NationStates Jolt Archive

My source.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-me-marriage2sep02,1,5050060.story?ctrack=1&cset=true


SACRAMENTO — The California Senate voted Thursday to allow homosexuals to marry, becoming the first legislative body in the United States to embrace the idea and setting off a scramble for three votes needed for passage in the Assembly.

Almost completely along party lines, the Democrat-controlled Senate approved the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, which would allow marriage between two people rather than only between a man and a woman.

The measure passed by the minimum number of necessary votes, 21-15, after a sometimes personal debate in which both sides acknowledged the momentous nature of the vote.

Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), one of six openly gay legislators in Sacramento, said that allowing homosexuals to marry "unchains a community that has participated in this state since its inception."

With only a week left before lawmakers adjourn for the year, the measure faces a tough fight in the Assembly, which defeated it in June. Signaling a likely veto if it does pass, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's spokeswoman said he preferred to let judges sort out the legality of gay marriage; such a case is moving toward the state Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, advocates said the vote was a milestone in the effort to make California the first state whose elected representatives decide to allow gays to marry. Massachusetts is the only state that allows such marriages, but that was decreed by the state's courts. Vermont and Connecticut permit civil unions.

Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), the proposal's chief sponsor, said, "We're looking for three votes, and I can't tell you today who the three will be, but I think the power of the success coming from the floor of the Senate today will give us the necessary momentum and encouragement to do what we all know is the right thing to do."

He is targeting four Democrats to try to get the remaining three: Jerome Horton of Inglewood, Simon Salinas of Salinas, Gloria Negrete McLeod of Chino and Tom Umberg of Anaheim. All said Thursday they were not sure how they would vote.

"I'm being lobbied hard, and I still have an open mind," Umberg said.

Opponents decried the vote as a repudiation of the will of the electorate, which five years ago passed Proposition 22, declaring that California would recognize only marriages between men and women. They said that legislators cannot undo a law passed by 61% of the public without putting it before the electorate again.

"How can God bless California when our lawmakers do this?" asked Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, which is collecting signatures for one of several initiatives that would amend the state Constitution to outlaw gay marriage. "The Democrat-controlled Senate has completely overturned the people's vote on marriage."

Andrew Pugno, a legal advisor to ProtectMarriage.com, a coalition of groups that helped approve Proposition 22 and is pushing its own initiative, said that protecting heterosexual marriage through the Constitution "would send a clear message to the Legislature to stop tinkering with the voters' decision on this issue."

These efforts come as appellate courts weigh whether to uphold a San Francisco judge's ruling in March that the state's marriage law illegally discriminates. The case is expected to reach the California Supreme Court in 2006.

Schwarzenegger's spokeswoman, Margita Thompson, said that although the governor supports domestic partnerships, he does not agree with legislatively allowing gay marriages.

California's domestic partnership law provides many of the same rights and obligations as marriage.

"The people spoke when they voted in Proposition 22," Thompson said. "It has subsequently gone to the courts, and the governor believes that is where it should be decided. It's an issue for the people and the courts."

Asked about a veto, she said the governor's office does not commit before legislation reaches Schwarzenegger's desk.

Even if it were to pass and be signed, opponents would probably file a court challenge saying that it would require voter approval because of conflicts with Proposition 22. But backers are prepared to argue that it would amend a different part of state family law and that Proposition 22 only prevents California from recognizing gay marriages performed outside the state.

In a signal of how precarious passage was even in the generally liberal Senate, advocates waited to hold the vote until they were assured that Sen. Kevin Murray (D-Culver City), whose wife was about to give birth, could be present to declare his support.

All the Republicans voted against it, as did one Democrat, Dean Florez of Shafter, in the conservative Central Valley. Three other Democrats abstained: Denise Ducheny of San Diego, Michael Machado of Linden and Jack Scott of Altadena.

In an unusually somber and long debate, 18 Democrats took the floor. They portrayed opening marriage to gays as the natural evolution of an institution that once was based on property and prohibited interracial unions. They noted that California's marriage law was neutral on gender from 1850 until 1977.

"Those of us who are heterosexual need to say this very clearly: It is not fair that we have given ourselves a privilege that we've denied to others," said Sen. Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont).

Sen. Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) spoke of her 20-year lesbian relationship, and Kuehl recalled the joy she saw in gay couples she married last spring during the period when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom authorized gay unions.

Sen. Edward Vincent (D-Inglewood), who is black, recalled the struggles he faced when he married a white woman. "When we were slaves, we couldn't marry nobody," Vincent said.

Only two Republicans spoke, and both said that gay marriage would distort the best arrangement for raising children: by a woman and man.

Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) said he believed that homosexuals should be allowed to enter into civil contracts. "But can't you see that marriage is a fundamentally different institution?" he asked. "Marriage institutionally exists in nature by which we propagate our species and inculcate our young with values and standards and sociological guidance that produces human society.

"If we repealed all the laws of the world," McClintock said, "marriage would still exist."

Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth (R-Murrieta) said: "I don't believe there's a member in this chamber who doesn't somewhere, either readily on the surface or down inside, know that this is not the right thing to do. I believe that comes from a higher power that put that knowledge in you. That higher power is also the higher power that created the institution of marriage."

The comments brought retorts from Democrats who said gays had already shown themselves capable of raising children. They also quoted passages of tolerance from the Bible.

"I respect the choices you make. I struggle every day to understand them," said Sen. Carole Migden (D-San Francisco), a lesbian. "But I don't presume to judge you, to think it's my right to interfere with your interpretation of your love."

Advocates have been heartened by the July decisions by Spain and Canada to legalize gay marriage, following the Netherlands and Belgium. Seth Kilbourn, director of the marriage project at the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group based in Washington, D.C., said the Senate's action was "another teachable moment for the rest of the country" that demonstrated "after a considered, rational and reasonable debate that people will come down on the side of treating all families equally under the law."

Leno said he hopes the Assembly will take up his measure, AB 849, on Tuesday. Supporters will need 41 votes for passage but were able to muster only 37 in June.

Leno said one assemblyman absent that day, Mervyn Dymally (D-Compton), supports the bill.

Leno said he and Alice Huffman, California president of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, and Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers of America, are lobbying for passage in the Assembly.

"We're making history," he said. "It doesn't happen easily."
It's a good start. If this passes in the assembly, California may be the second state in America to legalize gay marriage. :)

It seems awfully early to call anything.

