Re: Calif. State Supreme Court Says Homo***uals Can Actually Marry (Domestic Partner****ps Not Enough)

"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in crayon...

>VRWC Destruction Machine wrote:
>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in crayon...
>>
>>>VRWC Destruction Machine wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The California State Supreme Court changed the California
>>>> Constitution.
>>>
>>>No, it did not.
>>>
>>>> They twisted the Constitution to fit their girly-man
>>>> agenda. The California Constitution forbids discrimination on the
>>>> basis of "***, race, creed, color, or national or ethnic origin." It
>>>> does not include ***ual orientation. The justices ruled that ***ual
>>>> orientation is covered in the discrimination clause.
>>>
>>>Totally incorrect.
>>>
>>>>Wrong. For that,
>>>> an amendment to California's Constitution is needed to define ***ual
>>>> orientation.
>>>
>>>As usual, you are wrong.  The justices did not rule on the basis of
>>>discrimination.
>>>
>>>From the opinion:
>>>
>>>"Accordingly, the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would
>>>be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for
>>>the state to limit marriage only to opposite-*** couples while
>>>denying same-*** couples any op****tunity to enter into an official
>>>relation****p with all or virtually all of the same substantive
>>>attributes, but rather whether our state Constitution prohibits the
>>>state from establi****ng a statutory scheme in which both opposite-***
>>>and same-*** couples are granted the right to enter into an
>>>officially recognized family relation****p that affords all of the
>>>significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated
>>>under state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the
>>>union of an opposite-*** couple is officially designated a “marriage”
>>>whereas the union of a same-*** couple is officially designated a
>>>“domestic partner****p.” The question we must address is whether,
>>>under these cir***stances, the failure to designate the official
>>>relation****p ofsame-*** couples as marriage violates the California
>>>Constitution."
>>>
>>>The court's opinion was based on clauses of the California
>>>Constituion that resemble the U.S. Constitution's equal protection
>>>and due process clause
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> California already has a domestic partner****p law. The justices did
>>>> homo***uals a disservice by  usurping the Constitutional rights of
>>>> the California voter.
>>>
>>>Again, you are wrong.  California voters or voters from any state do
>>>not have a right to pass a law that is unconstitutional.
>>>
>>>>There's a movement now to amend the California
>>>> Constitution next November. Twenty-six states have approved
>>>> constitutional amendments banning same-*** marriage. Courts in New
>>>> York, Maryland and Wa****ngton state have refused to allow gay
>>>> marriage. New Jersey’s highest court gave the state lawmakers the
>>>> option of establi****ng civil unions as an alternative.
>>>>
>>>> Hollyweird will have to put any plans for a Gay Newlywed Game on
>>>> hold until the next election.
>>>
>>>
>>>Hollyweird -- how original.  You're just another ****ing dittohead.
>>>
>>>
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>> I thank God I am not a liberal because I hate Kool Aid.
>>>
>> They made it a discrimination issue. They interpreted "base upon ***"
>> into "base upon ***ual orientation.
>
>Wrong.  The court's opinion was based on clauses of the California 
>Constituion that resemble the U.S. Constitution's equal protection and
due 
>process clause.

The California Constitution specifies equal protection based on
gender, race, creed, religion and national origin, not ***ual
deviation.
-

I thank God I am not a liberal because I hate Kool Aid.