100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Prop H8 how ridiculous | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Slow1hand: "Electors" are those elected such as the Legislature " Elecotarate" are the voters who elect the Legislature. Sorry RW, but I looked "electors" up in the dictionary. Merriam-Webster says, electors One entry found. Main Entry: elec·tor Listen to the pronunciation of elector Pronunciation: \i-ˈlek-tər, -ˌtȯr\ Function: noun Date: 15th century 1: one qualified to vote in an election http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/electors by this definition, the electors referred to in sec. 4 appear to be the ca electorate. they are the ones who voted for the amendment and made it the law as part of the amended or revised constitution as they are supposed to do as stated in sec 4. my interpretation stands as i originally stated it. so far, i do not see any contradiction. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it can still be overturned if the supreme court decided that the amendment or revision makes the constitution unconstitutional. Amending the Constitution is not illegal, that's why they're called Constitutional Amendments. What is outrageous is a bunch of justices decide that what the people have decided in a free and fair election is illegal, only because the people actually used their Constitutionally given right to vote. please tell me where in this post I said amending or revising the constitution is illegal?? Please do not add words to my post that aren't there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't believe it wasn't overturned. It's stupid how can we decide who we let marry and who we don't want to marry? It would seem that we can decide pretty easily. The majority of people decided to vote for it. That's the way it works. The minority making demands that go against the wishes of the majority of people, especially when that majority has spoken, is far more disappointing to me. so if the majority votes blacks should be slaves it should happen the constitution over rules mob rule |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. I love it when people add words to posts that aren't there. I looked at my post, again and again, trying to find where I said it's illegal, sadly I couldn't find it. Please don't add words to posts. Also I took civics 101 and passed with flying colors so please don't insult my intelligence. My words were that the supreme court can decide wether or not an amendment or revision makes the constitution unconstitutional i never said illegal. I did not claim that marriage is a right and a priviledge i said and I quote "Marriage is a priviledge NOT a right." Yet it seems that marriage is oly a priviledge as long as the couple is heterosexual. I am glad I live in MA where gay marriage is legal and was not overturned as in california. If people don't want gay marriage that's fine but don't complain when gay people fight for it, being america we have that right. We can keep fighting for the priviledge of marriage if we so choose that is our right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
can we grow up at some point????
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
can we grow up at some point???? We could but it's gonna hurt! I would wager another thousand years or so. We tend to be a bit slow about these things. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
can we grow up at some point???? We could but it's gonna hurt! I would wager another thousand years or so. We tend to be a bit slow about these things.
damn...i'm drunk and can see more clearly.... stop whining people...do something |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RWMountain
on
Fri 03/13/09 01:49 AM
|
|
Slow1hand,
You are correct in absolute definition, however the "electors" that qualify a "revision" to the Constitution are, in the case of this law, the Legislature. Only the Legislature may vote a revision onto a ballot for the plural "electorate" to then vote on in a general election. By definition in the single, electors are defined in this law as the Legislature and the plural electorate as the general public voters. This is why it is before the Supreme Court on these grounds. If what I state were not true then the Court simply would not be considering it on these grounds. For further clarification and understanding consider the following example. A Board of Supervisors is voted into office by the electorate. At some point in time the Board of Supervisors votes on issues before them, thus acting as electors. The electorate that voted them into office has no vote in the matters the electors vote on but by definition the electors are voting much like the electorate did when voting the electors into office. Your presented definition merely defines the act of voting, not who is qualified to vote under certain circumstances of law. Understanding the law and using a online dictionary are indeed two different things. RW |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keep fighting the good fight...might be my last post...oh well....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keep fighting the good fight...might be my last post...oh well.... don't go! we haven't resolve the Prop 8 issue yet! the jury's still out. i mean the court. well you know what i mean! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jess642
on
Fri 03/13/09 01:50 AM
|
|
Come and get married in New Zealand....it's legal there... and a great holiday destination... and I can can be a bridesperson!
 can can? maybe I can do the can can for the bride and groom as a bridesperson...or a groomsperson...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are correct in absolute definition, however the "electors" that qualify a "revision" to the Constitution are, in the case of this law, the Legislature. show me WHERE in the ca constitution it says that "electors for the purpose of amendments or revisions to the constitution are the legislature and NOT the common definition of electors" and i might agree with you. but i don't think it says that anywhere. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Come and get married in New Zealand....it's legal there... and a great holiday destination... and I can can be a bridesperson! can can? maybe I can do the can can for the bride and groom as a bridesperson...or a groomsperson...?
can't we just have a big party without all that "love and OBEY" crap? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Come and get married in New Zealand....it's legal there... and a great holiday destination... and I can can be a bridesperson! can can? maybe I can do the can can for the bride and groom as a bridesperson...or a groomsperson...?
can't we just have a big party without all that "love and OBEY" crap?
yes!!!!!!!! and snow and stuff!!!!!!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
chilly down there in the alternate hemisphere is it? brrrrr....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
chilly down there in the alternate hemisphere is it? brrrrr.... In New Zealand on the Glaciers, it's always snowy...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
chilly down there in the alternate hemisphere is it? brrrrr.... In New Zealand on the Glaciers, it's always snowy...
well then it would be necessary to conserve precious body heat! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jess642 if that's you in the pic it's a wonder there aren't a line of people...
Well lovely pic hehe |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jess642 if that's you in the pic it's a wonder there aren't a line of people... Well lovely pic hehe Nah..it's the lovely Elle McPherson......my bum...her bod... 
|
|
|
|
|
