Prop 8 unconstiutional

[bobhenstracaptain of 1,000]

California prop 8 just declared unconstitutional by fed court. Just heard this on the radio

Bob

[AGalagaChiasmuscaptain of 100]

I think I agree that this is the "days of Noe" spoken of by Jesus. I had a discussion several months ago with my dw about this. I said "You watch, Prop 8 will be ruled unconstitutional, that will clear the way for a Federal law allowing homosexual marriage, and we'll be in the same pickle as those who were "marrying and giving in marriage" before the flood.

[tmaccaptain of 1,000]

There is an old saying: "As goes California, so goes the nation."

[sadie_Mormoncaptain of 1,000]

So what do we learn from all this... your vote means nothing.

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/cou ... 51250.html
I hope my trip to So. Cal this week will be free of any major earthquake!

[7cylon7captain of 1,000]

Our Court system is completely corrupt now. Turning against the wishes of the people.

[7cylon7captain of 1,000]

So what do we learn from all this... your vote means nothing.

The republic is so corrupt now that even the will of the people means nothing to the elites.

[clarkkent14captain of 1,000]

FYI I merged the two topics... same thread essentially.

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

FYI I merged the two topics... same thread essentially.

Thanks, I didn't see Old Man Bob's thread when I started mine.

[clarkkent14captain of 1,000]

FYI I merged the two topics... same thread essentially.

Thanks, I didn't see Old Man Bob's thread when I started mine.

No problem, I'm glad I merged it correctly, I thought I might send the forum into an eternal abyss. Luckily none such things happened.

As for the overturn... did anyone expect anything different?

4 And seeing the people in a state of such awful wickedness, and those Gadianton robbers filling the judgment-seats—having usurped the power and authority of the land; laying aside the commandments of God, and not in the least aright before him; doing no justice unto the children of men;

5 Condemning the righteous because of their righteousness; letting the guilty and the wicked go unpunished because of their money; and moreover to be held in office at the head of government, to rule and do according to their wills, that they might get gain and glory of the world, and, moreover, that they might the more easily commit adultery, and steal, and kill, and do according to their own wills—

[bobhenstracaptain of 1,000]

The judges involved were a part of a 9th circuit three judge panel. Now it can be appealed to the whole 9th circuit, then to the U.S. Supreme court. All is not lost yet!

Bob

[tmaccaptain of 1,000]

It will be interesting to see what happens. I think it is highly unlikely to see a different result come from the full 9th Circuit bench. And, unfortunately, the cases like this that the U.S. Supreme Court most likes to take are those where several different Federal circuit appellate courts have reached different results -- as, for example, with the individual mandate in Obamacare. All that aside, although certainly not all is lost, how comfortable, Bob, are you with the current make-up of the U.S. Supreme Court?

[pjbrowniecaptain of 1,000]

Even with the equal protections and civil protections carved out of prop 8 to ensure that gays weren't discriminated against in a state Constitutional Amendment, this ruling says less about the rule of law and more about the rule of the licked thumbs in the wind by the Circuit Court. Yet the judges try to have it both ways, by limiting the scope of this rule. Hogwash. It's its good for the goose it's good for the gander.

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

I think I agree that this is the "days of Noe" spoken of by Jesus. I had a discussion several months ago with my dw about this. I said "You watch, Prop 8 will be ruled unconstitutional, that will clear the way for a Federal law allowing homosexual marriage, and we'll be in the same pickle as those who were "marrying and giving in marriage" before the flood.

or before the pole flip. Those that aren't familiar with what happens during a magnetic pole reversal should read up on it - scientists have concluded that when it happens, it doesn't occur over thousands or hundreds or even tens of years... it happens within hours and the consequences for mother earth aren't pretty. We are currently going through it right now and scientists now say collectively based on thousands and thousands of hours and pain-staking research that we are more than halfway through the reversal with the only question being when, but they suspect it will occur any time between now and at most, 50 years. It is the reason for the strange noises coming from the atmosphere and all the mass bird and fish die-offs.

Researchers have said when it does occur, you do not want to be anywhere near a coastline and that you'll want to be well above sea level. It's quite scary actually - all of the effects scientists expect with a sudden flip of the poles are consistent with the events prophesied of in the scriptures and specifically, the book of Revelation. They have indicated massive flooding and terrible destruction from winds will be the two worst effects with winds several hundreds of miles per hour. May explain why governments have been frantically building underground shelters and bunkers like there is no tomorrow over the last 10 years and why the biggest one is under the 'mile high' city of Denver under their new international airport.

As for prop 8 - what a sad day - - I'm just waiting for the feds to legalize gay marriage across the country and then for the day when they try to mandate homosexual marriages in our temples - - that's when the Lord draws a line in the sand and if his judgments haven't already started upon the U.S., they probably will at that point.

