Be Courageous - - Support Prop 8

[_antishock8]

Weren't similar arguments being made about inter-racial marriages by racists?

[_Some Schmo]

We need to get government out of the business of putting a stamp of approval on relationships. Leaving the word "marriage" to religion solves the problem entirely.

Whose religion gets to define it? And does this proposal then invalidate all marriages involving athiests?

Slippin on the slippery-slick-slope.

Well, for this person who doesn't think there's a god, I have a legal document saying that I have a legal union with my wife. Whether people want to call it marriage or not, I couldn't care less.

All religions have their own wacky beliefs about a ton of inconsequential crap. Add the definition of "marriage" to that list. I mean, hell, Mormons think they're christians while other christians don't. Who gives a crap besides the members of those churches? I certainly don't. Let them think what they want as long as they leave everyone else alone.

I say, if churches expect to be heard by government, then they better start paying their damn taxes like everyone else. Otherwise, they should just shut the fvck up.

[_moksha]

I was just thinking about Collegeterrace's earlier post regarding gay polygamous marriage. If Dartangan, antishock, Droopy and Bcspace ended up in a combo, I would not be shocked. After all, politics makes strange bedfellows.

[_Calculus Crusader]

I agree with Bob. I am tired of gays using an activist judiciary to hijack the democratic process.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Don't blame liberals, blame the Founding Fathers for setting setting up the judiciary to interpret the constitution.

The obscure founder known as Thomas Jefferson had this to say:

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quo ... ff1030.htm

There is also the trifling matter of Article III, which allows Congress to circumscribe the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Don't blame liberals, blame the Founding Fathers for setting setting up the judiciary to interpret the constitution.

The obscure founder known as Thomas Jefferson had this to say:

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quo ... ff1030.htm

That's just Jefferson exhibiting 'sour grapes' after his defeat in Marbury v. Madison. ;)

[_harmony]

I say, if churches expect to be heard by government, then they better start paying their damn taxes like everyone else. Otherwise, they should just shut the f*** up.

Blunt though Schmo is, I think he has a point. Maybe we should sell lobbying licenses? Those who buy one can lobby the public or the politicians. Those who don't, can't.