And am I the only one confused by the governator's stance? Haven't republicans been the ones decrying the fact that this has been happening in the courts, and have been the ones calling for legislative* action? And now that the legislature is acting, he's talking about it belonging in the courts? WTF?

(sarcasm) *Because, as we all know, legislatures have such a good record on defending minority rights... (/sarcasm)

Yay!

Now watch the Republicans, who "support state's rights" come and turn this into a federal issue.

It seems awfully early to call anything.

And am I the only one confused by the governator's stance? Haven't republicans been the ones decrying the fact that this has been happening in the courts, and have been the ones calling for legislative* action? And now that the legislature is acting, he's talking about it belonging in the courts? WTF?

(sarcasm) *Because, as we all know, legislatures have such a good record on defending minority rights... (/sarcasm)
It's a bit early yes, but it's a pretty good start, and I think it's a big deal, seeing as how I'm Californian and a strong supporter of gay marriage.(Doesn't mean I'm gay though. ;))

Yay!

Now watch the Republicans, who "support state's rights" come and turn this into a federal issue.

Oh, they did that a long time ago with the federal amendment fiasco. The Republicans seem to only be for state's rights when it suits them. Just like the Democrats.

Ah, the two-party system. :rolleyes:

(Doesn't mean I'm gay though. ;))

I'm sorry to hear that.

My source.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-me-marriage2sep02,1,5050060.story?ctrack=1&cset=true


It's a good start. If this passes in the assembly, California may be the second state in America to legalize gay marriage. :)
I needed something to brighten my day. Thank you :).

I'm sorry to hear that.
Why are you sorry to hear that?

Why are you sorry to hear that?

"10% is not enough. Recruit, recruit, recruit!" ;)

"10% is not enough. Recruit, recruit, recruit!" ;)
... yeah... I'll stick with staring at women's breasts like an idiot thank you. :p

Yay, go us.

Lord, I hope we dont elect arnold again. He's a republican, who doesn't support gay marriage or gun ownership. What is there to like about him?

Yay, go us.

Lord, I hope we dont elect arnold again. He's a republican, who doesn't support gay marriage or gun ownership. What is there to like about him?
...erm... he can beat up other governors? :p

"My governator can beat up your governor!"

Way to go California! :)

Yay, go us.

Lord, I hope we dont elect arnold again. He's a republican, who doesn't support gay marriage or gun ownership. What is there to like about him?

You heard him, he'll be back...
Also, people have different oppinions, so gun- and gay-hating republicans oblivously like him. (I am against gun ownership, though)

Also: Yay! Finally some good news from US. I'd begun to lose hope.

Way to go California! :)
iQuote.

That is all there is to say.

It seems awfully early to call anything.

And am I the only one confused by the governator's stance? Haven't republicans been the ones decrying the fact that this has been happening in the courts, and have been the ones calling for legislative* action? And now that the legislature is acting, he's talking about it belonging in the courts? WTF?

(sarcasm) *Because, as we all know, legislatures have such a good record on defending minority rights... (/sarcasm)
That was my first reaction, too. Christ dudes, make up your mind.

They should just come out and say "We want this decided by the body most likely to decide the way we want it." Not that that isn't obvious to anyone paying attention...

That was my first reaction, too. Christ dudes, make up your mind.

They should just come out and say "We want this decided by the body most likely to decide the way we want it." Not that that isn't obvious to anyone paying attention...

You must not try to understand the Double Standard! It will destroy your feeble mind! :eek:

They should just come out and say "We want this decided by the body most likely to decide the way we want it." Not that that isn't obvious to anyone paying attention...

ZOMG! You said what I didn't want to say. :fluffle:

"Those of us who are heterosexual need to say this very clearly: It is not fair that we have given ourselves a privilege that we've denied to others," said Sen. Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont).
Woot! Go legislator from a place I once lived!

Good for the California Senate.

I wish the Wrong Wing Republicans would just come out and say, "we don't want homosexuals to have any rights at all because we find them disgusting." That would at least end their hypocritical doublespeak.

So let me get this straight. When the majority of people in california vote for a ballot initiave to make marriage between a man and awoman, it is the fault of the "Wrong Wing Republicans" , and is voted down by the courts, but when 21 people vote for gay marriage, suddenly this is a good thing? WTF is going on in that state?

BTW, it was a majority of Californai voters, not some political party.

That works about as well as popular sovereignty in the south. We aren't a democracy, and we don't have tyranny of the majority, which is exactly what that is.

Antre_Travarious']So let me get this straight. When the majority of people in california vote for a ballot initiave to make marriage between a man and awoman, it is the fault of the "Wrong Wing Republicans" , and is voted down by the courts, but when 21 people vote for gay marriage, suddenly this is a good thing? WTF is going on in that state?

BTW, it was a majority of Californai voters, not some political party.
Sometimes a minority needs to be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

Sometimes a minority needs to be protected from the tyranny of the majority.
But mostly the majority needs to be protected from the tyranny of the minority and special interest groups. This is exaclty the bullshit that is splitting the United States into several thousand little balkanized groups.

Antre_Travarious']So let me get this straight. When the majority of people in california vote for a ballot initiave to make marriage between a man and awoman, it is the fault of the "Wrong Wing Republicans" , and is voted down by the courts, but when 21 people vote for gay marriage, suddenly this is a good thing? WTF is going on in that state?

BTW, it was a majority of Californai voters, not some political party.

You know, once upon a time, a majority of voters in the south would have voted to keep black people as second class citizens. Once upon a time, a majority would've voted to outlaw "interracial" marriages. Once upon a time, the majority of voters thought that women shouldn't even vote. Once upon a time, a majority in most states were for segregation.

Majority rules doesn't really have a good civil rights track record in this country.

Antre_Travarious']But mostly the majority needs to be protected from the tyranny of the minority and special interest groups. This is exaclty the bullshit that is splitting the United States into several thousand little balkanized groups.

No, the majority doesnt need protection from the minorities.

The majority doesnt like the idea of gays. So they vote against giving them fair rights.

Gays want equal rights, not special rights. We need protection from equal rights?

Antre_Travarious']But mostly the majority needs to be protected from the tyranny of the minority and special interest groups. This is exaclty the bullshit that is splitting the United States into several thousand little balkanized groups.

I like it that way.

