Constitutional Amendment introduced to ban same-sex marriage MOD ALERT

Fail? What has failed? So a troll keeps trolling despite all argument, that hardly means the argument has failed. You'd need to put up better argument for that. Ignoring everyone's points doesn't count.

As for insult, first I just testified to the truth, and second, for me to comment on your posts at all is to praise them beyond all reason.

 

Yeah, you need a little work on the reading comprehension.
The Federal District Court ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional, and that's where it stands.
No one with standing has challenged that ruling, those elected by the people to make that decision have decided not to appeal, that's how a Republic works.
It is possible for California to pass a law that passes constitutional muster, but alas, time has passed and the votes aren't there to pass it, because most Californians now favor same sex marriage.
The system works.

 

Why not?....you're bound and determined to ignore mine....


fail.

 

"I don't want the government interfering with marriage... unless it's to ban gay marriage."

^ seems legit.

 

We are the government. We decide if gays polygamists, minors and others qualify for marriage. None of those are a protected class. So we decide. It couldn't be simpler.

 

Nope. I've answered yours. Much more than I should have. Time for you to go on ignore now.

 

Only if the Constitution is amended to allow for national referendums.

For now it is a state issue.

And in all cases- as always- the majority is constrained by both the U.S. Constitution and individual states constitutions.

- - - Updated - - -

As usual your analysis is wrong- factually

 

that's the only definition that matters.

- - - Updated - - -

proven lie

 

proven lies

- - - Updated - - -

proven lies

 

Rather cowardly of you,I'm not ignoring you because you don't agree with me...If you didn't want to respond to me anymore you should just stay quiet

- - - Updated - - -

You mean it's the only PC one you'll accept.

 

its the only relevant definition

 

No the relevant definition is the Supreme Court declaring in DOMA Ruling last month that states get to decide yes or no on gay marriage. Prop 8 is valid therefore. And gay marriage is most certainly not a constiutional right therefore. If it was, they'd have made it mandatory across the 50 states. But they didn't, did they? So, denying gay marriage is NOT unconstitutional therefore. So Prop 8 is valid and the law therefore.

What needs to march back up to the Supreme Court at this point is a case of a voter or voters in California defending not Prop 8, because it needs no defense at this point. Instead they need to bring a case defending the California initiative system of enacting laws. They have some rogue public servants out there that need to get smacked around a little.

 

The said no such thing at all.

 

According to PC

 

You are a Big Liar, spreading disinformation.

I asked you this question in message 424: You said "officials" have warned that same sex marriages now taking place in California may not be legal. Can you name one?

Are you ever going to answer?

 

according to the law

- - - Updated - - -

proven lies

 

You haven't "proven" rahl, that lower courts, one or a million of them can trump what the Supreme Court said last month. And that is: gay marriage is not a constitutional right [because they left it up to each state to decide] AND therefore, in so Saying, the Trump Court said "California can say no to gay marriage"....which it did....in Prop 8...and another proposition before that one. So, therefore, Prop 8 is still the Law in California. And if people are trying to say that it's not, they are really saying "we are declaring war on democracy and are dismantling the initiative system without the permission of the People". If I was president, I'd send in the National Guard to suppress the rebellous and rogue public servants there.

The clearest violation of constitutional law in all this is the defiance of those rogue public servants against the power of the Supreme Court. They are literally declaring a police state in California. The power of the vote has been removed from the people. People's votes in the middle east are more potent.

 

Which is pure PC

 

Already addressed.

- - - Updated - - -

Already debunked.

 

it's the law. pretending it isn't doesn't make it go away

- - - Updated - - -

proven lies

 

I think we should accept by now that silly doesn't listen to anyone and instead repeats her same ridiculous debunked self.

I quite imagine her to look like Maggie Gallagher of NOM in real life for some reason...

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=m...AA&biw=768&bih=928#biv=i|25;d|jHD0gc5RsI4HLM:

The word deluded somehow springs to mind.

 

Well now wait a minute... I came in ready to blast my own (and the tin foiler)


But no... the SC ruled that CA's prop 8 be booted due to technicality, and did not rule that gay marriage is a constitutional right, just that California's argument did not bear out. I believe they will... I am not particularly fond of it, but not because I oppose gay marriage. I just oppose gay propaganda... however you guys need help understanding the issue. The ex-mod can fix this. Cannot pull their nic atm.

 

The 10th amendment is a recognition of the sovereignty of the people through the states. If the states want to exercise an enumerated power then that's allowed - so long as the Federal government isn't given the power to prevent them. Likewise, the Fed has no power to prevent the people from doing the same.

 

I'm not pretending it's not the law,I'm just saying the law is wrong

 

It's not wrong, you just don't like it