They also violate the "rights" of bestiality and pedophiles. I don't think the right to marry a horse or marry a child is right either.
So animals cannot enter into contract, nor can minors. Nice try though.
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, my opinion is that since marriage is a contract between two people, that the individual has the right to engage in that contract as they have the right to contract the same as you. Since the contract in question is the marriage license, all parties, regardless of sex, should have the equal right to exercise their right to contract.
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.
There is no State government which is a direct democracy either. It's all very Republic style. Also, States cannot violate the Federal Constitution either. It's why Chicago was able to be sued over its handgun ban. The State cannot make a law or amendment to their own constitution which violates the rights and liberties of the individual.
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.
And you got to vote. But you voted for something which violated the rights of others. And thus the protection measures which we have built into our government kicked in to prevent that oppression.
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.
Yet we are all held to the rights and liberties of the individual. A State may not make law counter to that.
Again, if the majority of people in the state wanted slavery, they would have to amend the constitution or secede from the US.
You would have to amend the Federal constitution and then see if you could get it past the voters and Congress. Otherwise, the only option would be to secede. And even if you did, for instance, get the federal Constitution amended, you'd have a fight on your hands and you'd learn why it is that we uphold the right to keep and bear arms.
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.
The Constitution was amended to make clear that all people had rights and liberties which must be acknowledged by the government. You do not need an additional amendment that says gay marriage is legal.
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.
And they can do that so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others in the process. The marriage license was originally installed for exactly the purpose it's being used for now; discrimination. After the civil war certain folk thought inter racial marriage to be a sin and that they had to protect marriage. So the instituted the marriage license which was only originally held towards interracial couples and used as a means to prevent their legal marriage. The SCOTUS said it was unconstitutional, so the marriage license was extended to everyone and interracial marriage was recognized as legal marriage. I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.
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.
That's because child marriage and bestiality do not flow logically from the argument. Animals cannot engage in contract. Nor can minors before age of consent. The age of consent laws are in place to protect right to contract.
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.
One is not a "moral" argument, however. It is a rights argument.
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 apparently some of us are logical and understand that animals and objects cannot enter into contract. Nor can a child, that's why there are age of consent laws. Let's try to be reasonable here; this slippery slope argument has been tried many times in the past and it is still as invalid now as it was then.
