcester - 05/08/2010 10:46:54 AM 856 Views
I understand it. nossy - 05/08/2010 03:06:40 PM 846 Views
I know you don't support proposition 8 snoopcester - 05/08/2010 03:29:34 PM 859 Views
nossy - 05/08/2010 03:34:01 PM 867 Views
But that is just simplistic and silly to complain about when it is a long standing possibility snoopcester - 05/08/2010 03:46:59 PM 757 Views
Oh, ees it? nossy - 05/08/2010 04:07:39 PM 885 Views
Well they knew the rules before they started the whole thing snoopcester - 05/08/2010 04:12:33 PM 766 Views
Why would you complain if you won? nossy - 05/08/2010 04:15:20 PM 833 Views
You could recognise that you won by the system working in a way you don't like? snoopcester - 05/08/2010 04:23:58 PM 709 Views
I'm sure that happens, in general. nossy - 06/08/2010 02:43:18 PM 700 Views
It seems to happen a lot nowadays snoopcester - 06/08/2010 03:06:33 PM 720 Views
It's so weird that you feel differently - there is only room for one opinion here! nossy - 06/08/2010 03:41:52 PM 642 Views
There is only room for one opinion and mine is the right one snoopcester - 06/08/2010 03:49:16 PM 755 Views
instead it should be decided by judges who answer to no one? *NM* random thoughts - 05/08/2010 07:12:59 AM 421 Views
The same judges who upheld our private right to bear arms. Tom - 05/08/2010 02:09:07 PM 848 Views
not when judges stop using the Constitution random thoughts - 05/08/2010 02:30:51 PM 831 Views
Sexual preference is not the right being protected. Tom - 05/08/2010 03:22:04 PM 889 Views
I know that the 14th amendment is routinely used in ways it was never intended. random thoughts - 05/08/2010 05:25:07 PM 803 Views
I realize that, but it is ultimately a good thing. Tom - 05/08/2010 05:31:19 PM 877 Views
I am really on the fence a bit on the whole issue random thoughts - 05/08/2010 06:00:59 PM 848 Views
I generally agree with you. Tom - 05/08/2010 06:33:56 PM 831 Views
let's take away the citizenship of all black people if that's the way you think moondog - 05/08/2010 09:06:23 PM 734 Views
Come now lets not be stupid random thoughts - 06/08/2010 05:31:18 PM 696 Views
sorry but your statement was completely ignorant. moondog - 06/08/2010 07:27:09 PM 819 Views
I will talk as soon as you stop spouting stupid rhetoric and say something relevant random thoughts - 06/08/2010 07:54:09 PM 785 Views
bullshit. you will personally attack me no matter what i say. moondog - 07/08/2010 02:04:04 PM 837 Views
Let's just be clear about which amendment is which. Dreaded Anomaly - 05/08/2010 11:50:57 PM 737 Views
but that still ignores intent and expands the law in ways not intnented when it created random thoughts - 06/08/2010 04:53:43 AM 757 Views
Yes, no, no, and no. Dreaded Anomaly - 06/08/2010 05:29:09 AM 806 Views
there are serious flaws in your thinking here random thoughts - 06/08/2010 06:18:13 PM 877 Views
Your assertions continue to lack support. Dreaded Anomaly - 06/08/2010 07:23:17 PM 906 Views
not all you just refuse to see things you disagree with random thoughts - 06/08/2010 08:36:32 PM 864 Views
...said the pot to the kettle Dreaded Anomaly - 06/08/2010 09:17:28 PM 941 Views
yes but a shiny stainless steel pot random thoughts - 09/08/2010 11:21:33 PM 998 Views
You continue to be wrong about history and the role of courts. Dreaded Anomaly - 10/08/2010 01:05:39 AM 1339 Views
