News of the day

akamaisondufromage wrote: RIP Alan Myers former Devo drummer.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

CPicard wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: RIP Alan Myers former Devo drummer. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Edited by akamaisondufromage - June 26 2013 at 14:39

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: The T wrote: The supreme court kind of making sense two days in a row. New world record. It would have been a great victory for states' rights if they had upheld Prop 8.  But I'm glad DOMA is gone, at least.

Individual rights have to come before state rights, which are another form of collective rights.

By default they "upheld" the lower courts ruling because they chose not to make a decision on the case due to a technicality.

^We end up in the same place though. What is a state but another territorial division full (or not like Wyoming) of people? If the people in said state decide on something we fall in the same risks of democracy and tyranny of the majority as on a national level. So if that state-majority decides on something that in some ways violates constitutional rights (arguably, or human rights for some) it's not a decision I would support just because it was made at a state and not at a federal level.

Dean wrote: I thought they had upheld the lower courts ruling on Prop 8... or am I misunderstanding the use of "upheld" here?

The lower courts ruling on Prop 8 was that Prop 8 is hogwash.   The SC upheld that ruling.

The T wrote: ^We end up in the same place though. What is a state but another territorial division full (or not like Wyoming) of people? If the people in said state decide on something we fall in the same risks of democracy and tyranny of the majority as on a national level. So if that state-majority decides on something that in some ways violates constitutional rights (arguably, or human rights for some) it's not a decision I would support just because it was made at a state and not at a federal level.

I agree, except prop 8 didn't violate anyone's constitutional rights.  I don't like prop 8, and as a libertarian, I obviously don't support government intrusion upon personal matters at the state or federal level.  But I also don't think the federal government has the right to overturn that state's decision. 

Atavachron wrote: ^I voted No on 8.   The 52% that voted Yes bothers me deeply, but it is a significant margin.   The real problem as I see it is that a ban on gay marriage is so absurd and unconstitutional it never should've been allowed to go to vote.   Just because a bunch of misguided puritans think marriage is only for straights doesn't mean it should be observed or legislated.   Proposition 8 was a terrible mistake mostly by creating a legal opportunity for ugly, stupid and tired discrimination.

Please explain to me exactly what part of Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution?  I agree that it was a bad idea, that government shouldn't ban gay marriage, etc (I myself don't morally support gay marriage but I see no reason why the government should attempt to make everyone follow Christian morals).  But sorry, "bad law" doesn't mean "unconstitutional."  States are bound to uphold constitutional liberties according to the fourteenth amendment, but unless there was a constitutional amendment passed last week that I didn't hear about, they aren't bound to the constitutional limits on the federal government (feds aren't supposed to go beyond the bounds of their responsibilities outlined in the document), and unless there was another constitutional amendment passed last week that I didn't hear about, the right for gay people to get married isn't in there either.

^There's no need for bibles. One can say that gay people had the same freedom to marry as heterosexual people. Nothing stopped a gay man from marrying a woman. So everybody was equal in that everybody could marry someone of the opposite sex.. If marriage is redefined, as it has been de facto, then yes, gay people were not equal because they couldn't marry whom they chose, including someone of the same sex.

I don't think only "biblical" people are somewhat uneasy with the idea of gay marriage. Though I agree most who vehemently oppose it in public are.

...and which amendment to your constitution defines marriage?