Antre_Travarious']But mostly the majority needs to be protected from the tyranny of the minority and special interest groups. This is exaclty the bullshit that is splitting the United States into several thousand little balkanized groups.
Make your case as to how this applies here.

Antre_Travarious']But mostly the majority needs to be protected from the tyranny of the minority and special interest groups. This is exaclty the bullshit that is splitting the United States into several thousand little balkanized groups.

Oh noes! The gays won't let me trample their rights! I'm so persecuted!!!! Tyrany of the minority!!!!!! Tyranny of the minority!

Oh noes! The blacks won't let me trample their rights! I'm so persecuted!!!! Tyrany of the minority!!!!!! Tyranny of the minority!

Oh noes! The women won't let me trample their rights! I'm so persecuted!!!! Tyrany of the minority!!!!!! Tyranny of the minority!

Oh noes! The Jews won't let me trample their rights! I'm so persecuted!!!! Tyrany of the minority!!!!!! Tyranny of the minority!

Oh noes! The handicapped won't let me trample their rights! I'm so persecuted!!!! Tyrany of the minority!!!!!! Tyranny of the minority!

Oh noes! The Native Americans won't let me trample their rights! I'm so persecuted!!!! Tyrany of the minority!!!!!! Tyranny of the minority!

Oh noes! The Latinos won't let me trample their rights! I'm so persecuted!!!! Tyrany of the minority!!!!!! Tyranny of the minority!

You know, I'm a bit disappointed right now. As of now, I have not seen one religious anti-gay condemn this yet. :p

You know, I'm a bit disappointed right now. As of now, I have not seen one religious anti-gay condemn this yet. :p

u somdomtes r gong t hel! :gundge: (I'm not serious, of course :p )

I don't think there's enough of a vocal anti-gay faction on this board to even muster it.

Oh, and this is a good start. It looks like gay marriage is going to spread one state at a time as people realize it isn't forcing others views on them, but rather giving everyone the same priveliges. This will hopefully start a domino effect. (timed perfectly with the backlash against the religious right...Pat Robertson must be pissed, and doubly so with the Chavez aid offer)

"10% is not enough. Recruit, recruit, recruit!" ;)

Jack Chick the Twat (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1052/1052_01.asp) wants you to say that.

See, all gays are evil child-molesting bastards who want only to make other people gays!

apart from a few things:

1) people forget there is nothing wrong with who you love

2) Do i want to make all gay people heterosexual? no. so why should gay people want me to turn gay?

3) nobody likes jack chick

4) he dissed Dungeons and Dragons (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp)

5) repeatedly! (http://www.chick.com/articles/frpg.asp)

Yep, i'm 100% for gay marriage, and though i don't care if someone is homophobic, i'm 110% against public 'gay-bashing'. Jack chick is a narrow-minded idiot.

Jack Chick the Twat wants you to say that.

Jack Chick is demented. Please, do not give him publicity.

5) repeatedly! (http://www.chick.com/articles/frpg.asp)

LOL, I read through some of it. It's really funny. And demonstrates a complete lack of understaning of the actual rules of D&D (although I admit I never played before 3.0)

*hopes it's passes*

Jack Chick is demented. Please, do not give him publicity.

Sorry. Is public flogging with oversized magic swords counted as publicity? if yes, please join in!

*hands out +5 vorpal longswords*

OH NOES! now i'm making you all damned to HELL

Jack Chick is hereby banned from this thread. :p

Antre_Travarious']But mostly the majority needs to be protected from the tyranny of the minority and special interest groups. This is exaclty the bullshit that is splitting the United States into several thousand little balkanized groups.

Protected how?

[Fundie Mode]Now it is only a matter of time before God punishes California with The Big One, just like he punished the morally-bankrupt of New Orleans[/Fundie Mode]

C'mon, you know someone somewhere is thinking just that

Fellow, brothers and sisters, I come to you tonight to discuss the issue of sodomy. I do find sodomy to be a vile and highly immoral practice. It is unnatural and above all else, it is not of God. Sodomy serves no purpose which will benefit the whole of humanity. Sodomy is only lust and is pure and utter sin of the worst kind. Sex is for procreation only, it is not for sexual pleasure as the sinners would have you believe. It is to create life, that is its only purpose, so sayeth the Lord.

To do otherwise to insult God, and a sinner would dare to do such a thing to his Father. Only a sinner would bite the very gracious hand that feeds him. Aside from it being unnatural and devilish, it is an insult to all of humanity. From the female comes Life. The manner in which the sodomites perform their practice insults Life by perverting sex itself. One does not and should not have sex with another in the same oriface that excretes foul waste!

How selfish is this practice. It is a sign of selfishness to put your own pleasure above the reputation of the entire world. Sex is meant to be between a man and a woman, or a woman and another woman. For the vagina is pure and can only be corrupted by the male organ. Thus, sex between two members of the female sex is not unholy. Spilling seed is a grave sin and should be punished!

However, sodomy should not be illegal under United States Law. Although it is a sin, the government should not dictate what happens in the bedroom. That will serve only as a precedent. And if the unbelievers rise and take control of the healm, sodomy will be mandatory. So, we must not go to the government to purify the nation.
Does that settle your fundie-fix?

I don't think government should have any say in the matter.

It seems awfully early to call anything.

And am I the only one confused by the governator's stance? Haven't republicans been the ones decrying the fact that this has been happening in the courts, and have been the ones calling for legislative* action? And now that the legislature is acting, he's talking about it belonging in the courts? WTF?

(sarcasm) *Because, as we all know, legislatures have such a good record on defending minority rights... (/sarcasm)

That's certainly how they're pissing and moaning here in Massachusetts. "Waaah! Evil activist courts. Let the legislature make laws!"

Yay Californian Senate. Hopefully it'll get through the Assembly, though, as stated before, the governator still has veto privileges. It does seem to be that the Republicans only want the issue dealt with by one body when the other seems to be favouring a decision they don't like. Bleh.

Sex is for procreation only, it is not for sexual pleasure as the sinners would have you believe. It is to create life, that is its only purpose, so sayeth the Lord.

How selfish is this practice. It is a sign of selfishness to put your own pleasure above the reputation of the entire world. Sex is meant to be between a man and a woman, or a woman and another woman. For the vagina is pure and can only be corrupted by the male organ. Thus, sex between two members of the female sex is not unholy. Spilling seed is a grave sin and should be punished

Wait a minute! He just said that sex is for procreation only, and yet he's saying lesbian sex is natural? And what's all this about "purity" and "corruption"?

