You don't have to marry to adopt. Adoption is not a right, it's a privilege, just like driving a car. Neither are protected or guranteed in the Constitution.

The life of a defenseless child is protected under the Constitution, even though Roe v. Wade has taken the rights away from the defenseless child.

most agencies require that.


Funny story behind that I asked this lady at a chinese adoption agency

"So...what are the guidelines?"

"You have to be 30 and married"


"What if I wanna adopt African kids?"


"I have no idea, don't ask me that go away"

You said adoption is a right, I said it's not. It's a bogus argument to legalize gay marriage. Marriage by the way isn't a right either.

Otherwise, people who are single and want to become married with an adopted kid will make a case that they have a right to be in a relationship and become married.

Legalizing gay marriage under the guise as a "civil right" opens up a huge can of worms.

I guess, but marriage means a lot to some people!

Driving a car means a lot to some people, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a right.

So I guess straight marriage is bogus too right? It's not a right either.

Marriage for anyone is a priviledge not a right. It's supposed to be about being with someone you love, instead it's a mockery. For the longest time people were also told that they couldn't marry someone of a different race than they were, people were told that they couldn't marry someone of a different religion as they are, now people are told they can't marry someone of the same gender.

As far as I am concerned the priviledge to marry should be extended to ALL or NONE. People don't want gays fighting for the priviledge of marriage, abolish marriage altogether..problem solved.

as for my previous post, I never said illegal I said unconstitutional. The justices are appointed for that reason, the ensure that the priviledges and rights of the minorities are not trampled on by the majority.

I have said it before and i will keep saying it, gays fight for the country, they work in our businesses and factories, they pay taxes, they should get the same rights/priviledges as straight people.

I never cared about getting married and never will but it should be fair for all not just for straight people.

Marriage is not a right. That's the disconnect. You're claiming it's both, but it's not.

No ones rights are being trampled on. You claim it's a civil rights issue, it's not. Marriage is not a right. It's a privilege.

But, I see you have no problem trampling on the RIGHTS of citizens to vote. Judges aren't appointed to represent a minority class of citizen over the rest, as you claim, they're appointed to interpret the law fairly so that fairly so that EVERYONE benefits. No one benefits when judges are overturning the will of the voters decision. Which is the result of California having to vote on this proposition twice in the last 8 years.

The judges aren't saying it's unconstitutional, the lawyers representing those opposed to Prop 8 are using that as an argument to throw it out.

Lots of people fight for this country. I do, I'm sure you do, and I am keenly aware of gays in the workplace. I know several of them. The fact they fight for their country just like you and I do, doesn't make them special or a better class of citizen.

Lastly: You said amending and revising the Constitution is illegal, I say you need to go back to high school and relearn Civics 101.

No, I said your argument that gay marriage as a right is a bogus argument. Marriage is not a right, we established that and agree that it's a privilege.

It's so sad to me that people are really so insensitive about this issue.

''The fact they fight for their country just like you and I do, doesn't make them special or a better class of citizen.''

I wonder what it makes you though, when you can't even consider that it should at the very least make them equal to you, and that they should be allowed the same happiness you have in the ability to marry legally. It just floors me that so many straight folks are so inconsiderate. They are so outraged by gays fighting for the right to be equal to the rest of us, and yet if one of 'their' rights is taken away they would be floating balloons over everyone's houses to get it back all the while still denying gays the same thing.

I will never understand this. Using it's a right, it's a priveledge, you act as if gays are aliens, these are tax paying citizens just like yourself, how can you in good conscience deny them the same thing you have...

exactly! we fight for this country, we pay our taxes, were citizens just like everyone else. how can we deny 1 group a basic right and claim "equality" for all?

it's bogus and intolerant.

