Is There A Legal Reason As To Why Gay Marriage Should Not Be Legal?
Yes
42%
[ 6 ]
No
57%
[ 8 ]
Total Votes : 14
Author
Message
azraelle FemaleFirst Grand Master (1000+ Posts)
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 Posts: 2873 Location: southern utah, usa
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 11:29 pm Post subject:
The Colonel wrote:
...So What
Because if it is not wholly written, in specific places, it is subject to change by those in authority, without prior democratic approval, resulting in possible (probable?) loss of "rights" or privileges formerly guaranteed, on a whim of the state.
Because if it is not wholly written, in specific places, it is subject to change by those in authority, without prior democratic approval, resulting in possible (probable?) loss of "rights" or privileges formerly guaranteed, on a whim of the state.
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 Posts: 2873 Location: southern utah, usa
Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 12:01 am Post subject:
A case in point is the difference, now, between Britain's and America's rights to keep and bear arms--we still have ours, mostly, largely because they require democratic, and constitutional, approval to change. What happened to yours, and why?
Because if it is not wholly written, in specific places, it is subject to change by those in authority, without prior democratic approval, resulting in possible (probable?) loss of "rights" or privileges formerly guaranteed, on a whim of the state.
Democratic approval is given via the ballot box. A winning party who achieves a majority in the House of Commons is mandated to do as it has promised in its manifesto. The leader of the largest party in the House of Commons is invited by The Queen to become Prime Minister.
In cases of abuse of rights the opposition parties will team up against the government and backbenchers from the government's party will vote against the government. The House of Lords must then approve and it is highly likely they will throw out such proposals. Finally, Her Majesty, The Queen may refuse her Royal Assent.
In addition, a severe abuse of rights not in the public interest will bring down the government. In addition, we are a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) the latter being enforced in British courts.
British courts have no ability to override Parliament and they cannot strike down legislation. They can only suspend a statute, and ONLY if it violates the ECHR.
America has guns because it is violent. With 4000 under 19's dying every year from gun crime. Us British tend to value life a good bit more than owning guns, we'd rather not own them so that 4000 under 19's don't die. It is not a "human right" to own a gun. The state has a monopoly on weapons under the Firearms and Hazardous Materials Acts, and this does not violate the ECHR or the Human Rights Act (1998) of which it forms a part.
Soz for going missing, but the California Supreme Court sits in San Francisco, so we were out celebrating at the civic center last night, and I was a little too pissed to appear.
Myron—half-truth—myron speaks again.
Quote:
If "who they are" is illegal, then they are discriminated against.
In a true democracy, the will of the majority prevails.
Homosexuality is not "discriminated against."
Marirage is a legal relationship, properly defined by democratically enacted laws.
You claim to be the "subject" of a hereditary monarch, so what would you know about "true democracy"?
Apparently not. The Supreme Court of the largest state in the US, the seventh largest economy in the world, and I might add, the most influential court in the English speaking world, has just said that Proposition 22 was invidious discrimination. It was an affront not only to suspect classifications but to fundamental rights. This is a court composed of six republicans and one democrat, so there can be no accusation of politics. It was simply intelligent men and women applying rational thought to a problem, let the chips fall as they may.
Quote:
And where exactly is Britain's constitution written?
See, this is why I call him “half-truth.” Even tho he isn’t a lawyer, he learned at U Penn that Britain has had a constitution since 1297, when John I signed the Magna Carta. Britain doesn’t need a written constitution because it believes in tradition and respects the rules. Something the US could take a badly needed lesson in. The US, as myron eminently exemplifies, is expert in trickery. So it needs to write it down. That is what the California Supreme Court has done.
Quote:
It is an issue of democracy subverted by judicial diktat.
This is from an eastern-european who doesn’t believe in Constitutional Law. He thinks it’s ok for a president to declare an irrational war and invoke so-called presidential powers of the commander-in-chief in order to torture other human beings, but suddenly he’s a democrat when it comes to a plebiscite that panders to discrimination.
I've been telling you guys about his roots for a long time. Some of you think I'm just being slanderous. I'm not. Eastern-europeans just don’t get the idea of western democracy. It’s a cultural thing…like French wines or pasta to Naples. Think about the Colonel who ran Greece during the 60’s…or Attiturk…or what’s been going on in the Balkan Peninsula for centuries. There is no way that an eastern-european can even grasp the idea of freedom. For them, it’s autocracy and dictatorship every time.
His arguments are carbon copies of the arguments that were tossed about when courts started declaring unconstitutional the laws prohibiting interracial marriage. “Democratically enacted laws”…”activist courts”…”if we want to pass a law that discriminates, why he hell can’t we?” Well that game is over. You either fit within the rules and the paradigm or you go find another sandbox to play in.
The California Supreme Court is "the most influential court in the English speaking world"?
