-
Smogon Premier League is here and the team collection is now available. Support your team!
-
Follow our Instagram!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Why gay marriage is allowed in CA
- Thread starter chaos
- Start date
Aye, I'm really tired of this shtick about "liberal juries" and "conservative juries" being nominated by "liberal" or "conservative" govenors/presidents. It has no bearing. A Republican House approved Clinton's nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsberg; likewise for the Democrats approving conservatives Samuel Ailto and John Roberts. Other judges have done a 180 and surprised the people who nominated them.
Nixon filled the Supreme Court with conservatives, with four conservative justices sitting during his tenure, only to see them rule 7-2 on Roe v. Wade (not a "liberal" "5-4"), a case that has riled conservatives for three decades.
Bush Sr. nominated David Souther only to see him become more liberal than he thought.
Eisenhower was not happy to see Earl Warren go on a streak, giving lawyers to those who could not represent themselves (Gideon), creating the Miranda warning (Miranda), destroying segregation (Brown), and the one-person-one-vote proposition (Baker).
Most of the cases you cited involved Congress and the president being different parties. The only exceptions are Alito (who was approved almost along a strict party-line vote) and Roberts (who constantly voiced a commitment to bipartisanship, which has been slow to materialize). I noted that the judges on California's court were nominated by a liberal (yes, including Ahnold) and accepted by liberals - meaning there was very little reason to expect Souter-like surprises.
Also, keep in mind that ideological vetting was not common practice until Reagan's tenure. While Nixon's appointees may have been generally conservative, they were not ideological, unlike the conservatives on the current court. That means that (like Nixon himself) they were not adverse to taking liberal positions.
Also, keep in mind that ideological vetting was not common practice until Reagan's tenure. While Nixon's appointees may have been generally conservative, they were not ideological, unlike the conservatives on the current court. That means that (like Nixon himself) they were not adverse to taking liberal positions.
If Roe versus Wade is overthrown, it gets thrown back to the states. Republicans would lose getting to bitch about this on the national level while democrats would get a big boost from people. Roe versus Wade should never have been passed as it was written, but were it to be overturned, it would actually be a Republican disaster.
As to nominees being elected who are not in the same party...what is your point? The president is going to nominate someone that is along the same party lines. One will eventually get approved!
chaos Tila Tequila might be myspace friends with those judges, you never know.
As to nominees being elected who are not in the same party...what is your point? The president is going to nominate someone that is along the same party lines. One will eventually get approved!
chaos Tila Tequila might be myspace friends with those judges, you never know.
Tell that to George Bush's Federal court nominees who have been sitting in limbo for well over a year now.
I am pretty upset still about gay marriage being passed in California. I live in California, and I know that if California passes a law, usually a lot of other states will follow in California's footsteps. Also, Tila Tequila didn't get the law passed, it was mainly the justices that passed the law and I think about 60 percent of California voted against allowing gay marriage saying it should be between a man and a women and the justices still chose to allow gay marriage anyways.
What is with so many Americans thinking that their Constitution doesn't cover the rights of gay people? I can only assume that these don't realise that the Constitution in a secular document and doesn't support mobbish superstitions as grounds upon which to discrimate against and deprive minorities. Denying gay people the right to marry is unconstitutional, amending the Constitution to discriminate against a naturally occurring, innocuous minority is exactly the opposite of the values the United States were officially* founded upon.
* Unless we count Puritans escaping religious persecution so that they could freely practice insane religious persucutions of their own as 'nation-founding'.
This. This indeed. The unalienable rights are there for a reason. Because NOTHING is supposed to remove them. Not homosexuality, metrosexuality, nor the guy across the road who sells drugs and guns to gang members.
I'm liking chaos right now. I got an ad for free Russian women!
I don't understand why anybody cares about gay people getting married. As far as I see it, it doesn't affect you in any way. Your life is absolutely NO different than it was before.
As for marriage being between a man and a woman, the fact that there are married, gay couples out there pretty well disproves that, no? The only argument opponents of gay marriage have is "I don't like it," and quite frankly, that's just not good enough.
Perhaps you should look at the facts. 11 states have amended their constitutions to ban gay marraige in 2004. I know Wikipedia isn't a good source, but their map says that 25 states have banned gay marriage. That's half the nation. California isn't being a trend-setter in this case.
If we all waited for popular opinion to determine what is right or not, numerous things would have never come down or would have existed for a great deal longer. I find it rather fortunate that justices are not elected, otherwise they'd be politicans and would have go yield to what the people wanted rather than what is right.
oh god you mean you might actually have to see the ....... gays??????
there is literally no argument against gay marriage. marriage as an institution has been completely terrible until around the time the right started complaining it was being 'destroyed'
Banning gay marriage is not going to go anywhere towards undoing the damage of the Sexual Revolution. In fact, I tend to think it will do damage - allowing gays to marry would encourage them to build strong family units. The only way to repair the American family (and, really, the Western family) is to ensure that children are acquiring the right values with respect to sex, children, and marriage. Sadly, that's not happening, because the right is more interested in scoring political points than actually doing anything.
how are you "upset" that more people are getting the same rights as other straight people? Gays and lesbians have been oppressed for quiet awhile and it's about time they got equal opportunities as straight people. This is just naive and ignorant. -_- Along with this, how in any way does gay people getting the right to marriage negatively influence you? Plus, so what if other states pass a similar law?; then you won't have to many gays in lesbians in your state anymore (which sounds like a good thing for you considering your post from above).
Back on topic, it is also BS that Tila Tequila is taking credit for a movement that has been in the works for many years and has been pushed forward by volunteers and the gay and lesbian leaders. She in no way has done a damn thing to help out. It is those that have been pushing for it that should be recognized and congratulated.
*End Rant, gotta let my blood cool off a bit*
If God says it, then it must be true.
Anti-Equal rights?
I second all the other arguments against you.
You shouldn't really be concerned about other people getting married because it's not affecting you.
That's epic.
Mainly because it could be true.
The same can be said about you. It can't be said about everyone on this side of the argument.
Reworded version: It doesn't affect you, either; therefore you shouldn't be concerned about it either. However, there are plenty of people it does affect, and those people, unlike everyone who really has a problem with it, should be concerned about it.
Therefore, by a bit of extra application of your argument, there should be no opposition to gay marriage whatsoever. Seems you've managed to completely destroy your own argument... less work for me, I suppose.
What?
You're trying to confuse me with skewed logic that quite frankly isn't working.
What I'm concerned about is unfair and unequal treatment, which I have every reason to be concerned about.
It does affect me because I can't stand around while injustices are being done in various forms of discrimination not restricted to homophobia.
It doesn't affect religious people, or homophobes for that matter, because they simply cannot get rid of gay people.
If religious conservatives don't want gays married in their church, that's fine, as that is in their jurisdiction. However, delving into other areas, for example criticizing other churches for allowing gays to get married, would be giving concern where there ought not be any.
Don't get all high and mighty when you haven't disproved a word I've said.
You're trying to confuse me with skewed logic that quite frankly isn't working.
What I'm concerned about is unfair and unequal treatment, which I have every reason to be concerned about.
It does affect me because I can't stand around while injustices are being done in various forms of discrimination not restricted to homophobia.
It doesn't affect religious people, or homophobes for that matter, because they simply cannot get rid of gay people.
If religious conservatives don't want gays married in their church, that's fine, as that is in their jurisdiction. However, delving into other areas, for example criticizing other churches for allowing gays to get married, would be giving concern where there ought not be any.
Don't get all high and mighty when you haven't disproved a word I've said.
Ack. For some reason I thought you were saying the opposite of what you were saying. No wonder your arguments worked so well; that was what they were meant for...
Geh. Ignore.
Geh. Ignore.