Just because you don't agree with homosexuality it doesnt give you or anyone else the right to decide for them.

like ive said before if domestic partnership had the same benefits as a marriage we wouldnt be here.

even then marriage is about love, no one tells you who to fall in love with it just happens.

i didnt sit at home on a saturday afternoon playing nintendo and decided to be a lesbian.

but i am and thats what god made me.

i want to get married one day and have a family, even adopt a child deserves a loving home and im sorry but love isnt based on gender.

there are third world countries who are more tolerant about these issues and i find that pretty pathetic.

lets fight for real unjustice like people procreating for welfare, people marrying for us documents, things that CAN actually be changed, because sexuality is WHO you are NOT WHAT YOU DECIDE TO BE.

Slow1hand: "Electors" are those elected such as the Legislature
" Elecotarate" are the voters who elect the Legislature.

Only "electors" may, by choice or necessity, vote among themselves (The Legislature) to propose and approve by a 2/3 vote majority to present a "revision" to the "electorate" (the voters)

This is the actual fact of the matter and why the proposition is being challenged on grounds that it was a revision instead of a simple ammendment.

This is validated by the fact that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case on these terms.

If it was as you seem to understand it, it would be logical to assume the court simply would not hear the case on these grounds as there would be no "grounds."

I hope that defining the difference between "electors" and "electorate" truly puts this in a new light for those confused over the law and the words used within it.

Only "Electors" may propose, by a 2/3 vote, a revision to the State Constitution.... not the "electorate".... ie voters as was done in this case.

Wether it is a revision or ammendment is up to the Supreme Court.
The musings and simple interpretations of some over what is a ammendment or revision is moot as it is the Supreme Court who will decide this issue in due time.

RW

Bigsky170,
Welcome to the discussion.

Being a discussion, I am compelled to address some of your statements.

You state, through simple interpretation, that Proposition 8 was an ammendment not a revision. This, in fact, may be true but the Supreme Court is deciding the issue using much more complicated Constitutinal law than your simple interpretation. The fact that the Supreme Court even considered this case on these grounds suggests that it is not as simple as you suggest.

You are correct in that the initiative process is not a demonstratable process of rights. However, initiatives are always reviewed by the Judiciary Branch of Government to determine if they are Constitutional and by such a measure, determine if a previous ruling or vote infringe on the rights and freedoms of others.

This process is usually brought about by legal challenges or appeal but is most often ignored by the Judiciary unless the challenge or appeal has legal merit or needs further clarification to assure the people that the initiative is within the Constitutional bounderies that the people depend on for their freedoms.

Many initiatives are invalidated on appeal due to this process of holding them up to the Constitution. Many others are not even taken up by the Court as there is not a compelling argument to do so.

Proposition 22 was such an initiative. It was invalidated on Constitutional grounds, ie found to be Unconstitutional.
The advocates of Proposition 22 then decided that if they wrote this form of discrimination into the Constitution... it could not possibly be found to be Unconstitutioal as then the Constitution itself would represent discrimination and be changed into what previously would have been Unconstitional.

Thus the measure the Court would use would be new and depriving minority groups of freedoms, that majority groups enjoy, would then somehow become Constitutional.
That we could create, within America, a minority group that was not afforded the same rights, freedoms and pursuits as other Americans.

I call that a revision of a Constitution when you create 2nd class citizens who do not enjoy the same freedoms, rights and pursuits as other citizens... and I am quite certain that the Court is also considering this in that context.

You state that the Judiciaries role is to interpret the law fairly so that everyone benefits... Does not the Constitution... their measure of fair and just say that we all have the equal right to pursue happiness?

How is it fair and just if minority citiizens are excluded from this proclamation of fairness and equal treatment under the law?

Further you state that "No One" benefits when judges over turn the will of the voters based upon the Courts measure and consideration of the Constitution.
Ask a Black person or woman if that is true.

Voters in this country have voted to keep Blacks in Slavery, keep women from working or voting and so much more.

Everyone benefits when we simply let a tyranical majority try to make the rules?... or just White Christian Males?

