Snapped Shot

Always Watching the All-Seeing Eye

 
Your Ad Here

Another BIG One Bites The Dust

By captainfish · Friday, October 2. 2009 23:56
Ok. Get this...

A Dallas judge ruled Thursday that Texas' ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional as she cleared the way for two gay men to divorce, the Dallas Morning News reported.

State District Judge Tena Callahan said the state’s bans on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law.

While the Texas attorney general had stepped into the case to say that because a gay marriage isn’t recognized in Texas, a Texas court can’t dissolve one through divorce, Tena denied the intervention.


When will these judges stop banning what people vote on? When will they stop invalidating the will of the people?

How can judges rule that some law is unconstitutional when that Constitution they are referring to was created, written, edited, and voted on by the people of this country.

Are they preparing to say that the Constitution is unconstitutional?

You know, I demand pay EQUAL to that of the President of the US.

I demand access to food stamps and free health care like illegals and poor get. I demand equal use of paid car services like Congressmen have. I demand a house of equal size that Bill Gates has. I demand equal rights to the amounts that Lottery winners get. I demand equal access to the same steaks at the best steak restaurants when I go to McDonalds. I demand to pay the same for my rent that Section 8 recipients are allowed to pay.

I demand that the handicap have equal abilities and the same equal number of body parts that I do.

"This is the first time that a same-sex marriage is allowed to be divorced in the state of Texas, which is big," said Pete Schulte, the attorney who represents one of the men.
...
"I have a feeling there are going to be opponents who say this is going to allow the floodgates of gay marriage to open, and I disagree with that," he said. "Gay marriage and gay divorce are two seperate things."


Ummm. Yeah. Sure they are. And allowing one doesn't lead to allowing the other?? Can you honestly say that those states that allow gay marriage can ban gay marriage? No. They can't.

If you allow one, you have to allow the other.

But once again, we have a group of robed egoists who believe that their beliefs can overrule American's duly and legally voted wishes.

Government: There to protect you.
Bookmark and Share · permalink · Fact-checking · Comments (21) · Trackbacks (0)
 
Snap.com Popups

If they're driving you crazy, please click here to disable them on this website.




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments [RSS]
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Here is what a handful of random people think about this article. But first, the fine print:
The opinions expressed here, even where approved for display, do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this website, the management, or any other entity or organization, with the exception of the Vast Zionist Conspiracy. Those opinions we represent in style, yo. Please keep the language in these comments clean, as this is intended to be a family-friendly, work-friendly website. Comments not compliant with this policy will be edited for content where necessary. Abusive or otherwise illegal comments will be reported to the proper authorities, up to and including the aforementioned Vast Zionist Conspiracy. The Management cannot and will not be held responsible for commenters making a spectacle of themselves, even if The Management are the said commenters in question. In other words, don't take yourself so seriously, folks. We're all here to discuss the news, and more importantly, to have fun. Now go get yourself into some OCD treatment program—you obviously need it if you actually read all of this mess.

Jonathan on 2009-10-02 23:56 #1
*Be careful with that "will of the people" thing. It might take away guns, one day.
Reply  
captainfish on 2009-10-03 00:37 #2
*You've missed my point Jonathan.

If you base the right to own guns on the Constitution, then that right can be voted away. The establishment of the Constitution was created by the will of the people. The right to sell alcohol was allowed, taken away, then allowed again by the will of the people.

Thus, governance by the people and for the people is held firm.

I would be hypocritical to uphold the vote of the people to ban gay marriage, while on the other hand be against the 2nd amendment.

If I support the Constitution, then I must also support all other votes of the people.

Which then in turn, I find ironic. The liberals love to tell us that the Constitution is a living document that must change through time and culture. But then when people vote to add/remove from it, in a way that goes against their desires, then the Constitution is a concrete foundation that is unwavering from the whims of the populace.

But, I know will say, that there must be a base, a place from which to judge all other laws. That is true. But if a law does not conflict but modifies certain aspects of the Constitution (or other laws) then that is the will of the people.

Just because there is an equality clause in the Constitution does not mean that everyone and everything is forced to be equal. That, as I showed, is an impossibility.

From what I have gathered, the legal basis of marriage is not written in the Constitution. It is a local legal contractual law while recognized at the federal level. And I seem to recall a federal law that protects marriage as between a man and a woman, and protects the state's rights to not acknowledge other state's gay marriages. That law was Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996.

So, if one feels that this judge made a correct decision using correct legaleze, then one must also find that this judge acted UNCONSTITUTIONALLY against DOMA.

IMHO, states that have passed pro gay marriage laws are in violation of that DOMA law. Thus, district judges should rule that those state's laws are in violation of federal law. But, once again, judges choose which laws to enforce, decide, support, revoke, and rule on.

How long did it take for Washington DC judges to finally recognize that there was a 2nd amendment? How long has it taken for the supreme court to recognize the 2nd amendment says what it says?

Haven't we had supreme court justices using another country's laws as their basis for decisions? Isn't that unconstitutional? Judges constantly make up laws out of whole cloth and we and the other two branches of the government allow them to.

sorry for the long rant.
Reply  
donkeyrock on 2009-10-03 11:54 #3
*Cap'n, I'm with Texas on this one. Equal protection under the law regardless of age, sex, color, etc. "The will of the people" is a guideline only, because that will is meant to mean majority rule (a.k.a. Mob Rule), and our founders were smarter than to allow a democracy with majority rule to be the base of this country.

For all we know, DOMA is unconstitutional; it has to be challenged in the Supreme Court before its constitutionality is assessed, and even then only the constitutionality of a portion of the law is usually challenged.
Reply  
captainfish on 2009-10-03 14:25 #4
*It has been 13 years and was actually initiated by Republicans and signed in to law by a the first Black Democrat president (Clinton).

Ok.. so, the ban voted on by the people is unconstitutional, the federal law may be unconstitutional, .... is the Constitution unconstitutional? How many attempts have been made to prove it thus?

When, how, and under what procedures\conditions is something finally decided to be a foundational document?

You guys do realize that there were documents BEFORE the Constitution? Let me ask you this. If America passed a Constitutional Amendment similar to that of DOMA. It would now be part of the Constitution. According to this judge, would the Constitution now be unconstitutional?

Or, would the Constitution just be modified?
Reply  
donkeyrock on 2009-10-03 15:03 #5
*As you know, amendments can be enacted and repealed, so what's the real beef? I see it as equal protection under the law because one group of people gets special protection and incentives (married heterosexuals), while other groups are not allowed these benefits (single people living together and homosexuals living together).

Technically anyone can get married, it just won't be recognized by law. So why is it okay to prevent people from forming the legal unions they want to create?
Reply  
captainfish on 2009-10-03 18:38 #6
*I have no problem with people wanting to form legal unions, if allowed by law, in order to be provided some legal protections and benefits. Just don't call it marriage. One it violates DOMA along with various state's laws and amendments. Two, it violates the inherent meaning of marriage. And three, it violates the will of the majority of the people who still believe that this is not a muslim nation but a christian one. One found on biblical principles.

Very few are stopping civil unions from being created. ( I think those who are are just ignorant and mean) Just don't call it marriage.

If a man and a dog wants to get together and have a happy existence together, and that is allowed by law. You still can't call it marriage. One it violates the meaning of marriage and the biblical principles. The man may want to call it marriage, but it can't be.

Like I have been trying to point out, there are many things that we would like to be equal, but it just can't be.

I would like to have tax breaks and incentives that big corporations get. I think they should have the same tax code and level that poor illegals get. If you are for equal marriage, then you must also be for a fair tax amendment. Must be for laws banning abortion, laws giving animals rights, open borders, no use of sanctions, etc, etc, etc.

And, I know amendments can be enacted and repealed. That was my point. People voted these things in. If you are ok with repealing things, then you must be ok with laws and amendments that are voted in.

I have been told, if gays get married how does that affect me? Why do I care? Well, if someone murders someone else in Alaska, why do I care? It is still murder. It is still wrong and against the laws of the land.

But, as the movement is growing, conservatives are going to sleep, liberalism and Socialism is growing, the Bible is seen as something other than from GOD, then you may soon be seeing all sorts of new things being allowed soon.

I guess we'll disagree on this one.
Reply  
donkeyrock on 2009-10-03 21:26 #7
*Don't call it marriage? That's exactly what it is; heterosexuals do not have a monopoly on the word marriage as it applies to a union of people.

As for things being "wrong" and "the law of the land", these are separate issues. We all know there are bad laws. Gun ban in DC for one; just because it's the law that people couldn't have arms doesn't mean it was lawful. People were denied their fundamental rights via the law, so we can scratch the "law" as being absolute when it comes to defining what's right.

Now, as for homosexual (and other) unions being "wrong", that POV usually comes from a moral code derived from religious teachings. Luckily those who come under fire from such teachings are protected under the auspices of inalienable rights. The majority can't keep the minority down simply by enacting laws (ie Jim Crow). If laws are enacted that are against the inalienable rights of some people, then those laws are forever useless and must be struck down.

Simply put, the law has no say on the inalienable rights of people. Civil disobedience is necessary when it comes to such laws, and therefore breaking the law is necessary to restore the rights of those being oppressed by bad laws. If the law is wrong when it forbids marriage between different races, it's also wrong when it forbids marriage between same sexes.

Now, about disagreeing on this one... shall we go for a cage match, or is it pistols at 15 paces? lol
Reply  
captainfish on 2009-10-03 23:26 #8
*Now, about disagreeing on this one... shall we go for a cage match, or is it pistols at 15 paces?

heheee, Actually, I was thinking dualing Shimanos rigged crappie style at 20ft (deep). Largest stringer wins.

