TexasCHLforum.com

By refusing to rule on the California amendment banning gay marriage, the Supreme Court has effectively said that government officials, by fiat, can chose to ignore the will of the people and refuse to defend a Constitutional amendment passed by the people. This ruling effectively cedes even more power to the elites who believe it is both their right and their duty to decide what is best for us despite our desires. While this only impacts gay marriage in California, the broader impact is to put the Supreme Court's stamp on Obama's unconstitutional actions of choosing to ignore our immigration laws to achieve the results he wants despite legislative opposition. The Supreme Court has effectively silenced the voice of the people and ruled that government officials may do anything they choose without consulting with the people they govern.

America is officially dead. May she rest in peace. God help those of us who cannot afford to leave.

Tick tick tick .....

Anygunanywhere

baldeagle wrote:By refusing to rule on the California amendment banning gay marriage, the Supreme Court has effectively said that government officials, by fiat, can chose to ignore the will of the people and refuse to defend a Constitutional amendment passed by the people. This ruling effectively cedes even more power to the elites who believe it is both their right and their duty to decide what is best for us despite our desires. While this only impacts gay marriage in California, the broader impact is to put the Supreme Court's stamp on Obama's unconstitutional actions of choosing to ignore our immigration laws to achieve the results he wants despite legislative opposition. The Supreme Court has effectively silenced the voice of the people and ruled that government officials may do anything they choose without consulting with the people they govern.

America is officially dead. May she rest in peace. God help those of us who cannot afford to leave.

The body was laid to rest years ago....they just haven't finished sealing the coffin yet.

baldeagle wrote:By refusing to rule on the California amendment banning gay marriage, the Supreme Court has effectively said that government officials, by fiat, can chose to ignore the will of the people and refuse to defend a Constitutional amendment passed by the people.

Prior to 1965, there were many places in the USA where African Americans were not allowed to vote due to the will of the majority.
Prior to that, it was the will of the people that African Americans couldn't own property.
Prior to that, African Americans WERE property.
Women couldn't vote until 1920.

Clearly, we can't depend on the will of the people to make fair decisions. History teaches us over and over that an unprotected minority gets treated unfairly.


Want a marriage policy that we call can agree on?
Marriage is a religious institution. One of the basic founding principles of our country is separation of church and state.
The government should get out of the marriage business. If they want to regulate something, they can regulate civil unions.
Churches get to regulate marriage and via that means, they can include or exclude whomever they want per moral doctrine.
Rights granted to citizens should not be predicated on marriage. They should be predicated on civil union. To do anything else results in some form of inequality and discrimination.

cb1000rider wrote:

baldeagle wrote:By refusing to rule on the California amendment banning gay marriage, the Supreme Court has effectively said that government officials, by fiat, can chose to ignore the will of the people and refuse to defend a Constitutional amendment passed by the people.

Prior to 1965, there were many places in the USA where African Americans were not allowed to vote due to the will of the majority.
Prior to that, it was the will of the people that African Americans couldn't own property.
Prior to that, African Americans WERE property.
Women couldn't vote until 1920.

Clearly, we can't depend on the will of the people to make fair decisions. History teaches us over and over that an unprotected minority gets treated unfairly.


Want a marriage policy that we call can agree on?
Marriage is a religious institution. One of the basic founding principles of our country is separation of church and state.
The government should get out of the marriage business. If they want to regulate something, they can regulate civil unions.
Churches get to regulate marriage and via that means, they can include or exclude whomever they want per moral doctrine.
Rights granted to citizens should not be predicated on marriage. They should be predicated on civil union. To do anything else results in some form of inequality and discrimination.

I'd go one step further and suggest we get rid of the over 1100 laws and government benefits that only apply to married people. Treat every individual equally under the law as the constitution requires. No special priveleges for a special class at all. This isn't about morality, its all about the money.

cb1000rider wrote:

baldeagle wrote:By refusing to rule on the California amendment banning gay marriage, the Supreme Court has effectively said that government officials, by fiat, can chose to ignore the will of the people and refuse to defend a Constitutional amendment passed by the people.

Prior to 1965, there were many places in the USA where African Americans were not allowed to vote due to the will of the majority.
Prior to that, it was the will of the people that African Americans couldn't own property.
Prior to that, African Americans WERE property.
Women couldn't vote until 1920.

Clearly, we can't depend on the will of the people to make fair decisions. History teaches us over and over that an unprotected minority gets treated unfairly.

So we should ignore the will of the people? Who gets to decide when they're wrong?

It really stinks for the polygamists.

baldeagle wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

baldeagle wrote:By refusing to rule on the California amendment banning gay marriage, the Supreme Court has effectively said that government officials, by fiat, can chose to ignore the will of the people and refuse to defend a Constitutional amendment passed by the people.

Prior to 1965, there were many places in the USA where African Americans were not allowed to vote due to the will of the majority.
Prior to that, it was the will of the people that African Americans couldn't own property.
Prior to that, African Americans WERE property.
Women couldn't vote until 1920.

Clearly, we can't depend on the will of the people to make fair decisions. History teaches us over and over that an unprotected minority gets treated unfairly.

So we should ignore the will of the people? Who gets to decide when they're wrong?

I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court does as they did today...

Apparently 5 people can invalidate the will of millions.

It helps to have the right perspective on what happened here. The America we read about the America we were taught that we lived in is gone. There are many things that have taken a toll on it through the years. The United States as it was formed is a grand idea, a radical experiment in self-government. Sadly chip by chip statists throu the years have chipped away at that till now there is precious little left of that idea. This is just a revelation of yet another layer of rot.