You further state that marriage is not a right... it is a privelage.
A privilege would fall under the "pursuit of happiness" wording and as such must be appled to all citizens.
Further... anytime a minority is excluded from participating fully in these provisions of our Constitutiion it is a civil rights issue.

Whenever a minority is excluded from the same basic pursuits of happiness it is discrimation and not the equal rights you enlisted to fight and serve for.

You enlisted to serve and fight for the equal rights and freedoms of the American People.
Americans are a very mixed group of ethniticities, religions and preferences.
Are you serving all of the American people or just the ones you agree with?

Are you protecting MY freedoms?

You lament and complain that people run to the courts when things don't go thier way... yet is that not exactly what the Christian Right did when Proposition 22 went down as UnConstitutional?

Yes it was.
Talk about hypocricy.

i'll say it again

It is called "majority rule". Deal with it already!

marriage in all forms has become a joke...til death do us part has become until I find someone I like better or until you piss me off..Marriage vows should be changed to a marriage contract with legelly binding actions if you break the contract...The down fall of our nation and our economy is all related to the same reason the divorce rate is so high...Everyone cares more about themselves than they do about anyone else and very few ever have to answer for their actions....None of our leaders set a proper example for others to follow..I personally think if I had 2 million dollars and was a senator or congressman or president that I would without a doube donate my salary to reduce the budget defecit..Just imagine the impact if every elected offical in the nation with over 2 million in assets donated their salary for one year the impact it would have..Just imagine if every elected official who has cheated and is cheating on their spouse made restitutation and reconciled their wrongs what an impact this would have....

same sex marriage isn't any different than opposite sex marriages. it becomes a right because it denies someone something with no real reason

Main Entry: 2right
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English riht, from riht, adjective
Date: before 12th century
1: qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval
2: something to which one has a just claim: as a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled <voting rights> <his right to decide> b (1): the interest that one has in a piece of property —often used in plural <mineral rights> (2)plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature <film rights of the novel>
3: something that one may properly claim as due <knowing the truth is her right>
4: the cause of truth or justice
5 a: right hand 1a ; also : a blow struck with this hand <gave him a hard right on the jaw> b: the location or direction of the right side <woods on his right> c: the part on the right side d: right field e: a turn to the right <take a right at the stop sign>
6 a: the true account or correct interpretation b: the quality or state of being factually correct
7often capitalized a: the part of a legislative chamber located to the right of the presiding officer b: the members of a continental European legislative body occupying the right as a result of holding more conservative political views than other members
8 aoften capitalized : individuals professing support of the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices and conservative governmental policies boften capitalized : a conservative position
9 a: a privilege given stockholders to subscribe pro rata to a new issue of securities generally below market price b: the negotiable certificate evidencing such privilege —usually used in plural

Yes majority mob rule, sounds more like, especially when they go out of the way in money and ads to make it happen.

This is not something you just deal with already, would love to see something taken from you or denied you and see how you respond.. Oh wait, you think Obama is taking away your freedoms, well then just look at the way you present your comments on that alone, guess your not dealing with it too well, huh? That should tell you something.

Marriage has a long history in the religious world. It has become so ingrained in the social fabric of the people of the nation, and indeed of the world, that the benefits of marriage to society at large became apparent. Because this religious rite had so many secular benefits, it became recognized by the secular world, and became subject to governmental definition and regulation.

that is one of the paragraphs in this site
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_marr.html

since we are supposed to have separation of church and state (and i say supposed to) then there is no reason (legally) for same sex marriages to not be allowed

If marriage is punishable and not entered in with free will, why marry. Because your situation was uncomfortable for you in particular, doesn't' mean it will be for everyone, though I agree many don't take it as seriously as they should. But maybe it's because we enter the relationship with unreasonable expectations and so on.

I am not allowed marriage but I take my relationship extremely seriously and have for the 26 years i have committed to it. Good luck getting senators to do that, would love to see it, but it won't happen. You would like to see an act of unselfishness from our government, yet you don't care to extend marriage to a segment of society, I have a hard time with that attitude.