If he's wrong, a lot of law scholars and Supreme Court Justices are wrong. Legolas - 10/08/2010 01:44:05 AM 781 Views
Brown vs. Board of Education, 'nuff said. *NM* Dreaded Anomaly - 10/08/2010 04:32:37 AM 420 Views
Actually, that only proves his point, if I understand correctly. *NM* Legolas - 10/08/2010 11:11:19 AM 448 Views
part oif the problem appears to be you completely missing the point random thoughts - 10/08/2010 01:23:19 PM 996 Views
let my simplify my argument random thoughts - 10/08/2010 01:42:47 PM 725 Views
There's a simple way to determine the degree to which that opinion is objective or subjective... Legolas - 06/08/2010 09:32:21 PM 746 Views
Since when is marriage a right? *NM* Jeordam - 05/08/2010 04:11:16 PM 404 Views
it may not be a "right"... LadyLorraine - 05/08/2010 04:22:44 PM 731 Views
This is where the debate comes into play.... Jeordam - 05/08/2010 05:04:08 PM 756 Views
How much would it change the debate if it was nurture, really? Legolas - 05/08/2010 09:48:22 PM 791 Views
except this is not merely a matter of changing society LadyLorraine - 05/08/2010 11:18:48 PM 825 Views
1948. *NM* jh - 05/08/2010 04:50:30 PM 405 Views
It's a benefit that is being extended selectively to one set of the populace. Tom - 05/08/2010 04:52:52 PM 816 Views
Hey, I'm single.... Jeordam - 05/08/2010 05:05:41 PM 739 Views
That's a specious argument and you know it. Tom - 05/08/2010 05:13:17 PM 802 Views
A homosexual has every opportunity as well..... Jeordam - 05/08/2010 05:23:56 PM 756 Views
Oh quit the bullshit already. Tom - 05/08/2010 05:29:15 PM 989 Views
Slow your role... Jeordam - 05/08/2010 09:08:54 PM 862 Views
Your religious beliefs have 100% to do with your position. Tom - 05/08/2010 09:43:23 PM 894 Views
Sorry, but what a nonsense. ironclad - 05/08/2010 09:27:17 PM 739 Views
hey that's it, jens! you solved the WHOLE PROBLEM!!! LadyLorraine - 05/08/2010 11:24:29 PM 857 Views
ON TO WORLD HUNGER! ironclad - 06/08/2010 07:59:51 AM 743 Views
LET THEM HAVE CAEK. *NM* jh - 06/08/2010 02:29:56 PM 388 Views
Are you sure it's wise to feed people on a lie? *NM* Floffe - 06/08/2010 02:34:26 PM 479 Views
People are fed lies all the time LadyLorraine - 06/08/2010 09:30:37 PM 725 Views
Quite so, but I don't think it's commonly a mainstay of their diet *NM* Floffe - 06/08/2010 09:50:33 PM 424 Views
It is the only thing which is abundant enough for everyone to have some... *NM* jh - 06/08/2010 10:01:44 PM 674 Views
I agree with you Sareitha Sedai - 05/08/2010 05:06:40 PM 790 Views
That's not valid. Tom - 05/08/2010 05:26:50 PM 786 Views
I invite you to read the judge's conclusions, linked again inside. Dreaded Anomaly - 05/08/2010 11:43:44 PM 835 Views
Since 1948 Napoleon62 - 06/08/2010 04:01:02 AM 971 Views
gah. can. only. see. typo. *NM* nossy - 06/08/2010 03:43:21 PM 383 Views
I don't see any typo... *NM* Legolas - 06/08/2010 04:07:18 PM 437 Views
Open the link. *NM* nossy - 06/08/2010 04:47:04 PM 538 Views
Oh, right. Yeah, that does kinda detract from things. *NM* Legolas - 06/08/2010 04:48:47 PM 416 Views
I agree random thoughts - 05/08/2010 07:22:17 AM 803 Views
And Civil Rights lost the Democrats the South. Dannymac - 05/08/2010 03:44:56 PM 814 Views
but it was done by congress passing laws and the president signing those laws random thoughts - 05/08/2010 04:20:19 PM 764 Views
uhm, what? LadyLorraine - 05/08/2010 04:24:43 PM 749 Views