So let me get this straight...female/female sex is fine, but male/male sex is bad because it involves the butt. And supposedly God doesn't like buttsex because it doesn't create life? That's their best argument? Should I point out that lesbian sex doesn't result in life either!

Agh! :headbang: Idiots! :headbang:

Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth (R-Murrieta) said: "I don't believe there's a member in this chamber who doesn't somewhere, either readily on the surface or down inside, know that this is not the right thing to do. I believe that comes from a higher power that put that knowledge in you. That higher power is also the higher power that created the institution of marriage."

Why not just come out and say God doesn't want homosexuals to marry? And I hate to break it to this guy but marriage has been around much longer then his higher power.

It's been a while since we've had a good ol' gay marriage thread. It's funny that Americans are so cautious about gay marriage. As giving gays too many rights will cause the world to implode.

My source.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-me-marriage2sep02,1,5050060.story?ctrack=1&cset=true


It's a good start. If this passes in the assembly, California may be the second state in America to legalize gay marriage. :)

Sickening. No wonder America is faltering. How much acceptance of things against the bible before God realized America no longer held him in very much regard.

Sickening. No wonder America is faltering. How much acceptance of things against the bible before God realized America no longer held him in very much regard. What do you expect from Protestants?

There you go, two moderately offensive things in the thread already. :p

Its refreshing to see a significant moral issue decided by an elected body for a change. This is how the system is supposed to work, not through the courts but through the people you put in office.

Yay!

Now watch the Republicans, who "support state's rights" come and turn this into a federal issue.
Don't make the poor little guys think too hard... That's mean :p

What do you expect from Protestants?

There you go, two moderately offensive things in the thread already. :p

Aye, is a good thing in a way. We are one step closer to the end of mankind and their sick natures.

I was just hoping it would hold off a bit till my kids got to see a lil good of what God had intended here first....

Wait a minute! He just said that sex is for procreation only, and yet he's saying lesbian sex is natural? And what's all this about "purity" and "corruption"?

So let me get this straight...female/female sex is fine, but male/male sex is bad because it involves the butt. And supposedly God doesn't like buttsex because it doesn't create life? That's their best argument? Should I point out that lesbian sex doesn't result in life either!

Agh! :headbang: Idiots! :headbang:
I think that the real subtext is that girl on girl sex is hot. He's trying to protect hot sex.

That's what it looks like to me, anyway...

Aye, is a good thing in a way. We are one step closer to the end of mankind and their sick natures.

I was just hoping it would hold off a bit till my kids got to see a lil good of what God had intended here first....

Many people would argue that dogmatic religion and the hypocrisy therein is a better example of the 'sick natures' of mankind than letting two boys or two girls marry each other if they want.

*adds his bit of offensive crud to the thread*

California COULD let the gays marry? Congrats for the californian people, then; they will be a little more free.

BTW what's the state that already has legalized it?

Aye, is a good thing in a way. We are one step closer to the end of mankind and their sick natures.

I was just hoping it would hold off a bit till my kids got to see a lil good of what God had intended here first.... Don't build a mountain out of a rolly-mo hill. And don't destroy mankind either. Don't fall into nihilism, in fact. And I'm sure your kids' ideals won't be destroyed.

It's good news that this seems to be gaining momentum. For some reason we've been kinda slow here in New Zealand, though at least we now have civil unions which I'm pretty sure have all the legal rights of marriage. They should've just called it marriage though, "civil union partner" is a pretty ugly phrase compared to just husband or wife...

My source.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-me-marriage2sep02,1,5050060.story?ctrack=1&cset=true


It's a good start. If this passes in the assembly, California may be the second state in America to legalize gay marriage. :)
All I got to say is thank god they are trying to do the right thing

Sickening. No wonder America is faltering. How much acceptance of things against the bible before God realized America no longer held him in very much regard.

Meh ... don't like it? Get out. Try Saudi Arabia ... see theocracy in action.

California COULD let the gays marry? Congrats for the californian people, then; they will be a little more free.

BTW what's the state that already has legalized it?
I believe Massachusetts, although I'm not sure.

Antre_Travarious']So let me get this straight. When the majority of people in california vote for a ballot initiave to make marriage between a man and awoman, it is the fault of the "Wrong Wing Republicans" , and is voted down by the courts, but when 21 people vote for gay marriage, suddenly this is a good thing? WTF is going on in that state?

BTW, it was a majority of Californai voters, not some political party.

You are indeed correct. The People in California voted to keep marriage between one man and one woman. Leave it to the Judiciary to undo said vote.

Anway, at least this was done by the senate and not the courts. That is all I'm going to say for now till I hear what takes place in the assembly.

Does that settle your fundie-fix?

I don't think government should have any say in the matter.

I agree. Let the people decide what they want. Apparently most of California doesn't want gay marriage. The Government should respect that.

Meh ... don't like it? Get out. Try Saudi Arabia ... see theocracy in action. That would be Iran. Mesa perfectionist. :)

I agree. Let the people decide what they want. Apparently most of California doesn't want gay marriage. The Government should respect that.
Sense when do we allow the will of the majority to trample the rights of the minority?

If a majority of voters voted that blacks were not human and should not be afforded “human” rights would you support that as well just because it is the will of the majority?

I agree. Let the people decide what they want. Apparently most of California doesn't want gay marriage. The Government should respect that.

I agree ... somewhat. The will of the people is an essential tool in the progress of this nation, which is a nation built by the people, for the people.

However, sometimes, now and then, what the people want is wrong. The people wanted slaves. The people didn't want women to vote. The people didn't want us involved in WWII.

Sometimes the people need to be overruled. It's a necessary and oft unspoken check and balance.

Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth (R-Murrieta) said: "I don't believe there's a member in this chamber who doesn't somewhere, either readily on the surface or down inside, know that this is not the right thing to do. I believe that comes from a higher power that put that knowledge in you. That higher power is also the higher power that created the institution of marriage."
Some random kingdom in ancient Africa?

California COULD let the gays marry? Congrats for the californian people, then; they will be a little more free.

BTW what's the state that already has legalized it?

None of them have legalized it through the legislature.

It was done in Massachuttess but that was because of the courts and that pissed off the state that it was done through the courts. Most of the legislature is against it.

That would be Iran. Mesa perfectionist. :)

Hey ... either way ... just get him outta my country. :p

Sense when do we allow the will of the majority to trample the rights of the minority?

Since when should a vote be undone by the courts?

If a majority of voters voted that blacks were not human and should not be afforded “human” rights would you support that as well just because it is the will of the majority?


If the people themselves voted for it then who am I to condemn it. I may not like it but I won't have a leg to stand on to condemn it because it was done openly.

I agree ... somewhat. The will of the people is an essential tool in the progress of this nation, which is a nation built by the people, for the people.

However, sometimes, now and then, what the people want is wrong. The people wanted slaves. The people didn't want women to vote. The people didn't want us involved in WWII.

Sometimes the people need to be overruled. It's a necessary and oft unspoken check and balance.
Exactly the government has a responsibility to step in when the will of the majority turns into the tyranny of the majority

They are the ones that set the basic rights they have a responsibility to make sure that they are applied fairly to all their constituents

If the people themselves voted for it then who am I to condemn it. I may not like it but I won't have a leg to stand on to condemn it because it was done openly. Even Il Papa (who I don't think supports gay marriages) has said "the majority is not always right". Remember, Hitler was voted in.

Since when should a vote be undone by the courts?




If the people themselves voted for it then who am I to condemn it. I may not like it but I won't have a leg to stand on to condemn it because it was done openly.
The one right the majority do not have is to take away the rights of the minority … this has been proven to be true in the united states by a plethora of court and legislative cases throughout history and this standard should be maintained

Since when should a vote be undone by the courts?




If the people themselves voted for it then who am I to condemn it. I may not like it but I won't have a leg to stand on to condemn it because it was done openly.

Adolf Hitler was elected by the German people as Chancellor. So are you saying that if the majority votes for what anyone with an intact brain cell can see as someone or something we don't want in place, then it's okay?

Even Il Papa (who I don't think supports gay marriages) has said "the majority is not always right". Remember, Hitler was voted in.

Yes he was voted in and if he hadn't declared war on all of Europe then the United States, nothing would've been done to remove him.

The one right the majority do not have is to take away the rights of the minority … this has been proven to be true in the united states by a plethora of court and legislative cases throughout history and this standard should be maintained

Nice dodge of the question!

I'm sorry but the people already spoken on this issue. They do not want gay marriage. Those in the Senate that voted for it will have to explain their vote to the people they represent.

If this passes the General Assembly, I'm looking for a shake up because the people have voted via referendum to keep marriage between one man and one woman.

Props to California. If we can't get the government out of the marriage business completely, this is the next best thing.

Adolf Hitler was elected by the German people as Chancellor. So are you saying that if the majority votes for what anyone with an intact brain cell can see as someone or something we don't want in place, then it's okay?

I'm not goint to quivel about the person that launched the war that started the European part of World War II.

As for your last sentence, if its a free vote, who am I to condemn the choice?

Yes he was voted in and if he hadn't declared war on all of Europe then the United States, nothing would've been done to remove him.

But going by your logic on California, the invasion of Europe by Nazi Germany was the will of the German Majority, and that the Allies mobilizing to stop them was in fact thwarting and going against the will of the German people!

Wow, you really should read your own posts sometimes.

:rolleyes:

Yes he was voted in and if he hadn't declared war on all of Europe then the United States, nothing would've been done to remove him.

And he would have committed genocide with no opposition... yes, you've convinced me, the majority should always get their way.

But going by your logic on California, the invasion of Europe by Nazi Germany was the will of the German Majority, and that the Allies mobilizing to stop them was in fact thwarting and going against the will of the German people!

Wow, you really should read your own posts sometimes.

:rolleyes:

What he said.

But going by your logic on California, the invasion of Europe by Nazi Germany was the will of the German Majority, and that the Allies mobilizing to stop them was in fact thwarting and going against the will of the German people!

And it was the will of the majority of nations that declared war on Germany to prevent him from taking all of Europe. We can play this shell game all day long.

Nice dodge of the question!

I'm sorry but the people already spoken on this issue. They do not want gay marriage. Those in the Senate that voted for it will have to explain their vote to the people they represent.

If this passes the General Assembly, I'm looking for a shake up because the people have voted via referendum to keep marriage between one man and one woman.
Sorry maybe I should have made it more clear for you
A vote should be undone by the courts when it violates the rights of the minority

Like I said the majority does not have the right to restrict the rights of the minority just because it is popular to do so

Sorry maybe I should have made it more clear for you
A vote should be undone by the courts when it violates the rights of the minority

Like I said the majority does not have the right to restrict the rights of the minority just because it is popular to do so

At least it isn't getting legalized by the courts. That is all that I require. The states should decide this issue and that is precisely what is being done.

Ugh, more about "states' rights"?

The Civil War was fought over that bullshit. It needs to end.

Ugh, more about "states' rights"?

The Civil War was fought over that bullshit. It needs to end.

Why? The states have rights just like the federal government.

There's actually a reasonable excuse as to why the Governor wants the courts to settle it. In California, the legislature can be overruled by three methods- the state Supreme Court or a higher federal court, the Governor's veto, and a direct vote of the people. Because Proposition 22 is in place, only a weird kind of legal maneuvering can get the results of the legislative vote to skirt around the people's vote. Which is, as critics of the current Congress would admit, a little shady.Therefore, the only way to get the issue finalized is to pass it through the state Supreme Court.

Like I said, that's only a reasonable excuse. Proposition 22 was passed under completely different circumstances. I'm absolutely sure that if a new proposition to reverse 22 were to be held today, it would. And then there would be no conflict.

Why? The states have rights just like the federal government.

They shouldn't.

Well, it's great that more people are starting to realize that they don't have any reason to decide what others can do.

However, I am rather sickened that we still must fight through a system of majority rule to get rights. What gives others the right to decide what we can do? Democracy is a great system when used correctly, but using it to take away the rights of others is disgusting, and it is even more disgusting that apparently a majority of people residing in my country think that it is correct to do so.

They shouldn't.

Who shouldn't? The Feds or the States?

And it was the will of the majority of nations that declared war on Germany to prevent him from taking all of Europe. We can play this shell game all day long.

But it wasn't it also the will of the majority of nations to surrender the Sudetenland over to Germany for "Peace in Our Times?" Other than the small insignificant detail of the people of the Sudetenland have absolutely no say in the matter whatsoever, it was the will of a majority conceding to the will of a majority.