[bobhenstracaptain of 1,000]

It will be interesting to see what happens. I think it is highly unlikely to see a different result come from the full 9th Circuit bench. And, unfortunately, the cases like this that the U.S. Supreme Court most likes to take are those where several different Federal circuit appellate courts have reached different results -- as, for example, with the individual mandate in Obamacare. All that aside, although certainly not all is lost, how comfortable, Bob, are you with the current make-up of the U.S. Supreme Court?

Not very comfortable, I must admit! However, I don't get to vote on those matters. I see it as all part of the "great division" we are promised! It's almost impossible to impeach a federal judge, they can only be replaced by presidential edict, and then their replacement must be supported by the senate, 60 vote rule. Impeachment can only happen if they're found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors as established by law.

The three judge panel just overturned all community standards rules, and voided the process of voting by the people. This just gave the Republican candidates more new fantastic ammunition.

I have my doubts their ruling will stand in higher courts.

Bob

[Fairmindedcaptain of 1,000]

The separation of powers has been stood on its head. These days you get judges legislating through their rulings, the executive branch legislating through committees, unsupervised agencies, and presidential mandates, and the legislative branch looking more and more like the old Senate of Rome: essentially powerless and spending all their time squabbling while the dictators looked on.

At least the power of the legislators to vote themselves and their friends money and benefits hasn't changed.

[ithinkcaptain of 1,000]

The problem with all you guys is you can't see the forest for the trees.

In fact, the proposition is unconstitutional.

You can't be telling people what contracts they can and cannot enter into if they are legal contracts. You just can't stop gays from marrying, if that is their disposition. Marriage is a religious institution, and if their religiosity leads them to gay marriage, then any attempt to stop them by law is just not right. We have oodles of missionaries and students at BYU who co-habitate, but are not married, so I suspect the co-habitation of same sex people is not the problem. I suspect the problem is that the accepted premise is that a gay couple is having gay sex. Now we come to the issue at hand. If you don't like gay marriage, the only thing you can do is pass laws prohibiting certain forms of behavior such as gay sex as we prohibit buggery and bestiality. You can pass laws against sodomy, public nudity, urinating public and so on. You can in general pass laws about every other form of sexual behaviour you wish, that society will tolerate as reasonable, and those laws will be found to be very constitutional, but you can't stop people from living together, or sanctioning that arrangement, whether it be polygamous marriage or any other form of marriage -- at least not in my book. If you don't like what comes with certain forms of marriage, then attack that element instead, but not the larger institution per se.

And this, you Ron Paul lovers, is exactly the way Ron Paul views gay marriage, and I believe he is 100% correct. And I do think the church's involvement in Prop 8 was a mistake, in trying to legislate this, and even in trying to amend the constitution of all things to delineate marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, when we ourselves have many men and women living in a polygamous condition celestially at least. It's hypocritical to say the least, and smarts of a house divided against itself, for we would then be our own oppressors just 100 years ago.

[firendcaptain of 1,000]

The problem with all you guys is you can't see the forest for the trees.

In fact, the proposition is unconstitutional.

You can't be telling people what contracts they can and cannot enter into if they are legal contracts. You just can't stop gays from marrying, if that is their disposition. Marriage is a religious institution, and if their religiosity leads them to gay marriage, then any attempt to stop them by law is just not right. We have oodles of missionaries and students at BYU who co-habitate, but are not married, so I suspect the co-habitation of same sex people is not the problem. I suspect the problem is that the accepted premise is that a gay couple is having gay sex. Now we come to the issue at hand. If you don't like gay marriage, the only thing you can do is pass laws prohibiting certain forms of behavior such as gay sex as we prohibit buggery and bestiality. You can pass laws against sodomy, public nudity, urinating public and so on. You can in general pass laws about every other form of sexual behaviour you wish, that society will tolerate as reasonable, and those laws will be found to be very constitutional, but you can't stop people from living together, or sanctioning that arrangement, whether it be polygamous marriage or any other form of marriage -- at least not in my book. If you don't like what comes with certain forms of marriage, then attack that element instead, but not the larger institution per se.

And this, you Ron Paul lovers, is exactly the way Ron Paul views gay marriage, and I believe he is 100% correct. And I do think the church's involvement in Prop 8 was a mistake, in trying to legislate this, and even in trying to amend the constitution of all things to delineate marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, when we ourselves have many men and women living in a polygamous condition celestially at least. It's hypocritical to say the least, and smarts of a house divided against itself, for we would then be our own oppressors just 100 years ago.

+1

Plus, if a person does not violate someone's fundamental rights, leave them alone. I understand that there is a difference in God's laws dealing with public vs private. If 10 men want to have an orgy at home in private, it is not hurting anyone else now is it? They will have to answer to God for it, but not us. If they want to have that behavior in public, they would have to be stopped.

People need to let others alone to live their own lives. So what if they want to live in fornications, live gay, run around their back yard naked worshipping a tree. God's future political government protects all men in their rights to live free. Now if you are a member of the church, you would need to be dealt "handled" but to non-members in private so what!

