They were voting to define a right though. Your opinion that homosexual unions is a right is just as valid as mine, which believes that it isn't marriage and thus doesn't have the right to be called such.No it wasn't, you got to vote. You just can't make law that which infringes upon the rights of others.
They are legal, my state has defined marriage, and they were found to be illegal when brought to court by the ACLU. My beliefs are legal. We aren't a direct democracy at the federal level. At the state level things are different, and the rules for voting on Prop 8 was that the majority vote would be put into law.That's because your beliefs were illegal. You cannot infringe upon the rights of others. You were free to vote for it, and you did. But since we are not a direct democracy (for the love of all that is holy, how is this a hard concept to understand?), we have system of checks and balances to ensure the rights of the minority are upheld.
It soon will be if "hate speech" legislation is passed just like Canada. My voicing my beliefs I was talking about voicing them through my vote.For the love of ****, no it was not. Go out onto the street corner and start preaching against same sex marriage. Dollars to donuts says you don't get arrested.
See above. As a Constitutional Republic the state's have rights. Please tell me about the voting rules in California and how being a Constitutional Republic means that in Porp 8's case, that the majority vote should not become law. The voting rules were that the majority vote would be put into place. It wasn't to be represented by districts in California with electoral votes that would determine things. Again, if the majority of people in the state wanted slavery, they would have to amend the constitution or secede from the US. The Constitution was amended to make slavery illegal. In order to re-instate it they would have to repeal that amendment. However, there is no amendment that says gay marriage should be legalized, and many other states have defined marriage without it being ruled unconstitutional.Because WE ARE NOT A DIRECT DEMOCRACY. Jesus tap dancing Christ on a pogo stick. We are a Constitutional Republic built upon the rights and liberties of the individual. We protect those rights, we ensure those rights. Majority rules within minority rights. That's how it is. And not contractual slavery, nice attempt to try to deflect there. Forced slavery is also not outside your "logic" here. If the majority of the people in a State said "Black people suck and we should make them slaves again!" Do you really think they should be allowed to? Well according to EVERYTHING you've said in this thread, yes. But it's an insane position to take.
Do you realize what you just said? Marriage is a state issued and recognized contract. And the state of California asked the citizens of the state to define the boundaries of that contract.But the 9th amendment isn't. And by your actions you're trying to infringe upon an individual's right to contract since marriage is a State issued and recognized contract.
The other side wants to define homosexual unions of marriage yet not include child marriages, bestiality, and pansexual marriages. It is an enforcement of morality in that it equates homosexuality with heterosexuality yet puts other sexualities as immoral and not legally marriage.Government is inherently amoral. And nothing that the court did here "enforces morality". The enforcement of morality comes from the other side. The side trying to infringe upon the rights of others to enter into contract. That's where morality is being enforced. Now, if the law said you can only get gay married, then you'd have a point. But since it didn't, you don't.
No, we wish to define the legal boundaries of that contract just as the other side desires to do. Two moral stances are butting heads when it comes to defining the contract of marriage.WTF are you even talking about now? All people have right to contract, that's that. Marriage is a contract. That's the end all be all of this argument. One side (yours) wishes to infringe upon that right. The other side wishes to acknowledge that right.
The court here wants to trample on people's votes and force a moral stance that homosexual unions are the same legally as heterosexual unions. Why can they infringe upon someone's "right" to marry a cat, or a spoon, or a child? Why aren't those things rights? What would your position be if people wanted to marry their loyal dogs and pets and states no one has the right to tell them their union is illegal or wrong?Because marriage is a contract. The Marriage License is a State issued and recognized contract. The government isn't legislating morals. That's is a dumb, retarded, and tired argument. The courts here are merely looking to acknowledge the EQUAL right. No where are your rights infringed upon. No where does it say you have to like it. No where does it say you can't condemn it. But so long as the marriage license exists as a contract, you cannot infringe upon other's right to contract.