Yeah, right . . . you have been "celebrating" way too much.
Get back to us when you come down off the drugs, you psycho liar.
No wonder your ex-wife left you for your best friend.
This is eastern european intelligence? God, I'm embarrassed for you half-truth. Have you noticed that you've left the issue? Apparently, you don't feel much strength in your argument.
The California Supreme Court has led the nation in introducing doctrines that the US Supreme Court later adopted...hundreds of them, from tort law to criminal procedure...and Canadian, British and Australian law have all picked up on them. You're just not a lawyer, so why would you know?
I have checked with the New York State Bar and it says that you cannot become a lawyer without attending law school. In order to become a lawyer you have to (1) pass a bar examination, (2) pass a moral fitness examination and (3) you have to have graduated from an accredited three-year law school. You did not attend law school. Why engage in this bull-s**t, half-truth?
I have checked with the New York State Bar and it says that you cannot become a lawyer without attending law school. In order to become a lawyer you have to (1) pass a bar examination, (2) pass a moral fitness examination and (3) you have to have graduated from an accredited three-year law school. You did not attend law school. Why engage in this bull-s**t, half-truth?
I did attend and graduate from law school, but you did not.
I have been a member in good standing of the New York state bar as well as the bars of several federal district and circuit courts for two decades, but you're not a member of anything.
What a weak answer. What law school, half-truth? Your inability to tell us, coupled with your abundant braggadocio about attending U Penn, suggests that you have nothing to tell.
You are an insurance adjuster in the New York office of an insurance company, and because you wield the power of selecting law firms to defend your cases, you have enlisted the aid of those lawyers to answer some of the technical legal questions that have come up from time-to-time. The average lawyer would not know what I know about Constitutional Law, and that is why your lawyer-advisors come up short on the constitutional questions. They do not have a graduate degree in US Constitutional Law...I do. Simple reading of the circumstances…any questions?
What a weak answer. What law school, half-truth? Your inability to tell us, coupled with your abundant braggadocio about attending U Penn, suggests that you have nothing to tell.
You are an insurance adjuster in the New York office of an insurance company, and because you wield the power of selecting law firms to defend your cases, you have enlisted the aid of those lawyers to answer some of the technical legal questions that have come up from time-to-time. The average lawyer would not know what I know about Constitutional Law, and that is why your lawyer-advisors come up short on the constitutional questions. They do not have a graduate degree in US Constitutional Law...I do. Simple reading of the circumstances…any questions?
"Us" is you: no one else here is interested where I went to school.
I am not telling you where I went to law school, you psycho stalker.
You think I'm a fool to let you know my real identity?
It was a mistake letting you know where I went to university, but then I didn't realize what a psycho you are and that you would become obsessed with me.
But now I know you better . . . too well.
You are a bitter loser whose wife left him for his best friend.
America has guns because it is violent. With 4000 under 19's dying every year from gun crime. Us British tend to value life a good bit more than owning guns, we'd rather not own them so that 4000 under 19's don't die. It is not a "human right" to own a gun.
Yeah, you stab each other to death.
We saw how you Brits "value life" on the streets of Manchester after the UEFA Cup final and upon hearing the news about the 16 year-old boy stabbed to death in a London bakery the other day.
How many under 19s die in America annually owing to car accidents?
I am not telling you where I went to law school, you psycho stalker.
You think I'm a fool to let you know my real identity?
It was a mistake letting you know where I went to university, but then I didn't realize what a psycho you are and that you would become obsessed with me.
You think you let me know you went to U Penn was a mistake? It was because your ego couldn’t let you go without mentioning it. Now stop with the S*** about why you can’t mention your law school. Even if you went to law school, you can’t mention it because it was a non-accredited law school, which you are ashamed to mention, or because it was some low-rent law school that would not have accepted you had you not attended U Penn. I was on the admissions committee at Rutgers University. Don’t tell me I can’t recognize the signs.
The simplest answer is you never went to law school.
I am not telling you where I went to law school, you psycho stalker.
You think I'm a fool to let you know my real identity?
It was a mistake letting you know where I went to university, but then I didn't realize what a psycho you are and that you would become obsessed with me.
You think you let me know you went to U Penn was a mistake? It was because your ego couldn’t let you go without mentioning it. Now stop with the S*** about why you can’t mention your law school. Even if you went to law school, you can’t mention it because it was a non-accredited law school, which you are ashamed to mention, or because it was some low-rent law school that would not have accepted you had you not attended U Penn. I was on the admissions committee at Rutgers University. Don’t tell me I can’t recognize the signs.
The simplest answer is you never went to law school.
Yeah right, whatever you say, you obsessed, lying psycho stalker.
Why did your wife leave you for your best friend?
Is it because you had a nervous breakdown or because you malingered when her father was sick with cancer?
Site Map
FAQ
Usergroups
Search
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
My Profile Space