[firendcaptain of 1,000]

Oh ya to add,

Why was the church so adament about proposition 8 when they turned around and supported gay rights in Salt Lake County?

[medvedcaptain of 50]

I have to agree with ithink. In fact, as a law professor I have struggled with prop 8 from the get go. It is interesting to me to see people raise the constitution and say "this protects me and my views but not you and your views." I think, in essence, that was much of what prop 8 was about. If in fact we could legislate the definition of fundamental rights--and marriage is a fundamental right legally speaking--then we could define anything any way we wanted and the constitution would cease to have any meaning whatsoever. I am not saying that the constitution has suffered from diminished respect and meaning, because it has, but if in fact we could legislate the definition of any fundamental right, then it would have zero meaning. It is interesting to note that Justice Scalia--who is still on the supreme court--predicted that gay marriage would in fact be legal some years ago. Some of you may recall the case of Lawrence vs. Texas in which the supreme court struck down a law in Texas that made sodomy a crime punishable by imprisonment. Scalia's prediction was that the Lawrence opinion would open the door for gay marriage. Oh, and get this, he also said it would open the door to polygamy. Interesting. Anyway, I don't see how we can reconcile an argument that says, in essence, the constitution protects my rights to say what you can't do even if it doesn't impact my constitutional rights, while at the same time consider ourselves champions of freedom. But I am ignorant in many things.

[bobhenstracaptain of 1,000]

Lol, polygamy would start when I'm to old to care! But the honest truth, Jo was more woman than I could handle, she made sure of that!

Bob

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

Oh ya to add,

Why was the church so adament about proposition 8 when they turned around and supported gay rights in Salt Lake County?

I'll even one up that - why has the church spent so much time, effort and money defending proposition 8 while 4,000 babies are aborted (murdered) in this country every day?

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

Lol, polygamy would start when I'm to old to care!

Hope that was TIC Bob?

[firendcaptain of 1,000]

Oh ya to add,

Why was the church so adament about proposition 8 when they turned around and supported gay rights in Salt Lake County?

I'll even one up that - why has the church spent so much time, effort and money defending proposition 8 while 4,000 babies are aborted (murdered) in this country every day?

excellent point

[7cylon7captain of 1,000]

If gay marriage is allowed should not polygamy marriage and the other types of marriage be allowed as well? Talk about hypocritical.
And of course marriage to animals and marriage to BBQs are constitutional as well.

I laugh at your logic here.

[medvedcaptain of 50]

If gay marriage is allowed should not polygamy marriage and the other types of marriage be allowed as well? Talk about hypocritical.
And of course marriage to animals and marriage to BBQs are constitutional as well.

I laugh at your logic here.

Um, yeah. You must not have read all the posts because we've already discussed how a supreme court justice takes the position that polygamy should be allowed pursuant to the same logic.

Also, Animals and BBQs do not = entities that possess the ability to contract. Which is important because marriage = contract.

[Matthew.Bcaptain of 100]

The problem with all you guys is you can't see the forest for the trees.

In fact, the proposition is unconstitutional.

I'm pretty sure the 10th Amendment reserves all rights not specifically enumerated to the states and the people... "Every" right.

You can argue that it doesn't belong at the state level, but as Prop. 8 did not violate any part of the Bill of Rights or any other article of the Constitution, it is not "unconstitutional". I don't buy into the idea that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment- unless we buy into the progressive view that the law is constantly evolving.

If I'm wrong, please show me where. I read your argument- but it rings hollow. According to the law of the federal government, Prop. 8 was legal. The real issue the judges had was that it hurt the feelings of gay people that their abominable practices aren't wholly accepted by the majority yet- and they twisted their reasoning to justify that feeling.

Our destruction has been laid by our lawyers and judges and politicians... Now we reap the whirlwind.

[believercaptain of 100]

Col Flagg-----Could you please explain more about the pole flip, or where I could get more information? Thank you.


Believer

[uglypitbullcaptain of 1,000]

Also, Animals and BBQs do not = entities that possess the ability to contract. Which is important because marriage = contract.

Unfortunately this is incorrect....they (NATO and UN) are trying to redefine this via treaty (which is a back door way to get laws passed via Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution). A SC case in regards to a boy abusing his dog was the precedent for this one. It had something to do with the dog having feelings, therefore should be protected under the law. It will allow bestiality and other sickness to become protected under hate crime laws.
We have been warned that this is the goal...read the planks...they have been talking about it for over 100 years.

[gkearneycaptain of 1,000]

I would just like to point out here that the Church has temples in a number of countries where same sex marriage is legal, Canada, Denmark, Spain just as examples. In none of these cases has there been any effort to force the church to perform same sex marriages.

In the unlikely event that the U.S. government were to attempt to force the church to perform such marriages in the temple there is a simple and effective means of getting around that problem. The Church would simply do in the U.S. what they do in England now, require a civil marriage and then perform the sealing afterward. The sealing is a religious rite separate for the legal act of marriage and not effected by it.