California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says maybe we will undo Proposition 8 (banning gay marriage)

[Xiphos]

I'm going in circles here. I'm shocked that so many so-called Republicans are trying to tell me the US is a Democracy. Astounded, really.

So the people of California are not allowed to vote to amend their state constitution?

If they are allowed to vote to change their constitution is it reasonable to expect the government respect that and not interfere?

Of do you advocate government interference when it is needed to meet your personal beliefs? Or are you against government interference?

[countybear]

CB, it's not a dead horse. You're dodging the question. A representative government and majority rule are two different things. You still haven't shown me where the constitution says that the majority rules.

... and you've gone from beating horses to chasing rabbits...

Ok, Rhino, here you go:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION


SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.



CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION


SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the
electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect
the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If
provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election
conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote
shall prevail.

Remember, this is a CALIFORNIA matter.

And if you don't think slavery or segregation would have continued in the south for much longer than it has, then I don't know what to tell you. I guess you never spent any time down here.

I know enough about American history to know that the abolition of slavery was on the lips of BOTH United States and Confederate Congresses. The difference between them wasn't the indefinite preservation of slavery, per se', but the timeline of its demise. As far as segregation goes, those who felt it was the 'natural order' of things, both in the North and South, were rapidly becoming a minority by the time forced desegregation was implemented. In fact, my being a graduate of a school system under 30+ years of a consent decree, I can personally testify that the forced desegregation of the schools, and the logistical issues that it caused, set race relations back far more than it helped bolster it.

As far as how much time I have spent in the South, I've been here 40 years. Wrong again, aren't you? (Of course, you'll never admit it).

If majority ruled, then why even have a legislature at all? We could just put every law and amendment before the people directly and let them vote on it. We have representatives in DC to vote on issues because what's best for the people may not always be what the people want. The downside to this form of government is the reverse is also true.

You are asking questions that you should be able to answer from American history and civics classes. It is plain to see that you are becoming frustrated. I'm sorry that you are feeling that way. Perhaps you should take a couple of aspirins and retire this for another day. The truth, Rhino, is that the portion of what I posted above from the CA Constitution is self-explanatory. This isn't a federal issue, and the lines between the two are being trodden upon by our very arguments. DC has nothing to do with it, the U.S. Constitution really has little to do with it.

As such, this being a CA constitutional issue, our banter is really moot, (as if they would listen or read this anyway).

I'm going in circles here. I'm shocked that so many so-called Republicans are trying to tell me the US is a Democracy. Astounded, really.

So, my parting and final thoughts: Don't take my word for it.

.. and to add insult to injury, your link is broken. Tsk.

[Rhino]

Sorry for the broken link. Yes, I understand it's a state issue and Federal Govt doesn't really enter into it (yet). But I think as a personal rights issue, passing a law that declares gay marriage is unconstitutional (US) in it's essence, just as are many "blue laws" here in the south.

I googled "Is the us a democracy or a republic". Here's what I found:

http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...the-difference

http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.html "a representative democracy is a kind of republic"

[Five-0]

. This isn't a federal issue, and the lines between the two are being trodden upon by our very arguments. DC has nothing to do with it, the U.S. Constitution really has little to do with it.

Ha!! Another 10th Amendment fan. Sorry, sorry. Let me get out of y'alls way.

[TXCharlie]

Some members of this forum had better stay away from Georgia!

Term, i think your cybernertc sleeper program is ratting on you again (I never promised to stop the cybernertc sleeper program jokes)

Personally, I'll be glad when people stop worrying about gay marrage, flag burning and all that stuff - The gays will get AIDS and the flag burners can be cited for open fires

[Jenna]

Term, i think your cybernertc sleeper program is ratting on you again (I never promised to stop the cybernertc sleeper program jokes)

Another cybernetic brain has been infected with my sleeper program and is now spreading it to others!!!!! Spread the cybernetic sleeper program wealth!!!!!

[MacLean]

Sorry for the broken link. Yes, I understand it's a state issue and Federal Govt doesn't really enter into it (yet). But I think as a personal rights issue, passing a law that declares gay marriage is unconstitutional (US) in it's essence, just as are many "blue laws" here in the south.

They didn't pass a law.

They amended their constitution.

Try and keep up here.

If it is a 10th amendment issue, as declared by SCOTUS, and they amend their State constitution, it isn't unconstitutional - by definition.

How about we boil this down and use one of your rather odd examples from a previous post.... If we amended the US Constitution to say that countybear was to be put down, and 2/3 of the States ratified it - it COULD be done.

[countybear]

How about we boil this down and use one of your rather odd examples from a previous post.... If we amended the US Constitution to say that countybear was to be put down, and 2/3 of the States ratified it - it COULD be done.

Hey, don't give him any f'n ideas, Mac...

[MacLean]

Hey, don't give him any f'n ideas, Mac...

Oops, sorry boss - I got so far into my civics lesson I traipsed off into "coup."

[countybear]

Oops, sorry boss - I got so far into my civics lesson I traipsed off into "coup."

Nah... given that this is Rhino we're dealing with, I wouldn't want him getting all his libertarian buddies to put forth any petitions about my being 'put down'... You never know how far they'll go to legalize drugs and such.

[MacLean]

Nah... given that this is Rhino we're dealing with, I wouldn't want him getting all his libertarian buddies to put forth any petitions about my being 'put down'... You never know how far they'll go to legalize drugs and such.

I'm actually a libertarian conservative.

I suspect the difference between that and a "Libertarian" with a big L is an education in constitutional law.

However, I think I am going to start a poll...

[Willowdared]

Whatever encourages new membership....we need a new server.

[Terminator]

Whatever encourages new membership....we need a new server.

AGREED!

[dadyswat]

First off, I can't speak for every Libertarian any more than you can speak for every well, whatever political party you want to affiliate yourself with.

But generally I, personally, disagree with any government law that tells two consenting adults what they can or cannot do as long as it doesn't infring on the life, liberty, or property of another person.

I notice how people are dancing around the slavery and segregation issues, by the way.

And again, I'm not saying I'm "pro-gay" or "anti-gay". My position, for clarity, is that it's not the government's right to interfere.

I wouldn't have as big of an issue of a city or county wanted to outlaw gay marriage- because it's easy to simply not live there. It's not as easy to just pick up and move to another state. But I don't live in CA so I guess I don't care as much about that- but it is illegal in my state and I disagree. It's also illegal in my state to have sex outside of marriage or have any type of sex other than penal-vaginal sex. Oral or anal sex is illegal here. And it's still illegal to buy alcohol on Sunday.

"Land of the Free" indeed.

That's fine then were do the schools and others get off pushing their gay agenda to those that want nothing of it. It would appear at that point you're forcing your beliefs on someone else and that against their rights.

[IndianaFuzz]

I can't show you a gay couple who can conceive, but I can show you a ton of same-sex couples who can raise well adjusted children. Same sex couples have a bunch of hurdles to jump in order to get custody of a child. It is never an accident. Most of the time, they've planned and planned and planned how they're going to raise children if they're ever allowed. But the people who keep having "mistake children" and "accidents" who can't afford their kids, can't raise them at all and don't give a crap about them? It's ok for them to have as many kids as they want? What about the millions in foster care who will never be adopted? The love and security of a same-sex household isn't good enough for them? But that is a different debate for a different day, I suppose.

Can you provide documentation that reproduction was the reason for giving married couples tax breaks? What about the millions of couples who don't have children?

Flame away, but this is tantamount to not allowing black folks or women the right to vote...

Bob, I am starting to appreciate you more and more by the minute! Yes, this is a civil rights issue plain and simple. But for the time being, it has to be legal to discriminate in CA. But if Arnie is serious in his support for gay marriage, then he should try to bring the issue back for a vote. Yes, majority rule is how things work. So if it goes to a vote again, then the people might vote to repeal the amendment. The vote was awfully close for as many people that voted this time around. Polititians sometimes talk about having a mandate of the people. There was no such mandate in the CA vote. It was a squeaker. Anyone that supports gay marriage there should not give up quite yet.

Though CA isn't the only front. Anti-gay marriage votes won out in many states, and in Arkansas, they even made it illegal for single people to adopt because allowing that gives gays a chance to be parents.

With the new CA amendment, are all the marriages performed on same sex couples still valid? I would think that would be the case. That may just mean a married couple would have to keep copies of documentation with them at all times to prove they really are married.

[IndianaFuzz]

Personally, I'll be glad when people stop worrying about gay marrage, flag burning and all that stuff - The gays will get AIDS and the flag burners can be cited for open fires

The second part of your last statement..... I'm down with writing those citations. The first part, just shows a good portion of ignorance.

First, gays will have sex regardless of getting married or not. So the rates of STD transmission would not go up because of marriage. In fact, letting gays get married would make it less likely for them to be having sex with multiple partners, thus reducing risk of getting any kind of STD. And before you say it, of course married gay men would cheat.....just about as much as married straight men cheat. So that part is a wash.

Second, AIDS is just as much a straight disease as it is a gay disease, if not more so anymore. I guess all the straight people that have gotten HIV must have been secretly gay? Your statement makes it sound like you think that only gays get HIV. Maybe you and Fred Phelps should go on a date.

I know this is again getting way off topic, but that statement needed a response.

[dadyswat]

I thought adding this link to this thread is most appropriate, it speaks for itself.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=80711

[IndianaFuzz]

No fair, they changed the question at the top of the page after I voted! hehehe

I'm not clear what "ghey" means. Is that what you call a straight man that likes to get a little Larry Craig action when travelling? When he (Craig) said he wasn't gay, did he say that because he's really just "ghey"? hahaha

[MacLean]

No fair, they changed the question at the top of the page after I voted! hehehe

I'm not clear what "ghey" means. Is that what you call a straight man that likes to get a little Larry Craig action when travelling? When he (Craig) said he wasn't gay, did he say that because he's really just "ghey"? hahaha

You're overthinking it

Someone changed the poll to get one over on old Mac here.

The point of my poll was an illustrated civics lesson for someone who uses wikipedia as a source, and the point has been made.

As for the crap I heard above from someone about gays getting AIDS, I think that was wholly uncalled for.

Supporting the decision to define marriage does not, and should not equate to hatred, intolerance, or death wishes upon anyone.

[countybear]

No fair, they changed the question at the top of the page after I voted!

Would you prefer that your choice had won, but then the election was negated and the other side won because the government wanted it that way?