And since when do the gay population of America not count as a majority to you? After all, as your brilliant piece of logical argument on World War 2 goes, it's their will to keep from being treated as subhuman beings as the "heterosexual majority" is trying to keep them per status-quo.

You're copping out from having to answer the question of moral responsibility by "leaving it to the majority." That little amusing tradeoff we had about the will of Nazi Germany versus the will of the rest of Europe just shows how very complicated it gets when you try to pass the buck on to a majority, especially when it conflicts with the interests of another majority. And how you have absolutely little or no ability or inclination to think for yourself. Just the kind of people the Busheviks are looking for.

They shouldn't.

Bah! A universal set of values and standards set upon the states by the federal government is as poisonous to our democracy as a complete confederation of states.

The thing comparing the validity of majority votes and legislative votes is that the senators should consider the affect of their vote on the populace as a whole and vote accordingly. In this case the majority are heterosexual and as such will be pretty much unaffected by the outcome. The senators are therefore (quite rightly) considering the rights of the homosexual community with much more weight than the result of a population wide vote.

Who shouldn't? The Feds or the States?

The states.

Every state should have identical basic laws... Crossing state lines shouldn't be like going to another country.

Bah! A universal set of values and standards set upon the states by the federal government is as poisonous to our democracy as a complete confederation of states.
'Cause it sucks being recognized as a married couple wherever you go... in your own country... pffft. :rolleyes:

The thing comparing the validity of majority votes and legislative votes is that the senators should consider the affect of their vote on the populace as a whole and vote accordingly. In this case the majority are heterosexual and as such will be pretty much unaffected by the outcome. The senators are therefore (quite rightly) considering the rights of the homosexual community with much more weight than the result of a population wide vote.

But surely the outrage and annoyance of all those fundies is a greater con than the benefit of granting rights to a bunch of sinful sinners!

Although that Rev Ellis quoted earlier appeared to think there's nothing wrong with legalising hot girl-on-girl action...

'Cause it sucks being recognized as a married couple wherever you go... in your own country... pffft. :rolleyes:

*tosses a $20 Gold coin to Dobbsworld*

Finally, somebody agrees with me on the "states' rights" bullshit!

The states.

Every state should have identical basic laws... Crossing state lines shouldn't be like going to another country.

I disagree and since we won't convince one another, why don't we agree to disagree?

I disagree and since we won't convince one another, why don't we agree to disagree?

Well, I'll say this as a parting argument: Having identical laws from state-to-state wouldn't necessarily homogenise everything. It'd just make it a lot simpler to go around the country. What's so wrong with having identical rights?

It wouldn't be like this: California and Massachusetts allow gay marriage, but Ohio and Mississippi don't. They would all have to allow it.

'Cause it sucks being recognized as a married couple wherever you go... in your own country... pffft. :rolleyes:

Actually, I happen to believe that DOMA is unconstitutional. And it does suck that people aren't going to be recognized as equal everywhere. But that's why we have to fight in each individual state to get it passed through, for legitimacy's sake.

*tosses a $20 Gold coin to Dobbsworld*

Finally, somebody agrees with me on the "states' rights" bullshit!
I think it's appalling in the 21st century that an American cannot be guaranteed the same rights and freedoms irrespective of which state they reside in.

But surely the outrage and annoyance of all those fundies is a greater con than the benefit of granting rights to a bunch of sinful sinners!


That's the point though, they might be outraged but it doesn't actually affect anything to do with their lives. They can happily carry on not getting involved in same sex relationships and ignore anyone who is if they really want to.

I think it's appalling in the 21st century that an American cannot be guaranteed the same rights and freedoms irrespective of which state they reside in.

Agreed.

It would also toss out the ridiculous, archaic laws made in the the late 1800's/early 1900's... Such as Texas:

"You cannot walk on the side of a highway without shoes."

"You cannot shoot a bull with a rifle from the third story of an office building during the afternoon."

Oh, and how about the city of Seattle?

"All fire hydrants must be checked one hour before fires."

See what I'm talking about? That's states' rights in action.

And the federally mandated funds crisis in some states is a result of an increasingly centrist government. I think that's slightly more important than a few obscure laws that don't account for anything.

And the federally mandated funds crisis in some states is a result of an increasingly centrist government. I think that's slightly more important than a few obscure laws that don't account for anything.

Who said anything about a centralised government?

This is just about keeping the laws the same in every state.

I agree that homogeneity in the law across states is appealing, but there are a number of ways to do so without violating states rights.

First, states can adopt uniform codes which are constructed by legal experts, such as judges, lawyers, professors, and so on. The Uniform Commerical Code is a successful example of the states adopting, more or less, the same law on commerical transactions.

Second, state courts can make use of the various Restatements of the law. While these Restatements are not binding, they bring together in one place the legal principles behind a certain subject. When higher courts use these restatements, they gain some authority. Eventually, courts will have similar holdings in similar cases across various states.

You don't need to upset whatever balance there is between state and federal sovereignity to give the law some sense.

"Full faith and credit"

That doesn't establish homogeneity.

The State Senate voted in favour of Gay marriages... and the governator vetos the law. Way to sell out the people who voted for you Arnold. :rolleyes:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/gay.marriage.ap/index.html

I love the double standard with this sort of thing. Social "conservatives" bitch about the courts being elitists who are out of touch with the common person when they do something the conservatives don't like, and if the legislature does something they don't like, then they argue that the legislature is made up of elitists won are out of touch with the common person.

The State Senate voted in favour of Gay marriages... and the governator vetos the law. Way to sell out the people who voted for you Arnold. :rolleyes:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/gay.marriage.ap/index.html

Actually he didn't. He followed through on Propositions 22 that passed overwhelmingly in CA that states taht they don't want gay marriage. In effect, he followed through on the proposition by vetoing the law saying that the people don't want gay marriage.

The State Senate voted in favour of Gay marriages... and the governator vetos the law. Way to sell out the people who voted for you Arnold. :rolleyes:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/gay.marriage.ap/index.html

lol I guess we shouldn't have bothered trying to free the slaves or stop segregation because the majority wanted it. God when will people realize that having a majority does not make it right. What a sell out from Arnold.

