Women Reporters In Education & Work
SLC

Arlington, VA

#153 Feb 28, 2013
SLC wrote:
<quoted text>
It remains to be seen whether the SCOTUS will overturn Walker's ruling. I would note that the 9th Circuit Court of appeals upheld Walker, although they narrowed the scope of the ruling. My suspicion is that SCOTUS will punt on this one for the time being, allowing the issue to work itself out at the state level for a while. I suspect that a referendum in California in 2014 would overturn the proposition this time, just as referenda in Maryland, Maine, and Washington State upheld the same sex marriage laws passed by their legislatures. It is quite clear that the trend is moving toward' recognition of same sex marriage, which will soon be recognized in Britain and France. Even some Rethuglicans have recognized that the train is leaving the station and it's time to get on board.
Apropos of the above comment, here's the result of a poll in California which strongly suggests that Proposition would be overturned by a very significant margin this time around.
SLC

Arlington, VA

#154 Feb 28, 2013
SLC wrote:
<quoted text>
It remains to be seen whether the SCOTUS will overturn Walker's ruling. I would note that the 9th Circuit Court of appeals upheld Walker, although they narrowed the scope of the ruling. My suspicion is that SCOTUS will punt on this one for the time being, allowing the issue to work itself out at the state level for a while. I suspect that a referendum in California in 2014 would overturn the proposition this time, just as referenda in Maryland, Maine, and Washington State upheld the same sex marriage laws passed by their legislatures. It is quite clear that the trend is moving toward' recognition of same sex marriage, which will soon be recognized in Britain and France. Even some Rethuglicans have recognized that the train is leaving the station and it's time to get on board.
Forgot to post the link.
http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexmarriage/ci...
SLC

Arlington, VA

#156 Feb 28, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Vaughn Walker gone against the constitution, the vast majority of the public voted against gay marriage.
That was in the past. The trend is now going the other way, as the results in Maine, Maryland, and Washington State attest. And as would be the likely results of a referendum in California in 2014 to overturn Prop. 8.

The wishes of the vast majority are totally irrelevant. I daresay that there are any number of statutes that the vast majority of the public would vote for that are unconstitutional. And by the way, recent polls show that the attitude of the public is changing rapidly and that a clear majority now favor recognizing same sex marriage. It is to be noted that the Rethuglicans in the last election declined to make a big deal out of Obama's endorsement of same sex marriage.

However, Largelanguage has made a claim that Walker's ruling was unconstitutional. On what grounds. Largelanguage's unsupported claim is insufficient. Denying same sex marriage would seem to this straight man to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It would seem that Largelanguage's complaint boils down to anal sex is icky.
coyote

Halifax, Canada

#158 Feb 28, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't really have much to say anymore, nothing is new about you lot.
well do not forget your med appt over on this side of the ocean....borrow a canoe and paddle due west- stop off here for the 1st stage of treatment and then we will arrange a dog team for transport to Dr. Robert xxxx at the institute in Dorval..Following that you might consider the upper bunk in MM's cell for recupe !
Katie Mellish

Darwen, UK

#160 Feb 28, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
What are your opinions on mothers bathing teenage sons, coyote?
......And what are your opinions on fathers bathing teenage sons you little trolling nonce.
Katie Mellish

Darwen, UK

#161 Feb 28, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
The public determine propositions, and the publics opinion is hardly changing. Obama is also unconstitutionally trying to overturn gay marriage, he has no rights. And Judge Vaughn Walker does not understand or know the reasons the people are against it, he has no reason to overturn the ban with such arrogance!
STFU.
SLC

Arlington, VA

#163 Feb 28, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
The public determine propositions, and the publics opinion is hardly changing. Obama is also unconstitutionally trying to overturn gay marriage, he has no rights. And Judge Vaughn Walker does not understand or know the reasons the people are against it, he has no reason to overturn the ban with such arrogance!
Largelanguage is living in a dream world. The public opinion polls show definitively that public perception on same sex marriage is changing and a clear majority of the American public now supports it. But his mind is made up, the facts are irrelevant. But a question for Largelanguage, if public opinion is not changing how does he explain the electoral results in Maine, Maryland, Washington State, and Minnesota last November? And what I am willing to bet will be the result of a referendum to overturn Prop. 8 in California next year if it is placed on the ballot.

For the information of Largelanguage, public opinion does not determine constitutionality, unless a Constitutional Amendment is passed. The train is leaving the station Largelanguage, get on board or be left behind.

President Obama announced his revised position before the election and was reelected so, apparently, the issue wasn't significant in the minds of a majority of the voters. And, in fact, unlike in 2004, the Rethglicans didn't make much of an issue of it in 2012, whlich ought to tell Largelanguage something.

SLC

Arlington, VA

#165 Mar 5, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you are wrong, propositions are based on the publics opinion, and the Judge also asked public opinion on proposition 8, but despite what they said, he overturned the ban.
Excuse me, Largelanguage, you are completely ignorant of US Constitutional jurisprudence. The courts are the arbiters of what is Constitutional and what is not. There have been any number of laws passed by referendum in California and elsewhere that have been overturned by the courts.

By the way, what does Mr. Largelanguage think of the passage of a law recognizing same sex marriages in Great Britain? Passed overwhelming by the Parliament. Of course, Great Britain doesn't have a written constitution so the notion of constitutionality doesn't enter into the discussion there.

And I note that Largelanguage hasn't seen fit to comment on the passage of laws by referendum recognizing same sex marriage in Washington State, Maine, and Maryland. And the rejecting of a Constitutional Amendment in Minnesota outlawing recognition of same sex marriage in that state.
SLC

Arlington, VA

#167 Mar 6, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Propositions cannot be turned down by the Judge, it is the goverment, and the people, not the judge.
Want to bet?
SLC

Arlington, VA

#169 Mar 6, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Propositions cannot be turned down by the Judge, it is the goverment, and the people, not the judge.
Now, what cannot be overturned by the courts is a Constitutional amendment. However, none of that anti-same sex marriage statutes, including the Defense of Marriage Act, are amendment to the Federal Constitution and hence can be overturned by federal courts. I suggest that Largelanguage, if he persists in commenting on these issues, learn something about the Government of the United States. I would nor presume to pontificate on British jurisprudence with the level of ignorance demonstrated by Largelanguage.

By the way, I notice that Largelanguage hasn't seen fit to comment on the passage of the recognition of same sex marriage act passed by the British Parliament or the referendums recognizing same in 3 states in the US last November. Inquiring minds want to know why.
SLC

Arlington, VA

#170 Mar 6, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
For 100 million bucks!
Done, I expect a certified check from Largelanguage in the near future.
SLC

Arlington, VA

#172 Mar 6, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
But a proposition cannot be overturned, it is against local constitutional procedure.
If, by a proposition, Largelanguage means a referendum, then he is 100% wrong. The only legislative action that can't be overturned by the courts is a Constitutional Amendment. Article V describes how the Constitution can be amended. Nothing in there about a referendum. In fact, there is no provision in the Federal Constitution for passage of federal statutes by referendum. Look up Marbury vs Madison.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
SLC

Arlington, VA

#174 Mar 6, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
But the people decide what is fair. A judge doesn't overturn a proposition. A proposition is of congress.
I have no idea what Largelanguage means by a "proposition". I have said over and over again that the only law that the federal courts can't overturn is an Amendment to the Constitution. Laws passed by Congress and signed by the President are declared unconstitutional by the courts all the time. Either take a course in American civics or STFU. The US Government is based on the separation of powers between the three co-equal branches, the President, the Congress, and the Federal Courts. There is nothing analogous in the British system so stop trying to apply British civics to American civics.
MaltaMon

Philadelphia, PA

#175 Mar 6, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
But the people decide what is fair. A judge doesn't overturn a proposition. A proposition is of congress.
Large, SLC is correct about how things woek in the US. There are three xo_equal branches of government at every level (federal, state, county and municipal) They are the legislative executive and judicial branches. The legislature make the laws, the executive approves and enforces them, and the courts interpret them. That means that in this country the courts determine the extent to which any law is constitutional if and when its constitutionality is challenged. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter. If it determibes that a local, state or federal law is partially or entirely unconstitutional, it will restrict that law's scope or overturn it altogether. And its decisions cannot be challenged. Their word, that of the majority of the Cout's nine "justices" (who are appointed to the Court by the President with the approval of the US Senate) is final.
MaltaMon

Philadelphia, PA

#177 Mar 6, 2013
A proposition becomes law if approved by the voters, bypassing the executive in those states that allow the electorate to decide by referendum. Once approved, the executive branch (the state's governor) is obligated to see that it is enforced. It is thus exactly like any law that was brought into effect by the legislature and the executive. But if someone challenges it in court on constitutional grounds, and the case rises to the Supreme Court for review, the Court s determination is then the law. If it decides to restrict or overturn the law on constitutional grounds, regardless of the law's provenance, that's it. The only possibility after that is a new law that incorporates the Court's ruling, or an amendment to the Constitution itself. That is just the way it is here. Ours is the simplest, most concise, and oldest national constitution in effect today. Read it online and see for yourself how it works.
SLC

Arlington, VA

#178 Mar 6, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> Large, SLC is correct about how things woek in the US. There are three xo_equal branches of government at every level (federal, state, county and municipal) They are the legislative executive and judicial branches. The legislature make the laws, the executive approves and enforces them, and the courts interpret them. That means that in this country the courts determine the extent to which any law is constitutional if and when its constitutionality is challenged. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter. If it determibes that a local, state or federal law is partially or entirely unconstitutional, it will restrict that law's scope or overturn it altogether. And its decisions cannot be challenged. Their word, that of the majority of the Cout's nine "justices" (who are appointed to the Court by the President with the approval of the US Senate) is final.
Apparently, Largelanguage is confusing "proposition" with constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment requires a much higher hill to climb then a statute as it must be approved by a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress and thence approved by 3/4 of the states. The Constitution has only been amended 17 times in some 220 years since it has been in effect, with the 21st amendment annulling the 18th amendment. Just for the information of Largelanguage, when people in the US refer to a proposition, they generally mean a statute to be passed by a referendum of the voters in a state (e.g. the state constitutional amendment in California which rescinded the recognition of same sex marriage is known as Proposition 8, which is now before the Supreme Court). As I said previously, there is no provision for a referendum on the federal level.
MaltaMon

Philadelphia, PA

#179 Mar 6, 2013
There is, in the United States Constitution, no provision for any national referendum or "proposition" to the voters. But a law at any level, created by any state's or community's legal procedures, is subject, if challenged on constitutional grounds, to review by the Court and any decision by the Court to overturn it.
SLC

Arlington, VA

#181 Mar 6, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
But Proposition 8 wasn't against the constitution, and the procedure the Judge overturned it was not in a constitutional way.
"But Proposition 8 wasn't against the constitution, and the procedure the Judge overturned it was not in a constitutional way."

Given Largelanguage's remarkable ignorance of American civics, on what basis does he make such a claim? The decision out of the 9th circuit court of appeals nullifying Proposition 8 is based on the reasoning that it is not Constitutional to withdraw a right previously granted, based on the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. The law recognizing same sex marriage was properly passed by the state legislature and signed by the Governor. Not being a constitutional lawyer, or in fact, a lawyer of any kind I can't say whether the appeals court view is legitimate. IMHO, the Supreme Court may well try to find a way to punt on this one, kicking the can down the road for another time (they can always rule that the defenders of the law don't have standing, a convenient dodge to avoid the issue).
SLC

Arlington, VA

#183 Mar 6, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, originally same sex marriage was illegal. And it wasn't against the constitution.
No, same sex marriage was not recognized by the state before passage of the law recognizing it. It was not "illegal", it was just not recognized. Actually, the previous law in California effectively recognized same sex civil unions which were very nearly marriages in everything but name. There are a number of other states (New Jersey for instance) that recognize same sex civil unions.
SLC

Arlington, VA

#185 Mar 6, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it was not illegal, as I should say, but rather it was in the constitution that marriage was the union of 2 people of the opposite sex. It originally was that, so technically, the constition is being changed.
I'm beginning to think that Largelanguage is a Poe. Nobody could be as stupid as he is. Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States is marriage defined as a union of 1 man and 1 woman. As a matter of fact, the born again bigots like Largelanguage have suggested amending the Constitution to prohibit recognition of same sex marriage. It hasn't happened and, given the shift in public opinion, it ain't going to happen.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Education Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
C9020-562 IBM Storwize Family Technical Solutio... 3 hr C9020-562 IBM 1
IBM Midrange Storage Sales V3 C9020-560 questions 3 hr educator 1
C9020-562 IBM Storwize Family Technical Solutio... 3 hr educator 1
Microsoft MCSA: Windows Server 2016 70-742 exam... 3 hr Network Appliance 1
News Five Texas schools land in top 25 of the best 1... 11 hr My Phartss 7
Obama repeals boys' nude-swimming act (Sep '13) 11 hr MichaelN 92
Passcert nude boy photos 22 hr Phils Ass Cert 1
More from around the web