Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819
Results 181 to 187 of 187

Thread: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

  1. #181
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Er...this is exactly my point.
    Thank you. Then you admit that you were wrong in your original assessment.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  2. #182
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Thank you. Then you admit that you were wrong in your original assessment.
    I'm trying to figure out how you came to that conclusion and am coming up blank.

    Assuming that we agree that "Something doesn't become a Constitutional right because you, I or anyone else believes it should be," then the logical conclusion of that statement is that gay marriage either is or is not a constitutional right.

    As I pointed out already, if gay marriage is a constitutional right, then every one of the aforementioned states took away a constitutional right by majority vote.

    If you don't consider gay marriage a constitutional right, then no constitutional right was taken away by majority vote.

    You're wrong regardless of the way you look at it.
    Last edited by RightinNYC; 04-15-09 at 02:02 PM.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #183
    Guru
    Alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    02-13-17 @ 04:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,962

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I'm trying to figure out how you came to that conclusion and am coming up blank.

    Assuming that we agree that "Something doesn't become a Constitutional right because you, I or anyone else believes it should be," then the logical conclusion of that statement is that gay marriage either is or is not a constitutional right.

    As I pointed out already, if gay marriage is a constitutional right, then every one of the aforementioned states took away a constitutional right by majority vote.

    If you don't consider gay marriage a constitutional right, then no constitutional right was taken away by majority vote.

    You're wrong regardless of the way you look at it.
    I think this is what Disneydude is trying to articulate:

    The California Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage to be a Constitutional right. The referendum took that away.

    Has it ever happened anywhere else that a Constitutional right was declared legally, and then taken away by majority vote?
    "Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15." -Ronald Reagan

  4. #184
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex View Post
    I think this is what Disneydude is trying to articulate:

    The California Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage to be a Constitutional right. The referendum took that away.

    Has it ever happened anywhere else that a Constitutional right was declared legally, and then taken away by majority vote?
    As I noted before:

    Prop 8 was effectively the exact same thing as the dozens of other amendments passed by other states. The only thing that's unique about it is that it came AFTER a state SC said that gay marriage was a constitutional right. It's nowhere near the groundbreaking thing that you're making it out to be.
    It may be true that this was the first time that a referendum was passed after a court declared that there was a constitutional right, but that's irrelevant to the larger question of whether "constitutional rights" can be and have been "revoked" by a majority vote.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  5. #185
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I'm trying to figure out how you came to that conclusion and am coming up blank.

    Assuming that we agree that "Something doesn't become a Constitutional right because you, I or anyone else believes it should be," then the logical conclusion of that statement is that gay marriage either is or is not a constitutional right.

    As I pointed out already, if gay marriage is a constitutional right, then every one of the aforementioned states took away a constitutional right by majority vote.

    If you don't consider gay marriage a constitutional right, then no constitutional right was taken away by majority vote.

    You're wrong regardless of the way you look at it.
    What your analysis fails to take into consideration is that there are State Constitutions and a Federal Constititution.
    None of the states, other than California, that passed referendums had a ruling from their Supreme Court that recognized gay marriage as a Constitutional right. Thus, none of those referendums took away rights that were deemed Constitutional by the highest Courts.
    California on the otherhand had ruled that prohibitions against gay marriage violated the California Constitution, thus recognizing gay marriage as a Constitutional right. Prop 8 eliminated that Constitutional right by a simple majority 50%+1 vote. Something that has never been done in the United State before and setting a dangerous precedent (at least in California) that Constitutional rights are subject to the whim of a simple majority. That should be scary to anyone who values Constitutional rights.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  6. #186
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    What your analysis fails to take into consideration is that there are State Constitutions and a Federal Constititution.
    I'm well aware of the difference, but I didn't bother going into this in depth because I'm unaware of any distinction between the CA constitution and those of the other states that have passed such a referendum that would warrant distinguishing them from each other on this issue. The clauses that the CA SC based their decision on are fundamentally identical to that of the USC.

    None of the states, other than California, that passed referendums had a ruling from their Supreme Court that recognized gay marriage as a Constitutional right. Thus, none of those referendums took away rights that were deemed Constitutional by the highest Courts.
    Again, as I've repeated several times, this is irrelevant to the larger question.

    California on the otherhand had ruled that prohibitions against gay marriage violated the California Constitution, thus recognizing gay marriage as a Constitutional right. Prop 8 eliminated that Constitutional right by a simple majority 50%+1 vote. Something that has never been done in the United State before and setting a dangerous precedent (at least in California) that Constitutional rights are subject to the whim of a simple majority.
    While you may be technically right that this has not happened in this context before, you're completely wrong that this set any precedent. In terms of the ability of citizens to modify constitutional rights by majority vote, this case was absolutely indistinguishable from that of the other states.

    You keep on avoiding my main point: If gay marriage is a "constitutional right," then how do you characterize the decisions in other states to amend their constitutions to prohibit gay marriage?

    That should be scary to anyone who values Constitutional rights.
    You're free to be scared by this, but it's not even remotely new.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #187
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post

    You're free to be scared by this, but it's not even remotely new.
    We'll have to agree to disagree. I believe that now only is this completely new, it is groundbreaking and sets a very scary precedent. If the Constitutional Rights of individuals can be taken away by a simple majority 50%+1 vote, what is to stop other iniatives to be passed? Nothing.
    One of the main concepts of a Constitution is that there are certain rights/privileges that are so important that they cannot be taken away by a simple majority...often phrased - as a protection of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. This is why the US Constitution and most State Constitutions require a larger percentage (often 2/3rds) and provide safeguards that a Constitution cannot be changed except by going through a Constitiutional Amendment process. The initiative process is sadly abused here in California. Special interest groups of all political persuasions often place things on the ballot that are worded in such a way that uneducated people are confused about what they are voting for. To think that Constitutional Rights are now subject to this same process is frankly very disturbing.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •