OT: Gay Marriage

[davelj]

Nevermind, I found this.

http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/f/civilmarriage.htm

Sounds like there are also some tax issues. Seems like a better idea might be just to “federalize” the civil union (that is, remove it as a state issue) and give it the same benefits that married couples have. I see no reason why a civil union shouldn’t hold the same rights as a marriage.

[sobmaz]

Did all ultra right wing conservatives drop out of high school? They must have because they constantly talk about “activist Judges” going against the “will of the people”.

If they were educated they would know that our country was founded on the very principle that the minority MUST BE PROTECTED from the tyranny of the majority!!!!

When the u.s. constitution was written it never mentioned rights for Blacks because it was a societal norm at the time, Negros were not “people”. Over time “activist judges” agreed that the u.s. constitution did indeed apply to Blacks and therefore their rights could not be voted on as the majority voted to out law interracial marriage or in Oregon they outlawed Black people totally (meaning they weren’t allowed to live in the state). The will of the people violated by those “Activist Judges”.

The will of the People saw fit that the u.s. constitution did not apply to Indians. Indians fought in court and an “activist Judge” decided, yes, the u.s. constitution applied to them as well.
The will of the people tossed again, nasty Judges!!

Despite historys lessons of the tyranny of the majority on the minority, somehow people think that it is constitutional to be voting on the rights of a class of people.

I am very confident that despite the Supreme Court of the U.S. being stacked with Republican appointees, the Court will agree that Prop 8 is nothing more than a bunch of holier than thou people trying to legislate their beliefs on those they do not agree with.

How activist would a Judge have to be to allow the majority to vote on the rights of the minority?

Is it really that difficult of a concept to understand that people can vote on laws, hence the initiative process, but people can’t vote on something that involves the rights of anyone? Peoples rights are forever protected by the U.S. Bill of Rights and are not up for a vote. Why can’t that be understood?

[sobmaz]

Did all ultra right wing conservatives drop out of high school? They must have because they constantly talk about “activist Judges” going against the “will of the people”.

If they were educated they would know that our country was founded on the very principle that the minority MUST BE PROTECTED from the tyranny of the majority!!!!

When the u.s. constitution was written it never mentioned rights for Blacks because it was a societal norm at the time, Negros were not “people”. Over time “activist judges” agreed that the u.s. constitution did indeed apply to Blacks and therefore their rights could not be voted on as the majority voted to out law interracial marriage or in Oregon they outlawed Black people totally (meaning they weren’t allowed to live in the state). The will of the people violated by those “Activist Judges”.

The will of the People saw fit that the u.s. constitution did not apply to Indians. Indians fought in court and an “activist Judge” decided, yes, the u.s. constitution applied to them as well.
The will of the people tossed again, nasty Judges!!

Despite historys lessons of the tyranny of the majority on the minority, somehow people think that it is constitutional to be voting on the rights of a class of people.

I am very confident that despite the Supreme Court of the U.S. being stacked with Republican appointees, the Court will agree that Prop 8 is nothing more than a bunch of holier than thou people trying to legislate their beliefs on those they do not agree with.

How activist would a Judge have to be to allow the majority to vote on the rights of the minority?

Is it really that difficult of a concept to understand that people can vote on laws, hence the initiative process, but people can’t vote on something that involves the rights of anyone? Peoples rights are forever protected by the U.S. Bill of Rights and are not up for a vote. Why can’t that be understood?

[sobmaz]

Did all ultra right wing conservatives drop out of high school? They must have because they constantly talk about “activist Judges” going against the “will of the people”.

If they were educated they would know that our country was founded on the very principle that the minority MUST BE PROTECTED from the tyranny of the majority!!!!

When the u.s. constitution was written it never mentioned rights for Blacks because it was a societal norm at the time, Negros were not “people”. Over time “activist judges” agreed that the u.s. constitution did indeed apply to Blacks and therefore their rights could not be voted on as the majority voted to out law interracial marriage or in Oregon they outlawed Black people totally (meaning they weren’t allowed to live in the state). The will of the people violated by those “Activist Judges”.

The will of the People saw fit that the u.s. constitution did not apply to Indians. Indians fought in court and an “activist Judge” decided, yes, the u.s. constitution applied to them as well.
The will of the people tossed again, nasty Judges!!

Despite historys lessons of the tyranny of the majority on the minority, somehow people think that it is constitutional to be voting on the rights of a class of people.

I am very confident that despite the Supreme Court of the U.S. being stacked with Republican appointees, the Court will agree that Prop 8 is nothing more than a bunch of holier than thou people trying to legislate their beliefs on those they do not agree with.

How activist would a Judge have to be to allow the majority to vote on the rights of the minority?

Is it really that difficult of a concept to understand that people can vote on laws, hence the initiative process, but people can’t vote on something that involves the rights of anyone? Peoples rights are forever protected by the U.S. Bill of Rights and are not up for a vote. Why can’t that be understood?

[sobmaz]

Did all ultra right wing conservatives drop out of high school? They must have because they constantly talk about “activist Judges” going against the “will of the people”.

If they were educated they would know that our country was founded on the very principle that the minority MUST BE PROTECTED from the tyranny of the majority!!!!

When the u.s. constitution was written it never mentioned rights for Blacks because it was a societal norm at the time, Negros were not “people”. Over time “activist judges” agreed that the u.s. constitution did indeed apply to Blacks and therefore their rights could not be voted on as the majority voted to out law interracial marriage or in Oregon they outlawed Black people totally (meaning they weren’t allowed to live in the state). The will of the people violated by those “Activist Judges”.

The will of the People saw fit that the u.s. constitution did not apply to Indians. Indians fought in court and an “activist Judge” decided, yes, the u.s. constitution applied to them as well.
The will of the people tossed again, nasty Judges!!

Despite historys lessons of the tyranny of the majority on the minority, somehow people think that it is constitutional to be voting on the rights of a class of people.

I am very confident that despite the Supreme Court of the U.S. being stacked with Republican appointees, the Court will agree that Prop 8 is nothing more than a bunch of holier than thou people trying to legislate their beliefs on those they do not agree with.

How activist would a Judge have to be to allow the majority to vote on the rights of the minority?

Is it really that difficult of a concept to understand that people can vote on laws, hence the initiative process, but people can’t vote on something that involves the rights of anyone? Peoples rights are forever protected by the U.S. Bill of Rights and are not up for a vote. Why can’t that be understood?

[sobmaz]

Did all ultra right wing conservatives drop out of high school? They must have because they constantly talk about “activist Judges” going against the “will of the people”.

If they were educated they would know that our country was founded on the very principle that the minority MUST BE PROTECTED from the tyranny of the majority!!!!

When the u.s. constitution was written it never mentioned rights for Blacks because it was a societal norm at the time, Negros were not “people”. Over time “activist judges” agreed that the u.s. constitution did indeed apply to Blacks and therefore their rights could not be voted on as the majority voted to out law interracial marriage or in Oregon they outlawed Black people totally (meaning they weren’t allowed to live in the state). The will of the people violated by those “Activist Judges”.

The will of the People saw fit that the u.s. constitution did not apply to Indians. Indians fought in court and an “activist Judge” decided, yes, the u.s. constitution applied to them as well.
The will of the people tossed again, nasty Judges!!

Despite historys lessons of the tyranny of the majority on the minority, somehow people think that it is constitutional to be voting on the rights of a class of people.

I am very confident that despite the Supreme Court of the U.S. being stacked with Republican appointees, the Court will agree that Prop 8 is nothing more than a bunch of holier than thou people trying to legislate their beliefs on those they do not agree with.

How activist would a Judge have to be to allow the majority to vote on the rights of the minority?

Is it really that difficult of a concept to understand that people can vote on laws, hence the initiative process, but people can’t vote on something that involves the rights of anyone? Peoples rights are forever protected by the U.S. Bill of Rights and are not up for a vote. Why can’t that be understood?

[tc]

Amen!

[tc]

Amen!

[tc]

Amen!

[tc]

Amen!

[tc]

Amen!

[briansd1]

[quote=davelj]Nevermind, I found this.

http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/f/civilmarriage.htm

Sounds like there are also some tax issues. Seems like a better idea might be just to “federalize” the civil union (that is, remove it as a state issue) and give it the same benefits that married couples have. I see no reason why a civil union shouldn’t hold the same rights as a marriage.[/quote]

I agree.

The Federal government should at least recognize state marriages and allow same sex couples to file taxes together, sponsor foreign spouses, etc…

[briansd1]

[quote=davelj]Nevermind, I found this.

http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/f/civilmarriage.htm

Sounds like there are also some tax issues. Seems like a better idea might be just to “federalize” the civil union (that is, remove it as a state issue) and give it the same benefits that married couples have. I see no reason why a civil union shouldn’t hold the same rights as a marriage.[/quote]

I agree.

The Federal government should at least recognize state marriages and allow same sex couples to file taxes together, sponsor foreign spouses, etc…

[briansd1]

[quote=davelj]Nevermind, I found this.

http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/f/civilmarriage.htm

Sounds like there are also some tax issues. Seems like a better idea might be just to “federalize” the civil union (that is, remove it as a state issue) and give it the same benefits that married couples have. I see no reason why a civil union shouldn’t hold the same rights as a marriage.[/quote]

I agree.

The Federal government should at least recognize state marriages and allow same sex couples to file taxes together, sponsor foreign spouses, etc…

[briansd1]

[quote=davelj]Nevermind, I found this.

http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/f/civilmarriage.htm

Sounds like there are also some tax issues. Seems like a better idea might be just to “federalize” the civil union (that is, remove it as a state issue) and give it the same benefits that married couples have. I see no reason why a civil union shouldn’t hold the same rights as a marriage.[/quote]

I agree.

The Federal government should at least recognize state marriages and allow same sex couples to file taxes together, sponsor foreign spouses, etc…

[Author]

Posts