CA Supreme Court agrees to review Prop. 8 ....

[_moksha]

Hypothetically, if the California Supreme Court struck down Proposition 8, is it conceivable that LDS Church would spearhead a drive to help Southern California secede from wicked Northern California?


.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Such have been found to fall withing the exception that allows gov't interference (the CA state supreme court decision expressly states this).

Then in theory it could do the same of homosexuality?

Anything is possible in theory, but I don't think there is any chance in practice (look at what the CA and CT supreme courts have done recently). There simply is no good reason to discriminate against gay persons.

Do you think they should be granted the special status of marriage with equal rights for it too?

Yes.

No court has found the the practice of polygamy is a fundamental constitutional right. Personally, I think it is (or should be) for consenting adults.

But should it be given equal benefits and status as marriage?

Yes, in my opinion.

This is why I think the Church's mantra of "standing for something" is utter BS.

Why? Don't they speak out on all issues to us? Doesn't that make us stand for something?

It's all relative. I'm looking at what they did and spent in the CA gay marriage fight, and comparing that to what they did on other issues. No comparison, in my opinion.

[_rcrocket]

Yeah I guess that the initiative overturning the Cal Supreme Courts ruling that the death penalty was unconstitutional didn't deprive anybody of a fundamental right. Into the gas chamber they go.

Nor was the initiative that stripped immigrants of rights to govt services a deprivation of anything. Initiatives are constantly restricting civil rights in California.

CFR for where a court has said these involved fundamental constitutional rights?

You're right. Putting somebody to death does not deprive anybody of a constitutional right. The constitution does not guarantee freedom from government death.

Look up the word disingenuous.

[_Brackite]

Hypothetically, if the California Supreme Court struck down Proposition 8, is it conceivable that LDS Church would spearhead a drive to help Southern California secede from wicked Northern California?


.

LOL! That is right. Proposition 8 Won in nine out of the ten Southern California Counties.


Please Check Out and See:

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/ma ... 000008.htm




Look how much Proposition 8 Won, Within the Great Southern California County of Imperial:

YES: --- 20,217 --- 70.1%
NO: ---- 8,644 --- 29.9%


And Look how much Proposition 8 lost, within the Liberal Northern California County of Marin:

YES: --- 34,178 --- 24.9%
NO: --- 103,001 --- 75.1%


<>

<>

[_Jason Bourne]

The 16 amendment took away a specific right to the enjoyment of income by allowing the government to tax it.

Surely it did not take away your right to earn and income and enjoy the majority of it, while benefiting from the services that income tax buys you.

As Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.

Trev

That is not the point. I am not arguing for or against the income tax. Here and on other threads Rollo insists prop 8 took away a fundamental right and he argues that such a thing has never happened. I noted the the 16th amendment did just that, took away a fundamental right to enjoy ones income.

[_asbestosman]

I am not arguing for or against the income tax. Here and on other threads Rollo insists prop 8 took away a fundamental right and he argues that such a thing has never happened. I noted the the 16th amendment did just that, took away a fundamental right to enjoy ones income.

Interesting, but does it really work? Didn't the government still have other taxes before income tax? If so, don't the other taxes usually end up amounting to something similar--depriving one of the right to enjoy his income. Take sales tax for example. Both the seller and the buyer end up with a less than completely satisfactory arrangement because of this governmental interference (especially here in Washington state).

[_Trevor]

Trev

That is not the point. I am not arguing for or against the income tax. Here and on other threads Rollo insists prop 8 took away a fundamental right and he argues that such a thing has never happened. I noted the the 16th amendment did just that, took away a fundamental right to enjoy ones income.

But it didn't. I am sure you enjoy your income. You may enjoy less of it, but you enjoy it. And you enjoy the benefits of living in a civilized society. Now, if the government decided to tax 100% of gays' income and let the straights off without any income tax...

[_Trevor]

Interesting, but does it really work? Didn't the government still have other taxes before income tax? If so, don't the other taxes usually end up amounting to something similar--depriving one of the right to enjoy his income. Take sales tax for example. Both the seller and the buyer end up with a less than completely satisfactory arrangement because of this governmental interference (especially here in Washington state).

There you go.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Putting somebody to death does not deprive anybody of a constitutional right. The constitution does not guarantee freedom from government death.

Now who is being disingenuous? C'mon, counselor, you know very well that capital punishment undergoes the most rigorous judicial scrutiny, more so than any of the other rights we've been discussing, to the point when some day capital punishment will likely be obsolete. It's an absurd comparison to what you bigots just did to gay couples in CA.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Here and on other threads Rollo insists prop 8 took away a fundamental right and he argues that such a thing has never happened. I noted the the 16th amendment did just that, took away a fundamental right to enjoy ones income.

Never been recognized as a constitutional fundamental right (nor has the ability to drink liquor).