PROP 8 OVERTURNED- Page 5
PROP 8 OVERTURNED
theatreguy
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/31/03
#100PROP 8 OVERTURNED
Posted: 8/5/10 at 4:56pmThanks for sharing that, romantico. I'd never heard of this Cenk Uygur fellow, but I'm definitely a fan now.
#101Consider Other Views
Posted: 8/5/10 at 7:26pm
There are other factual, constitutional views on this issue. Just a little fact to keep things fair and balanced.
Fair and Balanced
ghostlight2
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/5/04
#102Consider Other Views
Posted: 8/5/10 at 7:54pm
I like Jefferson. He used to say he'd rather have a newspaper but no government rather than a government with no newspaper.
Here's to the overturn and rights for all!
#103Consider Other Views
Posted: 8/5/10 at 7:59pm
I think your "quote" of Jefferson might be a little skewed. Let's try his actual statement.
"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.
He prefers newspapers and no government. He was against these activist court decisions.
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
#104Consider Other Views
Posted: 8/5/10 at 8:04pmWell Ghostlight, the "papers" are a bit diminished when you can not believe a word they say.
ghostlight2
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/5/04
#105Consider Other Views
Posted: 8/5/10 at 8:07pmIt isn't skewed, it's truncated. Since he's dead I'll beg to differ that he would have been against "these activist court decisions", the likes of which he probably couldn't even imagine, and unless you can speak to the dead, that's a really tough claim you make. Any scholar of Jefferson's knows that above all, he was for the rights of the common man, and if those rights mean that the common man wants to marry an uncommon man, I think Jefferson would have been all for it.
#106Consider Other Views
Posted: 8/5/10 at 8:13pm
You obviously did not read the documentation in the link. Jefferson predicted that the courts would over-step.
Hey, you could apply for a job on Matthews or Maddow.That's how they construct their propaganda every night. Ignore the facts and argue embarrassing, raw emotion.
#107Consider Other Views
Posted: 8/5/10 at 8:13pm
Since we are quoting Jefferson ...
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "
FWIW, since "equal law" must protect the rights of the minority, it would seem that he anticipated the courts protecting the minority from oppression by the majority.
Updated On: 8/5/10 at 08:13 PM
#108Consider Other Views
Posted: 8/5/10 at 8:15pmAs Jefferson foresaw, unelected jurists who enjoy lifetime tenure act today not to enforce the Constitution in accord with the Founders' intent, or to adjudicate laws and legislation consistent with lawmakers' intent, but chose to impose on the law interpretations that advance the interests of liberal ideological agendas. And to interfere in matters on the local and state levels that exceed federal courts' authority.
ghostlight2
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/5/04
#109Consider Other Views
Posted: 8/5/10 at 8:16pm
True, papers ain't what they used to be, Joe.
And great quotes YWIW.
#110Consider Other Views
Posted: 8/5/10 at 8:22pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yCWVnQ_u84
#111Consider Other Views
Posted: 8/5/10 at 9:01pm
Love This!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zG-L5rVAIk
broadwayboy101
Broadway Star Joined: 3/20/08
#112Consider Other Views
Posted: 8/5/10 at 9:10pmCute: Count's still pretending to be a Democrat even though he seems to lean Republican on every issue...
#113PROP 8 OVERTURNED
Posted: 8/5/10 at 9:11pmDoes anyone know approximately when the decision on the stay will be announced?
#114PROP 8 OVERTURNED
Posted: 8/5/10 at 9:16pm
The current stay is short-term. Both sides have to submit their arguments to Walker by tomorrow (Friday, 8/6). Judge Walker will probably decide shortly thereafter.
Note: if Walker lifts the stay, I THINK that the prop 8 proponents could petition the Circuit Court (the next appellate level) for a stay.
#115PROP 8 OVERTURNED
Posted: 8/5/10 at 9:18pm
Thank you.
*crosses fingers*
#116PROP 8 OVERTURNED
Posted: 8/5/10 at 9:26pmAs for activist judges, Jefferson would probably be astounded at the actions of the Roberts court. Granting individual rights to corporations is far beyond the Constitution, and the epitome of judicial activism. As for Judge Walker, protecting the rights of a minority from being taken away by the majority is clearly one of the primary functions of the judicial branch. Rights are not subject to voting or referendum.
#117PROP 8 OVERTURNED
Posted: 8/5/10 at 9:54pm
I Love what Mike Malloy has to say about this. I understand his anger and frustration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pntS1nJfL6I
#118PROP 8 OVERTURNED
Posted: 8/5/10 at 9:56pm
This was posted on Facebook by a friend of my niece, a man who is a self described Conservative, Republican Christian:
"I have to view this proposition and every other gay marriage action in light of the three main parts of who I am:
1. An American
2. A Christian
3. A Republican
As an American, I seek to ensure that this Nation is today as free as or even more so than it was yesterday. We declared our independence upon that great philosophy that every human is endowed by a creator with the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The first two are self explanatory. The last, that of pursuing happiness, is one upon which I most often fall.
If I, as an American, want to protect my own right to pursue happiness within the bounds of respect for my fellow patriots, I must protect that right for everyone. The notion that two Americans of the same gender make each other happy is not one that I understand, but a pursuit which I cannot but protect.
As a Christian, I am taught by Jesus himself that there are three things that I should do, above all others.
"'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind' - this is the great and foremost commandment, and there is a second like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'. The whole Law and Prophets hang on these two commands." (Mtt 22:37-40, Mrk 12:28-34).
There are many theological debates on the issue of homosexuality, and I have, at one or another time in my life, argued both sides. I have come to rest on these beliefs: I am no theologian, I have no idea if homosexuality originates in the DNA or by choice, and it does not matter. I am commanded by the man whose life was sacrificed for my own to love my neighbor as myself. Not after my neighbor passes a test, or agrees with me on all the issues. I am just to love him as myself. Taken to the next level, if I am to emulate Christ, I should love my neighbor more than myself, regardless of his lifestyle.
As a Republican, I have come to the conclusion that the argument does not stick. I am a Republican because I believe the idea of limited government and fiscal restraint are the best avenues of government. History, in that regard, is in our favor. Somewhere along the line, Republicans got saddled with the idea that we MUST be the party of only one homogeneous person.
We have been slipping since. I cannot be an advocate for limited government across the board - except in that one area. Either we limit it, or we don’t. I vote for the former. Therefore I most easily reconcile being a (truly) conservative Republican with the fact that it is none of Uncle Sam’s business who I marry, so long as that person is an adult.
In conclusion, the one event in my life that cemented these three beliefs was when I married my wife. I cannot tell you what manner of trouble I would have raised if we had been prohibited from marrying, nor the lengths I would have gone so that she would be my wife. I refuse, as an American, to deny someone the pursuit of happiness with a spouse that makes them as happy as my wife makes me. I refuse, as a Christian, not to love everyone equally. I refuse, as a Republican, to lose another election because we are on the wrong side of this issue."
So there is hope.
#119PROP 8 OVERTURNED
Posted: 8/5/10 at 10:11pmTed Olson said it best. This IS NOT a Conservative or Liberal issue. It is a human rights/equal rights issue!Still, I love that post. I can think of a few friends who will benefit from it. Thanks for sharing!
#120Fair and Balanced
Posted: 8/5/10 at 10:45pm
The Obama elite versus the American people. "Specifically Judge Walker overturned the California Marriage Protection Act after concluding, as a matter of fact, that the majority of Californians who voted to protect marriage were bigots who had no rational basis to define marriage on their own terms." He essentially said that marriage exists because heterosexuals have been homophobic and practicing discrimination since the beginning of time. "Here are just some of the 'facts' Judge Walker found: * Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians. * The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships."
This is what he "found," and the reason he found this is because the only testimony he took was from advocates, and this is what they said. None of this is legal. None of this is law. This is all political. This is all social. And so the social demands, the political beliefs of the opponents of Prop 8 have now been codified into law by one of their own, a judge. "The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian." That's not been codified as law. It's no different than the judge down in Arizona deciding on the basis of hypotheticals to overturn the Arizona law on illegal immigration. Judge Walker found "The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child's adjustment outcomes."
I don't know what that is but that's not law. There's no precedent. There is no law for any of this that this judge found or cited. Some of the other "facts" that the judge found: "Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted. How did Judge Walker arrive at these 'facts'? By agreeing with everything the same-sex marriage proponents' 'experts' said while ruling that the traditional marriage witness was 'unreliable' and 'provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate.'" So we don't even have case law. We don't have law, period. We have leftist activism that a judge sided with in the form of testimony.
That has now been codified into law. "According to Judge Walker's reasoning every single one of these Americans is a bigot whose opinion on marriage has no place under Judge Walker's Constitution. From the beginning, it was clear that Judge Walker was more interested in making a political statement than upholding the rule of law. That is why after Judge Walker ruled that the trial could be broadcast live, the Supreme Court took the remarkable step of overturning his decision, writing in January: 'Not only did [Judge Walker's court] ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue.'" This judge wanted liberal activism disguised as testimony broadcast nationally so as to buttress and back up what everybody knew would be his decision.
ghostlight2
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/5/04
#121Fair and Balanced
Posted: 8/5/10 at 11:05pmThat's a beautiful post, D2. Was it credited to anyone in particular? It is good to know that some Republicans can see beyond politics, and even see fit to include it in their politics. It really is quite a simple issue framed that way.
#122Fair and Balanced
Posted: 8/5/10 at 11:08pm
Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and views on the matter.
God Bless the USA.
#123PROP 8 OVERTURNED
Posted: 8/5/10 at 11:10pmYes, D2, beautiful post. Thanks for sharing.
#124Fair and Constitutional
Posted: 8/5/10 at 11:11pm
Most people are not silly enough to suggest that sexual behavior is determined entirely by genetics. Nor are most people silly enough to suggest that sexual behavior is entirely a function of free will. Both factors are involved. And that is why, in a free society, both positions must be afforded constitutional protection.
In the end, reasonable people will have to decide for themselves which factors exert the greatest influence on human sexual behavior. The debate must be won by the party with the strongest argument. It cannot be “won” by the party that controls the government.
The State of Georgia seeks avoid the suggestion that gays can become ex-gays by demanding that Christians become ex-Christians. Oddly, by suggesting that Christians have free will and gays do not, they deprive only the latter of their humanity.
Videos