will the homosexuals be happy now ?

[Ca Patriot]

I object to the government officials in California choosing not to defend the constitutional amendment that was lawfully passed by California voters. The government officials swore an oath to uphold and defend the laws of the state.

I object to the judges that ruled Prop 8 was unlawful.

 

[MSG Laigaie]

..........You don't have to agree with the law, but you do have to apply it equally to everyone............

What is wrong with homosexuals being happy? Shouldn't we all?

I see bigots.....and they don't even know they are bigots.....

 

[Citizen]

I object to the government officials in California choosing not to defend the constitutional amendment that was lawfully passed by California voters. The government officials swore an oath to uphold and defend the laws of the state.

I object to the judges that ruled Prop 8 was unlawful.

I understand.

But, you should also realize that government in this country has been--from day one--based on a lie: consent of the governed.


The entire [STRIKE]il[/STRIKE]legitmacy of every state and national government since 4Jul76 depends on these words from the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence: "To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The fact of the matter is that vast numbers of people have been ruled without their consent. Government pretends that a majority of equals magically aquires the power to rule a minority without the minority's consent.

Either one consent's to be governed or he doesn't. If he doesn't consent, the government has no legitimate power to govern (sic for rule) over him since he is by definition an equal.

So, since governments have been ruling people based on a lie--that they are ruling by consent of the governed--since 1776, its no surprise that the express will of the people is ignored by government. If government can rule a minority without its consent, government can certainly rule a majority against its wishes.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I object to the government officials in California choosing not to defend the constitutional amendment that was lawfully passed by California voters. The government officials swore an oath to uphold and defend the laws of the state.

I object to the judges that ruled Prop 8 was unlawful.

The duty of judges are to uphold and defend laws, when the laws conform to their properly delegated position of negating injustice.

A patriot should study what our legal system is supposed to be based upon and the theories they are derived, from.

Rule of law does not mean we the free people are ruled by law it means the "rulers" are restrained by law.

 

[Citizen]

The duty of judges are to uphold and defend laws, when the laws conform to their properly delegated position of negating injustice.

A patriot should study what our legal system is supposed to be based upon and the theories they are derived, from.

Rule of law does not mean we the free people are ruled by law it means the "rulers" are restrained by law.

I wonder?

I wonder if it is really just a rhetorical argument? Or, maybe a demarcation line. For example, if the rulers do not consider themselves restrained by law, then they have no room to complain when we break out the pitchforks and torches in response to injustice or tyrannical abuses.

Or, maybe this whole "rule of law" business is just intended to lull the gullible--since the rulers seem to have no intention to be bound by either law or decency. The only people who seem to win from a dependence on rule of law are the lawless in the government who make the laws.

 

[Ca Patriot]

California voters passed a constitutional amendment.

A judge said it wasn't "constitutional" and the state government refused to enforce or defend it.

Why should I abide by any laws in California now ?

 

[Mattimusmaximus]

-Matt of Hillsboro OR-

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I wonder?

I wonder if it is really just a rhetorical argument? Or, maybe a demarcation line. For example, if the rulers do not consider themselves restrained by law, then they have no room to complain when we break out the pitchforks and torches in response to injustice or tyrannical abuses.

Or, maybe this whole "rule of law" business is just intended to lull the gullible--since the rulers seem to have no intention to be bound by either law or decency. The only people who seem to win from a dependence on rule of law are the lawless in the government who make the laws.

These are good points, just like the wannabe Tyrant Hamilton lied in selling the constitution to the public in the Federalist papers making claims he later tried to say wasn't a limit on Federal power.

From a philosophical view point it is a sound theory on if we are to have government on how it should work.

I realized recently from reading Bastiat's The Law that there is no person can be a law maker, he didn't say that per se, but he did talk about how human law must fit into natural law or negate injustice something positive law does not do and that it is akin to any other law, like gravity, it has a fixed nature. With this thought I realized there is no "law makers" because the law is already there and any human effort upon it must coincide with it's natural aspects and when it doesn't it has a negative effect on people, just like we cannot just jump off a building and not suffer any consequences for ignoring the law of gravity.

 

[wrightme]

California voters passed a constitutional amendment.

A judge said it wasn't "constitutional" and the state government refused to enforce or defend it.

Why should I abide by any laws in California now ?

Because the ones still coded into law, have not been judged unconstitutional.

 

[wrightme]

The humans have been on this earth for about 8,000 years and there has NEVER been same sex marriages until about 30 years ago.

Opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with Christianity in the context of the history of humans on earth.

Gun rights advocates should be jealous of gay marriage. There is a CLEAR and EXPLICIT right to keep and bear arms in America. There is NO constitutional right to same sex marriage in America.

How ironic that California is now rushing to legalize same sex marriage and trampling gun rights in an unprecedented manner.

Am I supposed to be happy that gays get the right to marry and I don't even have the right to carry a gun in my state ?

Use it as a model towards YOUR goal.

I understand your frustration at that, but your dislike of the gay marriage issue smacks of 'if not for me, then not for thee.'

 

[wrightme]

I read through the ruling today and from what I read the court most certainly did not rule that same sex marriage is a constitutional right.

How about the irony of the "standing" issue though.

California officials sworn to protect and uphold the laws of the state refused to argue for Prop 8 in court, forcing petitioners to argue for it. The court rules petitioners have no standing.

However, Obama administration officials, who are sworn to protect and uphold DOMA, choose NOT to defend it and the court rules in their favor.

I feel that SCOTUS operated properly in the prop 8 case, in not granting cert.

CA officials did the right thing, accepting the lower court ruling on Constitutionality. They accepted the verdict of the court. Is that not how it is supposed to work?

I swear liberals make up constitutional law to simply fit their policy goals.

Keep in mind I have always advocated for government to end prohibitions on same sex marriage, but this ruling is just horrible constitutional law.

How can a trial court in California rule Prop 8 was unconstitutional because it violates the states constitution ? Its impossible.

Can you articulate WHY you feel that is impossible?

How could the trial court rule Prop 8 violated US constitutional law when there is NO constitutional right to same sex marriage and this ruling didn't even grant that.

Is I recall, that wasn't the ruling, was it?

California government officials are simply ignoring the law that voters lawfully and constitutionally passed.

Can I ignore the illegal California gun laws that the government passed ?

CA officials are correct to ignore a law passed by the voters, when it has been struck down as unconstitutional.

No, you cannot ignore CA gun laws that have not been struck down.

as for the amendment voted in by the citizens, this is an excellent example where the 'tyranny of the majority' created statute. It is correct to have scrutiny over that. Use that as a model for how to approach the laws that YOU see as unconstitutional.

 

[wrightme]

You obviously haven't even read my posts because I have clearly said a number of times that I oppose any government prohibitions against same sex marriage.

Every single new station I turn on is nothing but celebrations over the ruling. I don't recall seeing a single celebration on the news after the Heller or McDonald rulings. I don't recall reading any Facebook posts by hundreds of people about how great the Heller and McDonald decisions are.

Why doesn't the news run a story on the California government officials who committed perjury when they swore to uphold the laws of the state ? How about Obama and Holder who swore to uphold federal law like DOMA ?

Today isn't anything to celebrate. Today is a day that celebrated government corruption and very shady interpretations of the US Constitution.

I am in California right now. My gun rights are almost completely gone in this state. But hey, thanks to my elected government officials, I learned I don't have to even follow the law, I can just ignore it and the courts will reward me.......

Gay marriage is fine. Trampling the constitution and rewarding corrupt government officials is not the way to achieve equality.

It is quite understandable that this issue is trumpeted throughout the media, and the DC v Heller opinion was not.

The media likes rainbows. The media hates shooting irons.

 

[wrightme]

I would say it's up to the CHURCHES to determine marriage. Unless the states are the new church.

F1M, I was about to reply, then saw that MKE said what I was about to say.

Churches have always determined whose marriage they want to 'sanctify', but that is a separate and unrelated issue to who the state approves of.
The role of the state is to record the contract and enforce the various property rules which go with it.
Nothing about recording a contract is religious, so the state should (and now does) record contracts between all couples.
By refusing to record some contracts, the state is enforcing religion, and that's illegal.

 

[wrightme]

If it's as simple as a contract then have it recorded at a lawyer's office or some other secure method. A contract to live together could be between anyone, that is fine.

The problem is that there is a license required which makes ALL forms of marriage ILLEGAL unless otherwise granted by the state.

It isn't illegal to 'marry' without that license, is it?


It IS NOT legal to claim state benefits based upon marital status, without a license from the state.

 

[77zach]

It's not about gay marriage, it's about social engineering and a media agenda. A similar agenda is putting on a show trial in my state for Treyvon Martin. Gays are a small % of the population, and most have "sex" with many many partners. They usually don't maintain monogamous relationships. It's a victory for very very few people.

So no, they will never be done. Read the book "The Forever War" by Joseph Haldemon, they might quit when sexuality gets to that point. Nothing less will satisfy them.

You may also look at Romans Chapter 1 for an explanation of what is going on this society.

 

[marshaul]

Gays are a small % of the population, and most have "sex" with many many partners. They usually don't maintain monogamous relationships. It's a victory for very very few people.

Most straight people have "sex" with many many partners. Doncha know.

And I can't fathom how freedom is any less important because it's only exercised by a few.

I suspect there are more gays (who might want the option to one day get married) than there are open carriers. Let's make some contemptuous statements about those "very very few people" (ourselves) shall we? Since, I mean, after all, the number of people who exercise a freedom is, apparently, of any relevance whatsoever.

-1 for this post.

 

[wrightme]

Most straight people have "sex" with many many partners. Doncha know.

And I can't fathom how freedom is any less important because it's only exercised by a few.

I suspect there are more gays (who might want the option to one day get married) than there are open carriers. Let's make some contemptuous statements about those "very very few people" (ourselves) shall we? Since, I mean, after all, the number of people who exercise a freedom is, apparently, of any relevance whatsoever.

-1 for this post.

Very good points.

+1 for your post.

 

[georg jetson]

These are good points, just like the wannabe Tyrant Hamilton lied in selling the constitution to the public in the Federalist papers making claims he later tried to say wasn't a limit on Federal power.

From a philosophical view point it is a sound theory on if we are to have government on how it should work.

I realized recently from reading Bastiat's The Law that there is no person can be a law maker, he didn't say that per se, but he did talk about how human law must fit into natural law or negate injustice something positive law does not do and that it is akin to any other law, like gravity, it has a fixed nature. With this thought I realized there is no "law makers" because the law is already there and any human effort upon it must coincide with it's natural aspects and when it doesn't it has a negative effect on people, just like we cannot just jump off a building and not suffer any consequences for ignoring the law of gravity.

C. S. Lewis covers some of these ideas from a Christian perspective in one of his books "Mere Christianity". To me it's interesting that people of different belief systems can come to the same conclusions. If we put aside attempts to make things fit an agenda, we can see that the law which governs our interactions is there for us to discover as much as any other law of nature.

Great points SVG!

 

[77zach]

Most straight people have "sex" with many many partners. Doncha know.

And I can't fathom how freedom is any less important because it's only exercised by a few.

I suspect there are more gays (who might want the option to one day get married) than there are open carriers. Let's make some contemptuous statements about those "very very few people" (ourselves) shall we? Since, I mean, after all, the number of people who exercise a freedom is, apparently, of any relevance whatsoever.

-1 for this post.

It's not freedom to help destroy the fabric of society. An unethical society is an unfree society. However, I'm not calling for their persecution and if two sodomites want to enter into a legal contract with each other, then they should be able to. I don't believe the state should define or license marriage.

 

[Citizen]

Deleted: thunk it over s'more and decided he was maybe more right than I was.