Simply put, the law has no say on the inalienable rights of people.

You do realize that this belief is a new one and only just over 200 years old. And not all governments believe their people have this right.

And, just because you have inalienable rights, does not mean you have the right to do anything.

And yes, the POV against homosexuality does come from a religious perspective as we are a religious nation. And, our laws came from those religious beliefs and moral code. Our nation was founded, built, and defined based on those moral codes.

For most of our history, they have held. For most of our history the amoralists and liberals have been the shadow minority. Only recently have the liberals and live-free'ers come out to express freedom to do anything and everything.

If one must claim the Constitution is a basis for law, then one must also agree to its religious basis, then recognize that that creates a moral code. Because the moral code led to the Constitution.

Great discussion my friend.
Reply  
donkeyrock on 2009-10-04 01:07 #9
*I had to look up the fishing stuff. You've got me beat there. :>

Oddly enough, I recall no mention of God in the Constitution, so I don't think there's a religious basis to it. Where's the commerce clause in the Bible? Our Republic is based on the precepts from those heathens we call Ancient Greeks and Romans.

Jefferson mentions a creator, but that can mean God, intrinsically upon creation/birth, or simply yo mama, whichever way you prefer to think.

Certainly the tenor of our country has been Christian, and many people are informed of their moral code by their religious teaching and their faith. This doesn't mean our laws have to follow religious principles, and in many cases the law shouldn't follow religious principles, as it would step on the principles of those with different faiths.

When we understand that our fundamental rights are created by the intrinsic liberty of each person, then we understand where the founders were coming from. Reaching out to today, the inherent liberty of a gay person to wed can not be abrogated by law or decree, as anything that curtails that liberty to freely associate and contract consensually is against the basic principles of these united States.

Are you suuure you don't want to do pistols at 15 paces? You'd totally trash me in fishing. lol
Reply  
captainfish on 2009-10-04 01:22 #10
*hahahaahhahhahahahahaaa.
You sure? I do a mean crappie fry.

Commerce clause in the Bible? Do unto others as you have them do unto you. Honor they father and mother. Show love to all man. Do not steal. Do not covet your neighbor's belongings, especially...

.... his donkey. (dang it)

I like you donkey, even though the bible seems to have a few bad things to say about you.

heheeh
Reply  
donkeyrock on 2009-10-04 03:25 #11
*Better find me a lamb to "redeem" with, quick! lol

Seems like the Bible has fair trade clauses, not a commerce clause, though. :>

Who can resist fried fish? You're on! lol
Reply  
captainfish on 2009-10-04 10:07 #12
*Seems like the Bible has fair trade clauses, not a commerce clause, though

Ok. I give. You got me. What's the difference here?
Reply  
donkeyrock on 2009-10-04 12:21 #13
*What, the commerce clause allows the feds to regulate trade between states, and fair trade is touchy-feely quota stuff. :>
Reply  
captainfish on 2009-10-04 12:28 #14
*Ok. I guess my biblical point still matters then. whew. What does\did the feds base their "regulations" of trade between states on?

Could it be fair trade?

...treating your neighbor fairly?

But then, don't tell that to your state's insurance commissioners who do not believe in commerce clause.
Reply  
donkeyrock on 2009-10-04 12:54 #15
*The point was the commerce clause itself, the part of the Constitution that says the feds have the power to regulate trade, not the laws derived from that power. Dag fishermen, always looking for the catch. ;>

The only Biblical thing I could think of is Jesus and the money changers, but that's fair trade.
Reply  
captainfish on 2009-10-04 12:56 #16
*heheheehe.. but weren't they doing commerce? And, didn't he "regulate" it?

(snicker)
Reply  
donkeyrock on 2009-10-04 14:11 #17
*More like the Seattle WTO protests than actual regulation, ey? :>
Reply  
captainfish on 2009-10-04 14:16 #18
*LOL!!
Reply  
donkeyrock on 2009-10-04 14:23 #19
*Breaking The Law
Reply  
captainfish on 2009-10-04 14:46 #20
*hehehehee
Spam prevention didn't like DonkeyRock's latest post.

From DR:
"Breaking The Law"

Now, could the blockage be DR himself or the choice in song? hmmmm :-)

Nah, we like DonkeyRock here. Besides, I've already sacrificed that lamb.

Actually DR, this link may be better in my latest post about increased unemployment, or Brian's post about granny turning to selling drugs to make ends meet in this hay-day of Change.

:-)
Reply  
Donkeyrock on 2009-10-04 15:06 #21
*I think it applies well to all those stories/situations. :>
Reply  

Add Comment

HTML-Tags will be converted to Entities.
Gravatar/MyBlogLog/Favatar/Pavatar/Pavatar author images supported.
Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images.
BBCode format allowed
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA