The Homosexual Agenda goes to Court

[User-Removed]

To further silence the will of the California Voters:


Lawsuit seeks removal of marriage measure from November ballot - Los Angeles Times

[utcowboy]

Its seems that this topic will just keep gettin opened in thread after thread until a dicision is made in Nov. I'm sure its been said before, but isn't the court suppose to enforce laws that the voters put in place rather than writing the law themselves?

[Traveler]

The issue is more political than rational. It is not about science - it is about power and politics - power to change society.

The warning of rational thinkers is that such changes to society are not beneficial. There is no rational argument for society to support homosexual relationships to be as beneficial for preserving society through generations as heterosexual relationships.

The Traveler

[Fiannan]

Originally Posted by Traveler

The issue is more political than rational. It is not about science - it is about power and politics - power to change society.

The warning of rational thinkers is that such changes to society are not beneficial. There is no rational argument for society to support homosexual relationships to be as beneficial for preserving society through generations as heterosexual relationships.

The Traveler

Unless you are brainwashed to believe that the enviroment is in such peril that any lifestyle that discourages childbirth is to save the world:

Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly | Mail Online

Or if you believe the only way to bring an end to the patriarchal family and social order is to challenge the traditional values that are its foundation:

The Century of the Self 3 of 4

[Redbeard]

Originally Posted by utcowboy

Its seems that this topic will just keep gettin opened in thread after thread until a dicision is made in Nov. I'm sure its been said before, but isn't the court suppose to enforce laws that the voters put in place rather than writing the law themselves?

Negative, if that was the case we would still have slavery. Think about it, the voters of the day (white, land owning men) could have cared less if black people had any rights. By your thinking the courts would have kept blacks from becoming citizens, women from voting, and root beer off the shelves. Okay, I made that last one up.

The goverements job is to protect the rights of ALL citizens.

[utcowboy]

You are right Red, the governments job is to protect the rights of the citizens. The Judicial branch is not the entire government nor is it suppose to make the laws, just up hold them. There is another branch of the government that is put in place by the people to make laws, not to enforce them.

[Redbeard]

Originally Posted by utcowboy

You are right Red, the governments job is to protect the rights of the citizens. The Judicial branch is not the entire government nor is it suppose to make the laws, just up hold them. There is another branch of the government that is put in place by the people to make laws, not to enforce them.

Well... sorta,

The purpose of the judicial system is also to judge wether or not a law is constitutional, if it is not, they have the power to overthrow it, which is exactly what happened in california.

State passed law-> State court found it unconstitutional and overthrew (is that a word?) it.

If the majority of a state voted that blacks should no longer be considered citizens, who would it fall on to rule unconstitutional?

[sixpacktr]

BUt they have gotten beyond that. The recent ruling of whether or not the 2nd amendment was constitutional just reaffirms that the courts have gotten out of control when it comes to laws. There is a reason the congressional houses are the place that laws are to be made: they represent the will of the people. It is not part of the courts purview of whether a law is right or not. Simply if the laws are within the constraints of the Constitution, either Federal or State.

This issue is being presented as "it hurts no one", which is bunk. It will hurt the fabric of society, and if you think that once the gays get the 'right' to marry that they will end it there, you are about as naive as they come. They will then attack churches and anyone else that says that their lifestyle is immoral. Look to what is happening in Canada regarding 'hate speech' to see what a heavy hand gov't has on free speech. Read Meridian Magazine's note about this measure to see what the possible fallout will be from allowing anyone to marry anything it wants.

[Redbeard]

I'll try to stay away from the homosexuality discussion, just because it's already been talked to death...

Originally Posted by sixpacktr

BUt they have gotten beyond that. The recent ruling of whether or not the 2nd amendment was constitutional just reaffirms that the courts have gotten out of control when it comes to laws.

What are you talking about? The courts just allowed handguns back into DC... they just overturned an unconstitutional ruling...

Originally Posted by sixpacktr

There is a reason the congressional houses are the place that laws are to be made: they represent the will of the people.

Yes it does, however, the CONSTITUTION gives rights to ALL citizens, not just the majority. The people can have all the will they want, but if the will of the people violates the constitutional rights of a citizen then it should be struck down. That is how are goverment works.

Little something to think about... What if the majority of the people in the US were muslim and they decided that freedom of religion was out of hand, and now worshipping anyone but allah would be put to death. Thanks to our judicial system, even if a law was put into place by congress (who would be mostly muslim obviously), the judicial system would strike it down as unconstitutional. See how that works?

Originally Posted by sixpacktr

It is not part of the courts purview of whether a law is right or not. Simply if the laws are within the constraints of the Constitution, either Federal or State.

And that is exactly what the courts did! They ruled that a ban on gay marriage was UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and THAT is why it was overturned. You can put as much spin on it as you want, the courts saw a law that was unconstitutional and they overturned the law. Period.

Originally Posted by sixpacktr

This issue is being presented as "it hurts no one", which is bunk. It will hurt the fabric of society, and if you think that once the gays get the 'right' to marry that they will end it there, you are about as naive as they come. They will then attack churches and anyone else that says that their lifestyle is immoral. Look to what is happening in Canada regarding 'hate speech' to see what a heavy hand gov't has on free speech. Read Meridian Magazine's note about this measure to see what the possible fallout will be from allowing anyone to marry anything it wants.

Tinfoil hat, tinfoil hat, hurry!!!

[sixpacktr]

Redbeard,
Wow, I didn't realize just how much smarter you are than me. Thanks for clarifying.

As for the recent ruling, my point is that 4 (count em, FOUR) justices actually thought it was okay to overturn the 2nd amendment. The vote should have been 9-0. Instead, it squeaked by.

See how that works?? One more idiot judge and gun rights are gone.

And while you may not want to acknowledge it, the homos want more than just 'live and let live'. They will come after others for just mentioning that their lifestyle is wrong. Oh wait, they already are doing that!

But, once again, thank you so much for showing me just how much smarter you are than me. It was refreshing.