Tom Hanks:"Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 'Un-American'"

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Marriage is not a constitutional right at all ....

Wrong. See the Supreme Court decision in Loving.

Marriage and family is the fundamental core of civil society, and it is not a right, but a responsibility and a privilege given to those mature and capable of entering into it.

"Maturity" has never been a requirement (see Joseph Smith's marriage to the 14-year old Helen Mar Kimball). And marriage is an absolute constitutional right -- see Loving.

Marriage is never mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, just as many other things are not, because if rights, they are contingent rights, not the unalienable sort actually found in the Constitution itself.

But it's there, according to the Supreme Court in Loving.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

You see, "The CA supreme court found, the CA supreme court found etc." Really fascinating the manner in which virtually the entire modern Left has abandoned the very concept of accountable representative legislatures.

Blame that on the people of CA, who set up the state constitution to do exactly as you now complain about.

What would we do without the progressive, enlightened few like Rollo to lead us into a better world?

I'm just happy I can help out folks like you.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

You see, "The CA supreme court found, the CA supreme court found etc." Really fascinating the manner in which virtually the entire modern Left has abandoned the very concept of accountable representative legislatures. They just don't work very well so much of the time.

What the heck are you talking about? If anything, the "representative legislature" of California is far to the left of the CA Supreme Court. Prop 8 was "direct democracy" using California's ballot initiative process; it totally bypassed the "representative legislature", and it was brought by the conservative base.

Droop also fails to recognize that 4 of the 5 CA supreme court judges who comprised the majority recognizing gay marriagein are Republican appointees. Ah, the irony ....

[_Chap]

Marriage is not a constitutional right at all ....

Wrong. See the Supreme Court decision in Loving.

Yup. Sounds like the Supreme Court is pretty sure about that:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... oving.html

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

[_Droopy]

Race is a social construct. If anything, homosexuality is much more of an inherent biological characteristic. I wouldn't expect you to know that, though.

It would be nice if there was a particle of plausible scientific evidence supporting this vague statement, wouldn't it?

[Guest]

Droopy wrote:
Marriage is not a constitutional right at all ....

Wrong. See the Supreme Court decision in Loving.

See the constitution of the United States, and then let's compare this to Loving.

"Maturity" has never been a requirement (see Joseph Smith's marriage to the 14-year old Helen Mar Kimball). And marriage is an absolute constitutional right -- see Loving.

Maturity has long been a requirement in western societies, especially modern ones in which adolescence is culturally prolonged. Marriage is not a right in any constitutional sense, according to original intent of the authors of the Constitution, one clear intent of which, in the 10th amendment, was to leave such considerations to the people. The decision in Loving is quite clearly just as much a judicial fabrication as the reasoning and decision in Roe, and while you are certainly correct that it sets legal precedent, its also logical and philosophical nonsense, and legal nonsense when contrasted to the original text and intent of the Constitution.


_________________
"

[_Droopy]

Droop also fails to recognize that 4 of the 5 CA supreme court judges who comprised the majority recognizing gay marriagein are Republican appointees. Ah, the irony ....

The only irony here is that this is utterly irrelevant to my argument, or any pro-prop 8 argument. And, as I am not a Republican, and as being Republican has no necessary connection to conservatism (as the recent election and the last 8 years showed quite clearly), bring the irony on.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

See the constitution of the United States, and then let's compare this to Loving.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Loving interprets the U.S. Constitution. D'oh!

Marriage is not a right in any constitutional sense, according to original intent of the authors of the Constitution ....

The Supreme Court in Loving said otherwise.

The decision in Loving is quite clearly just as much a judicial fabrication as the reasoning and decision in Roe, and while you are certainly correct that it sets legal precedent, its also logical and philosophical nonsense, and legal nonsense when contrasted to the original text and intent of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is set up in the Constitution to interpret the Constitution (no other branch gets this responsibility). Your issue is with the Constitution, not the court decisions.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The only irony here is that this is utterly irrelevant to my argument, or any pro-prop 8 argument. And, as I am not a Republican, and as being Republican has no necessary connection to conservatism (as the recent election and the last 8 years showed quite clearly), bring the irony on.

You're the one screaming about THE LEFT causing all this, when in fact 4 of the 5 CA judges who joined to recognize gay marriage were appointees of THE RIGHT.

[_Mercury]

Race is a social construct. If anything, homosexuality is much more of an inherent biological characteristic. I wouldn't expect you to know that, though.

It would be nice if there was a particle of plausible scientific evidence supporting this vague statement, wouldn't it?

The burden of proof is actually on YOUR outlandish bigoted theories. Read Kinsey and the followup research if you need scientific justification. Not like scientific research has swayed you previously though.