It will be ok. Nations come and go, but the people remain. Just because godless heathens pollute the word marriage, does not mean that your marriage is polluted. Love your wife/ husband, treasure marriage in your heart, keep your kids away from the statist, take care of your family. We must understand that we are living in a secular selfish hedonistic society. Make plans and act accordingly. Cultivate a love of freedom in your hearts and the hearts of your children. This is not the end, just another chapter.

baldeagle wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

baldeagle wrote:By refusing to rule on the California amendment banning gay marriage, the Supreme Court has effectively said that government officials, by fiat, can chose to ignore the will of the people and refuse to defend a Constitutional amendment passed by the people.

Prior to 1965, there were many places in the USA where African Americans were not allowed to vote due to the will of the majority.
Prior to that, it was the will of the people that African Americans couldn't own property.
Prior to that, African Americans WERE property.
Women couldn't vote until 1920.

Clearly, we can't depend on the will of the people to make fair decisions. History teaches us over and over that an unprotected minority gets treated unfairly.

So we should ignore the will of the people? Who gets to decide when they're wrong?

What if the will of the people is to confiscate all the wealth of people earning more than $50,000 a year and redistribute it among those "less fortunate?" What if the will of the people is to ban all firearm ownership? Should the will of the people be ignored? This is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. What's supposed to happen is that an executive branch that implements the law is checked and balanced by representatives who understand and uphold the constitution and are checked and balanced by courts that understand and uphold the constitution. While the system doesn't work anymore, it was never meant to be an instrument for implementing the will of the people.

baldeagle wrote:By refusing to rule on the California amendment banning gay marriage, the Supreme Court has effectively said that government officials, by fiat, can chose to ignore the will of the people and refuse to defend a Constitutional amendment passed by the people. This ruling effectively cedes even more power to the elites who believe it is both their right and their duty to decide what is best for us despite our desires. While this only impacts gay marriage in California, the broader impact is to put the Supreme Court's stamp on Obama's unconstitutional actions of choosing to ignore our immigration laws to achieve the results he wants despite legislative opposition. The Supreme Court has effectively silenced the voice of the people and ruled that government officials may do anything they choose without consulting with the people they govern.

America is officially dead. May she rest in peace. God help those of us who cannot afford to leave.

While I don't disagree with your closing statement (although where is there to go if you did decide to leave?), I do believe that the 14th Amendment, Section I, of the US Constitution applies here, and supersedes any State law.

Excuse me for a minute while I don my Nomex long-john's

baldeagle wrote: So we should ignore the will of the people? Who gets to decide when they're wrong?

Judicially speaking, the people (or their elected officials) are wrong when they are responsible for implementing state laws that run counter to rules established by the Constitution.
If the people implemented a new amendment to the US Constitution that bans gay marriage, they'd be in the right judicially in terms of making similar state laws. Morally and ethically, clearly people have different opinions. Modifying the Constitution is tough, by design... So you're not going to get it done without super-majority support.

When is it OK for the majority to legalize discrimination or take away the life, liberty, or property of a group that is in a minority? Remember, the Nazis were a majority of the German population at one time. You can't count on the majority to do the right thing.

2firfun50 wrote: I'd go one step further and suggest we get rid of the over 1100 laws and government benefits that only apply to married people. Treat every individual equally under the law as the constitution requires. No special priveleges for a special class at all. This isn't about morality, its all about the money.

That's a great idea... And it would have my full support.

VMI77 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

baldeagle wrote:By refusing to rule on the California amendment banning gay marriage, the Supreme Court has effectively said that government officials, by fiat, can chose to ignore the will of the people and refuse to defend a Constitutional amendment passed by the people.

Prior to 1965, there were many places in the USA where African Americans were not allowed to vote due to the will of the majority.
Prior to that, it was the will of the people that African Americans couldn't own property.
Prior to that, African Americans WERE property.
Women couldn't vote until 1920.

Clearly, we can't depend on the will of the people to make fair decisions. History teaches us over and over that an unprotected minority gets treated unfairly.

So we should ignore the will of the people? Who gets to decide when they're wrong?

What if the will of the people is to confiscate all the wealth of people earning more than $50,000 a year and redistribute it among those "less fortunate?" What if the will of the people is to ban all firearm ownership? Should the will of the people be ignored? This is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. What's supposed to happen is that an executive branch that implements the law is checked and balanced by representatives who understand and uphold the constitution and are checked and balanced by courts that understand and uphold the constitution. While the system doesn't work anymore, it was never meant to be an instrument for implementing the will of the people.

Why do you feel the need to resort to such extremes to make a point? Doing so costs credibility.

The will of the people within constitutional bounds is precisely the foundation upon which the country was formed. Now allowing same sex marriage has nothing to do with constitutionally protected rights like ownership of property and Second Amendment rights.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Now allowing same sex marriage has nothing to do with constitutionally protected rights like ownership of property and Second Amendment rights.

Chas.

I agree. I was only responding to the concept of implementing the will of the people as opposed to individual rights, not homosexual marriage itself. Maybe I should have added: I think implementing the will of the people is just fine when it doesn't abrogate Constitutional rights. As far as homosexual marriage goes, I think the problem is more one of government involvement where it doesn't belong. Like another poster, I think marriage should be under the purview of the Church, not the government.