those were mostly rulings up holding laws not stiking them down random thoughts - 05/08/2010 05:05:15 PM 842 Views
I was under the impression that the supreme court had a role in it snoopcester - 05/08/2010 04:31:51 PM 752 Views
but the court was not over turning the laws passed by congress random thoughts - 05/08/2010 05:11:06 PM 812 Views
No, like in this case, isn't it? snoopcester - 05/08/2010 05:24:19 PM 732 Views
I would say that is another case of judicial activism and shows the danger of the practice random thoughts - 05/08/2010 05:43:02 PM 717 Views
Which one is? I imagine from different view points both are. snoopcester - 06/08/2010 10:34:11 AM 707 Views
The law wasn't constitutional. Dannymac - 07/08/2010 06:17:04 AM 744 Views
well it will take a higher court to decide that random thoughts - 09/08/2010 10:46:15 PM 776 Views
Hard to believe it's the same governor who said "Gay marriage should be between a man and a woman." *NM* TaskmasterJack - 04/08/2010 11:05:45 PM 492 Views
Or "Iff it bleeds we can kill itt!" *NM* ironclad - 04/08/2010 11:14:45 PM 471 Views
Another step in the right direction. *NM* snoopcester - 04/08/2010 11:08:15 PM 495 Views
Link to the full court order inside: Dreaded Anomaly - 04/08/2010 11:43:29 PM 947 Views
The judge quoting Scalia in favour of gay marriage is fairly amusing. Legolas - 04/08/2010 11:50:47 PM 804 Views
What page was that on? Tim - 05/08/2010 11:25:49 AM 720 Views
Nah, it was way above page 109, in the findings of fact somewhere. Legolas - 05/08/2010 12:37:48 PM 834 Views
Oh, that is brilliant. Tim - 05/08/2010 01:12:21 PM 735 Views
Pretty much. Legolas - 05/08/2010 01:44:22 PM 862 Views
I've always wondered what basis there is for banning necrophilia if "it's disgusting" is invalid. Tim - 05/08/2010 01:51:19 PM 814 Views
because you cannot give consent when you are dead? Camilla - 05/08/2010 03:04:46 PM 818 Views
what if you give consent while you are still alive? random thoughts - 05/08/2010 03:21:59 PM 897 Views
Is it then illegal? Camilla - 05/08/2010 03:23:46 PM 810 Views
given I imagine the pro-necrophilia lobby isn't strong in numbers or influence snoopcester - 05/08/2010 03:33:11 PM 878 Views
Re: given I imagine the pro-necrophilia lobby isn't strong in numbers or influence Camilla - 05/08/2010 03:34:57 PM 916 Views
I would think it would be illegal even then random thoughts - 05/08/2010 03:34:31 PM 830 Views
Wikipedia to the rescue! Legolas - 05/08/2010 04:20:15 PM 977 Views
you would hope the other states would cover it under improper treatmentof human remains random thoughts - 05/08/2010 07:38:59 PM 776 Views
A dead body is just an object, not a person with rights. Tom - 05/08/2010 03:27:08 PM 816 Views
Yes, but Camilla - 06/08/2010 08:42:05 AM 764 Views
Absolutely not. Tom - 06/08/2010 03:21:14 PM 814 Views
not to mention necrophilia has a large potential to be hazardous to health. LadyLorraine - 06/08/2010 09:42:43 PM 908 Views
That was a very well written judgement. Tim - 05/08/2010 11:24:38 AM 823 Views
Tom - 05/08/2010 12:10:02 AM 818 Views
Totally agree. Rebekah - 05/08/2010 01:01:42 PM 859 Views
+1 *NM* LadyLorraine - 05/08/2010 03:42:08 PM 434 Views
Irrelevant decision.....this was heading to SCOTUS from day 1 *NM* trzaska2000 - 05/08/2010 12:53:26 AM 449 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes