MyFox
 

yellowdog's Blog

by yellowdog from Brandon

Last Post 2 days, 10 hours Ago


STATES RIGHTS
May 16, 2008 | 7:05 AM
Category: News
Report This Post

The California Supreme Court has determined that  the "right to form a family relationship" is a Constitutional Right which includes same sex couples  who reside in the land of fruits and nuts.

HAS THE WORLD GONE MAD?

WILL  ALL SINNERS IN CALIFORNIA BE TURNED INTO PILLARS OF SALT?

HARDLY.

The Court does what courts do in our Republic, they interpret laws.  They ruled that laws passed by the Legislative process in some California cities violated the rights of some citizens. THAT'S WHAT OUR CONSTITUTION DEMANDS.

The good folks of California now have the opportunity to amend the Constitution and overturn this decision if the majority of voters choose to do so.

This is about as American as you can get. Each branch of government doing their job, with the voters having the final say.

What's wrong with that?
27 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 27
Page 1 of 2
1
2
 Last
sabaii read my blog
May 16, 2008 | 7:26 AM

Let the gays and lesbians be as miserable as us other folks that are married. I thought Arnold was against this?
Gammies61 read my blog view my photos
May 16, 2008 | 7:30 AM

I'm not going to say they won't turn into pillars of salt, but I'm not God, and it is my job to love my fellow man, and not JUDGE them. You should follow the word of Jesus. If you believe Jesus would hug a mass murderer, then why would you doubt, he would love homosexuals?

Oh yeah, welcome to Orlando! BTW, I liked your other Avatar.
PegasusWing read my blog view my photos
May 16, 2008 | 7:48 AM

Voters do not have their say in this case.
This is a supreme court ruling on a constitutional amendment.
What the court says, goes.
If the people wanted to overturn the ruling, it would take another constitutional ammendment that would have to be ratified by the state legislature, usually 2/3 which they would never get.
Now gay couples can file joint income taxes, inherit from eachother, and adopt children together.
What they do behind closed doors is neither of our business.
Why do so many people feel threatened by gays?
FlaNative read my blog view my photos
May 16, 2008 | 8:14 AM

I think this issue is more than a "states right" issue.

Fla, or any other state, recognizes a "legal" marriage from other states, the same as it recognizes a drivers license from other states if driving in Fla.

If California recognizes gay marriage, and the couple moves to Iowa, is Iowa now required to recognize that marriage? Are they given the rights of a married couple by law even if Iowa state opposes gay marriage?

Not saying I'm for or against, just asking the question. Also just using Iowa as an example, don't know their laws or feelings on gay marriage.
Hawkeye read my blog
May 16, 2008 | 8:15 AM

NOBODY has a "Right" to get Married..It's an INSTITUTION that has Guidelines and Rules and EVEN Fees..

PW..The Supreme Court of California ruled on an INITIATIVE,, NOT an Amendment..That's coming in November..Considerring that 61% voted FOR the Initiative it is NOT beyond the realm of possibility for them to Garner another 5% JUST based on the Reaction to THIS ruling...
Hawkeye read my blog
May 16, 2008 | 8:18 AM

So far Federal Rulings have Held that NO other State has to recognize Massachusett's Gay Marriages IF those States have their OWN Constitutional Definition of Marriage that does NOT include Gays..
yellowdog read my blog view my photos
May 16, 2008 | 9:06 AM

That's why this IS a States Rights issue.

Gays can be legally married in Mass (it figures that a State which elected Teddy and Kerry IS LIBERAL) and now in Calif. Other States are not forced to recognize this marriage, just as other States may not honor a concealed weapons permit in their States.

If the folks in a State want to recognize this "legal compact", that's their business.

In part , we fought a Civil War based on the battle for "States Rights". Why restrict the States now? Does the Federal Government know better ( we all know that politicians are generally a bunch of liars, crooks and thieves at levels however)?

It's easier to rail against a bunch of "pinko commie, liberal" judges but they are merely doing what they were appointed to do.

Thanks gammie, I changed because of my pal Frank's love of all that is French.

That's funny sabail! Arnold is married to Maria and I gotta believe he is a little bit influenced by her Kennedy liberalism.

Nice to have a little chat with you Hawk. You have a great attention to detail.
Hawkeye read my blog
May 16, 2008 | 9:28 AM

Once again YD..Your interpretation based on revisionist history FAILS you..We did NOT fight a Civil War over the General Issue of States Rights..Consider for a moment that if THAT were the case then the Conferacy would be seen as the States Rights’s Advocates and the Union would be the Federalist’s..

Now,,according to THAT premise..

The STATES Rights’s Side LOST the Civil War yet we STILL have a debate on THAT Issue Soooo,,Since the ISSUE wasn’t RESOLVED by the Civil War it could HARDLY be argued that that war was OVER that Issue..

As for THIS comment,

“If the folks in a State want to recognize this "legal compact", that's their business.”

IF you REALLY believed THAT then YOU’D have to be AGAINST this ruling..

As for THIS one,

“Does the Federal Government know better”

The Federal Government had NOTHING to DO with this ..It wasa ruling by the Cal.Supreme Court..

“It's easier to rail against a bunch of "pinko commie, liberal" judges but they are merely doing what they were appointed to do.”

No,,,They didn’t and THAT’S the WHOLE point..

They are appointed to INTERPRET the law as it relates to the Constitution of CALIFORNIA..NOT to INSTITUTE Laws according to THEIR personal agendas..

A Considerable portion of the Supreme Court of California declared NO Constitutional Basis for this 4 to 3 decision..
Hawkeye read my blog
May 16, 2008 | 9:33 AM

I was a bit confused with the title of this post as it relates to the subject anyway..THIS is a COMPLETELY Internal State of California Issue..There ARE no challenges to the STATE associated with this ruling...
yellowdog read my blog view my photos
May 16, 2008 | 9:45 AM

A central premise leading up to Ft Sumnter was the rights of States to comply/ or not with mandates declared by the Federal Gov't. Prior to that the "Whiskey rebellion" forced the issue. Prior to that the Revolutionay war was begun by areas which later became the States, who were insisting on rights from our first dictator named George.

The entire early premise of government was to empower the States to make their own decisions.

The "Rights" of States to allow slavery was the reason for the Missiouri Compromise, which only postponed the conflict.

"States Rights" again became the rallying cry for the prepetuation of segregation.

This is ENTIRELY about the rights of States to decide issues for themselves, such as gay marriage.

In the absence of a Federal Constitutional ban, it is entirely a State issue.
Hawkeye read my blog
May 16, 2008 | 9:59 AM

A Loose interpretaion of the causes of the civil war at best..

And again..THIS particular issue of Gay marriage NEVER left the confines of the STATE of California..
It is an ISSUE between the PEOPLE of California and the Supreme Court of California so your Comments about the Federal Government and States Rights seem COMPLETELY out of place here..You're bringing up a question that is NOT at Question here..
yellowdog read my blog view my photos
May 16, 2008 | 10:47 AM

States rights have always depended on the balance of powers with them and with the Federal gov't.

The term demands consideration of the conflicting entities.

I only mentioned a Federal ban because it would restrict States to make the decision as was made in Mass and calif. Otherwise it remains an issue to be determined by each State.

Have we EVER agreed on anything?
LQQKING read my blog view my photos
May 16, 2008 | 12:58 PM

1)This was a state Supreme Court Ruling on a Voters Initiative's Constitionality under the STATE CONSTITUTION.

2)The Initiative was passed with in excess of 60% of the vote. Then overturned by the Court

3)The remaining course of action is to pass an ammednment to the State's Constitution(which in CA requires a simple majority 50% plus 1).Consider the fact of the 60%+ vote on the original initiative it seems destined to pass.

4) There is some speculation that it will be passed in a blowout election due to the voter's resentment to the Court's Over turning thier first vote
LQQKING read my blog view my photos
May 16, 2008 | 1:01 PM

--CONTINUED--

Since there is no Federal Involvement at this point it would not seem to be a states rights issue as of now.Rather it is an Internal Issue for the State of California
Abunai read my blog view my photos
May 16, 2008 | 1:33 PM

Simply put, 4 Conservative judges in Cali went against the word of the people and litigated from the bench.

As for States rights, funny how we have the Gays demanding rights, but not allowing incest, poligamy, beastiality, or any combination of sexual orientation outside one man/one woman to have their voice. Thats next, as evident now in Canada who is hearing cases from Beast lovers for their rights using the presedence for allowing Gay marriage in Canada! Those that feel that falling in love with their goat or favorite sheep are being "discriminated against" just like blacks have been!
(I love to bring forth the facts left out on this debate here!)

But if States should have this right to decide on Gay marriage, then we should allow them to recend Roe vs. Wade on abortion too and let the states make their own decission to then right?

Core values and principles here as much as the Gay community would like to pretend to be exclusive to any of the above, are not.
yellowdog read my blog view my photos
May 16, 2008 | 2:19 PM

Roe and Gays are apples and oranges.

You'll get orpple juice if you squeeze too hard.

BTW, if you want to do the ditty with your favorite goat in Florida it's quite legal. No laws prevent bestiality.

Yet our splendid legislature wanted to ban ball nutz, protect the "flat earth society" members; not to mention legislate how low guys can hang their pants.

All this while taxes and insurance rates are unchanged. What a bunch of putzes.
LQQKING read my blog view my photos
May 16, 2008 | 4:50 PM

Abunai

As you say,If your going to remain logical and straightforward on States Rights.Roe as well as many other issues such as education, speed limits, and elections to name only a few, should fall into the States Rights catagory and be decided at the State level. Although seemingly "apples and oranges" they have a commonality as States Rights Issues
Abunai read my blog view my photos
May 16, 2008 | 5:33 PM

Now laws prevent you from beast love.. OK go down the court house with that cute pony you love and try to get a marriage licence then....

Roe and Gays are EXACTLY the same in the forum of states rights to its own laws. The fact that its protected as the tool for women's rights is the "apples" you may be refering to.

Looking is exactly right. From speed limits, seat belt laws, election law, etc. all have states rights issues.

Liberals are going to have to learn to take the good with the bad on such issues.
mscsailor read my blog
May 17, 2008 | 9:17 AM

States only have the right to enact laws that liberal activist judges deem politically correct.
BornToBeWild read my blog view my photos
May 17, 2008 | 9:51 AM

Is there anything that California hasn't allowed or done that you know of? Is anyone really surprised about this?
Page 1 of 2
1
2
 Last


Write your comment below:




yellowdog

I have been a resident of Hillsborough County since skippy was a puppy. I am a yellowdog Democrat {fiscal conservative, social moderate, radical defender of the constitution and of your civil liberties}. Member of the ACLU and the NRA. I love dogs, children and my personal freedom, do not suffer fools lightly and enjoy honest, spirited debate.

Member Since: 11/10/2006


 

View All Photos