Actually he didn't. He followed through on Propositions 22 that passed overwhelmingly in CA that states taht they don't want gay marriage. In effect, he followed through on the proposition by vetoing the law saying that the people don't want gay marriage.

The people elected the legislators as their representatives. Said legislators voted to change a 5-year old law. Apparently, the people want gay marriage, as they voted in representatives who voted in their stead for it.

If they weren't for it, they should have voted in different legislators. That's how a republic works, I'm afraid.

The gubernator says he wants the people (and the courts) to decide. Well, the people have decided, as the legislature is the representative of the people in government.

lol I guess we shouldn't have bothered trying to free the slaves or stop segregation because the majority wanted it. God when will people realize that having a majority does not make it right. What a sell out from Arnold.
From a political point of view, what Arnold did makes sense--it's not right, but it makes sense. Unless you're a Californian or a political junkie like me, you probably don't know that Arnold's popularity is in the toilet right now--about a 35% approval rating--and he's trailing the two declared Democratic candidates for the 2006 race, Angelides and Westly. All he's got left right now in terms of support is the extreme conservatives, and if he'd signed this bill, he'd have lost them as well. He's got to be hoping that they'll stay with him and that he can turn on the charm next year in order to win.

From a political point of view, what Arnold did makes sense--it's not right, but it makes sense. Unless you're a Californian or a political junkie like me, you probably don't know that Arnold's popularity is in the toilet right now--about a 35% approval rating--and he's trailing the two declared Democratic candidates for the 2006 race, Angelides and Westly. All he's got left right now in terms of support is the extreme conservatives, and if he'd signed this bill, he'd have lost them as well. He's got to be hoping that they'll stay with him and that he can turn on the charm next year in order to win.

Oh believe me I know its a politically motivated move. What politician does something these days without some form of political motivation involved.

Nazz I need you....

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9606724#post9606724

The people elect Senators and Representatives to represent them and their interests. They do not, however, get to have the right to hold tyranny against any minority; whether it be homosexuals, latinos, african americans etc. The system has it's checks and balances not for what the people want, but for what's good for the people.

The people elected the legislators as their representatives. Said legislators voted to change a 5-year old law. Apparently, the people want gay marriage, as they voted in representatives who voted in their stead for it.

If they weren't for it, they should have voted in different legislators. That's how a republic works, I'm afraid.

The gubernator says he wants the people (and the courts) to decide. Well, the people have decided, as the legislature is the representative of the people in government.

And yet the people themselves, WHO VOTED ON THIS ISSUE, said no! Explain that one Dempublicents.

And yet the people themselves, WHO VOTED ON THIS ISSUE, said no! Explain that one Dempublicents.

The people are wrong? I'm just throwing that one out there for you. :rolleyes:

And yet the people themselves, WHO VOTED ON THIS ISSUE, said no! Explain that one Dempublicents.
They said no five years ago. There have been new elections in the legislature since then--perhaps the views of the majority have changed. Besides, there's a solution to this if the people aren't happy with the legislature--they can always toss them out in the next election and tell the new people they want the law repealed.

They said no five years ago. There have been new elections in the legislature since then--perhaps the views of the majority have changed. Besides, there's a solution to this if the people aren't happy with the legislature--they can always toss them out in the next election and tell the new people they want the law repealed.

We'll never know but since Prop 22 (I think that is the number) blantently said NO to gay marriage....

I guess they should hold another referendum on this issue and see if minds really have changed.

We'll never know but since Prop 22 (I think that is the number) blantently said NO to gay marriage....

I guess they should hold another referendum on this issue and see if minds really have changed.
That's the danger of the referendum. Knowing California, I imagine there would be a move to do just that next year, had Arnold signed it.

And yet the people themselves, WHO VOTED ON THIS ISSUE, said no! Explain that one Dempublicents.

Five years can change quite a bit, my dear.

If the people had voted in the last election, you might have a point. As it is, all you have are two different ways for the people to speak - and the second time they spoke, after five years, the decision has changed.

If the people don't like this decision, they can and will vote out their representatives and replace them with bigots that will vote the way they want. In fact, they could have a recall election at any time, if they have the support for it.

One way or another, the legislature is one way in which the people speak.

We'll never know but since Prop 22 (I think that is the number) blantently said NO to gay marriage....

I guess they should hold another referendum on this issue and see if minds really have changed.

What's really funny is that even after they passed that referendum people were not happy. I cant remember the name of the article but someone posted it here awhile ago about how some people wanted to repeal a law by the former california govenor before arnold, that gave homosexuals almost all the same rights as regular married couples. Thats a scary thing. They get the legislation that says marriage is between a man and a woman and they still want to go further.

Actually he didn't. He followed through on Propositions 22 that passed overwhelmingly in CA that states taht they don't want gay marriage. In effect, he followed through on the proposition by vetoing the law saying that the people don't want gay marriage.That proposition is 5 YEARS OLD. The democratically elected law makers voted recently in favour of same-sex marriage.

If the people themselves voted for it then who am I to condemn it. I may not like it but I won't have a leg to stand on to condemn it because it was done openly.

Sure you could. The USA is a republic, not a democracy. Prime difference being that the representatives of the people should protect their followers against these things - even if the followers themselves do not see the threat.

Allowing gay marriage is good. It hurts noone (straights can still marry after all) and makes others happy. Where is the downside ?

Woo! Go California!

Remember, if you guys ever want to leave the states, you're sure to find a home with Canada. :D

Woo! Go California!

Remember, if you guys ever want to leave the states, you're sure to find a home with Canada. :D
According to the Human Development Report for 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, etc, etc, etc..., they would definitely be better off.

Please someone, show me where the "right to marry" is enumerated in any constitution of any state of the United States of America, or in the federal constitution? Or what court case created the emanation of a penumbra of a "right to marry?" :rolleyes:

In the meantime, I propose lowering the age of consent and age of marriage without parental consent to fifteen, and I propose that marriage between any number of consenting entities be immediately legalized, and that for purposes of marriage, consent is not required of corpses, animals or dead animals. :cool:

Whew-now I can marry all my dead kitty kats. And there will be love! Where's the KY? :eek:

Hey, I have a right! Gotta go check out the county morgue for attractive human partners. They're quiet, and they never scream no matter what I do...

OK-bottom line, anybody can get married, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. And that is the way it should stay. If they want to, let them create their own institution, make up their own rules. No one is stopping them from doing that. :fluffle:

I want to change the rules of tennis so that I can have a chance of winning the US Open. First, I am allowed to play naked-the sight of my body would distract the other player so that I could hit the ball right past them (distract as in make them vomit up last week's lunch)...or maybe we could play with rifles instead of rackets, and targets instead of a net. But it has to be called tennis. That is my right!

Please someone, show me where the "right to marry" is enumerated in any constitution of any state of the United States of America, or in the federal constitution? Or what court case created the emanation of a penumbra of a "right to marry?" :rolleyes:
Under "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The supreme court has ruled that marriage is a right. Don't like it? tough :D


In the meantime, I propose lowering the age of consent and age of marriage without parental consent to fifteen, and I propose that marriage between any number of consenting entities be immediately legalized, and that for purposes of marriage, consent is not required of corpses, animals or dead animals. :cool:

Whew-now I can marry all my dead kitty kats. And there will be love! Where's the KY? :eek:
Propose away. Write to your congressman. But, right now, marriage requires consent and dead kitties cannot legally give consent. :)

Hey, I have a right! Gotta go check out the county morgue for attractive human partners. They're quiet, and they never scream no matter what I do...
Again, consent...
besides, corpses have the right to not marry you. :fluffle:

OK-bottom line, anybody can get married, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. And that is the way it should stay. If they want to, let them create their own institution, make up their own rules. No one is stopping them from doing that. :fluffle:
So what about places where polygamy is allowed in the marriage? What about where marriage is a completely non-religious institution, like it was in the beggining? Why your definition of marriage is THE definitive definition of marriage?

And the right to get married to someone of the other sex, if allowed to stand, opens the door to many other thing: you can only get married to someone of the same colour, someone of the same age, someone of the same income bracket. Why would you want to deny two loving people to legally share their finances and have power of attorney on each other? :rolleyes:


I want to change the rules of tennis so that I can have a chance of winning the US Open. First, I am allowed to play naked-the sight of my body would distract the other player so that I could hit the ball right past them (distract as in make them vomit up last week's lunch)...or maybe we could play with rifles instead of rackets, and targets instead of a net. But it has to be called tennis. That is my right!
So, in effect, you are for gay marriage since you want to change the rules yourself to give a level playing field to everyone. :p

Didn't public opinion polls as recent as Nov. 2004 show that the people were still opposed to the notion of same-sex marriage in California? According to some articles I googled, yes.

That proposition is 5 YEARS OLD. The democratically elected law makers voted recently in favour of same-sex marriage.

BTW, none of the candidates I voted for said anything about same-sex marriage during the last campaign, probably since the voters had already spoken by their votes on that proposition.

Wait, all the laws on civil rights are more than 5 years old. Let's have a re-vote on each one!

(my parents, both black, did just fine before those laws passed in the USA back in the mid-60's---they both worked, owned a four-bedroom house, two cars, etc. Of course, they lived in New Jersey, so that may have had something to do with it?)

And all those amendments to the US Constitution are all over 5 years old...let's re-pass them all, starting with the first 10 aka Bill of Rights!

Yeah!

And those laws about the speed limits must be over 5 years,and the laws about having to wear seat belts, and wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. In fact, all laws should just expire after 5 years. After all, nothing is written in stone.

Under "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The supreme court has ruled that marriage is a right. Don't like it? tough :D


-snip-

And the right to get married to someone of the other sex, if allowed to stand, opens the door to many other thing: you can only get married to someone of the same colour, someone of the same age, someone of the same income bracket. Why would you want to deny two loving people to legally share their finances and have power of attorney on each other? :rolleyes:



So, in effect, you are for gay marriage since you want to change the rules yourself to give a level playing field to everyone. :p

Right now, any group or couple can legally share their finances and have power of attorney on each other without being related. I could get a joint account and power of attorney with you, as long as you sign on the dotted line. We don't even have to live in the same country. So who's stopping anyone from doing the same?

Why change marriage? Even polygamy is between opposite sexes (one husband or one wife, multiple wives or husbands) as far as I know. Or is it?

Right now, any group or couple can legally share their finances and have power of attorney on each other without being related. I could get a joint account and power of attorney with you, as long as you sign on the dotted line. We don't even have to live in the same country. So who's stopping anyone from doing the same?

Why change marriage? Even polygamy is between opposite sexes (one husband or one wife, multiple wives or husbands) as far as I know. Or is it?
Polygamy: there are many types. In some, all the partners are married to each other. Besides that is not the point. The point is: why is your definition better than any other definition?

Power of attorney and other related things: Do you know the sheer amount of legal documents we would have to sign to have the same rights and benefits of a married couple? Do you know the cost it would engendre to have said documents? Why should they have to pay for these costs when heterosexual couples do not?

Besides, some things would never be achieved like tax breaks when the spouse dies. Also, the papers are filled with stories of power of attorneys contract challenged in court by the family of one of the partner and other stories like one guy not being able to be with his lover while he was dying because he was not a close relative.

besides what the hell does it matter what the US govt.s legal definition of marriage is? it can be changed and should be to allow for gays to marry those that they are attracted to and love. What harm is there in that?

the churchs definition sure as hell doesnt matter as marriage is a social institution first

BTW, none of the candidates I voted for said anything about same-sex marriage during the last campaign, probably since the voters had already spoken by their votes on that proposition.

Wait, all the laws on civil rights are more than 5 years old. Let's have a re-vote on each one!

(my parents, both black, did just fine before those laws passed in the USA back in the mid-60's---they both worked, owned a four-bedroom house, two cars, etc. Of course, they lived in New Jersey, so that may have had something to do with it?)

And all those amendments to the US Constitution are all over 5 years old...let's re-pass them all, starting with the first 10 aka Bill of Rights!

Yeah!

And those laws about the speed limits must be over 5 years,and the laws about having to wear seat belts, and wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. In fact, all laws should just expire after 5 years. After all, nothing is written in stone.You are completely missing the point. :rolleyes:


I haven't said anywhere that when a law hits the age of 5 it should be reviewed. If that 5 year old proposition was valid then why did the senate waste it's time debating and voting on the issue last week?

And what... Do you mean to say that because a law is older than 5 years, it can't be changed or discarded? Laws are reviewed ALL THE TIME.

Nevermind... I've never seen so many people so happy to see fellow americans have their rights taken away from them because of a one man unilateral decision.