Is There A Legal Reason...

[The Colonel]

It is not an obstacle "easily overcome" in a democratic country where the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between a man and a woman.

Civil unions are different to marriage.

This is identical to the argument that was made against interracial marriage in the US. A democratic country where “the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between” the same race. That was a fact back then. And here we go again, with the same excuses…excuses…excuses. The plain fact is that it is none of anyone’s business what interracial couples want to do with their lives, just as it is none of anyone’s business what gay couples want to do with their lives. Leave em alone and stop trying to impose your will on others. That has been the bane of human existence since time began.

Your WRONG!
You cant wake up one morning and say your NOT going to be black or white.
You CAN say that with sexuality though!

That's the difference.

No - you can't actually.

Sure you can.
By not having sex with the same sex.

Not only that... your also implying that homosexuals cannot control their own minds and thinking.
Are they that mentally undeveloped not to control themselves?

Or are you telling us that AA is a waste of tie because they cannot change an alcoholics behavior?
Or drug users cannot change their behavior?

Then I trust you will be sleeping with another male tonight then Fred?

I also trust that you can abstain permanently from heterosexual sex your whole life too? Never have a relationship and never love?

I don't think so.

If I wanted too... I could.
You see... I'm not an animal. I'm a thinking human with a brain that I can use to control myself.

You may be a hedonist hairless ape.... but I am not.

So why don't you then?

You can't prohibit something for some and then do the same yourself.

[azraelle]

From the California Supreme Court Paves The Way For Gay Marriage!! Thread:

Not in a church though!

You are forgetting the law of unintended consequences.
Just as the LDS Church was disenfranchised by the Edmunds-Tucker Act in 1888 for practicing polygamy (even though less than 1% of its' membership at the time were called on to participate), I don't see any obstacle whatever to the courts and/or the legislature disenfranchising ANY church that refuses to perform same-sex marriages (or, what amounts to the same thing, disallowing the clergy of any church that refuses to perform same-sex marriages from being able to perform legally-sanctioned marriages)--even though the constitution specifically separates church and state--it is the government that has the power to define what a legal church is.

[Fred75]

It is not an obstacle "easily overcome" in a democratic country where the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between a man and a woman.

Civil unions are different to marriage.

This is identical to the argument that was made against interracial marriage in the US. A democratic country where “the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between” the same race. That was a fact back then. And here we go again, with the same excuses…excuses…excuses. The plain fact is that it is none of anyone’s business what interracial couples want to do with their lives, just as it is none of anyone’s business what gay couples want to do with their lives. Leave em alone and stop trying to impose your will on others. That has been the bane of human existence since time began.

Your WRONG!
You cant wake up one morning and say your NOT going to be black or white.
You CAN say that with sexuality though!

That's the difference.

No - you can't actually.

Sure you can.
By not having sex with the same sex.

Not only that... your also implying that homosexuals cannot control their own minds and thinking.
Are they that mentally undeveloped not to control themselves?

Or are you telling us that AA is a waste of tie because they cannot change an alcoholics behavior?
Or drug users cannot change their behavior?

Then I trust you will be sleeping with another male tonight then Fred?

I also trust that you can abstain permanently from heterosexual sex your whole life too? Never have a relationship and never love?

I don't think so.

If I wanted too... I could.
You see... I'm not an animal. I'm a thinking human with a brain that I can use to control myself.

You may be a hedonist hairless ape.... but I am not.

So why don't you then?

You can't prohibit something for some and then do the same yourself.

I have no need to at this time.
Point is...I CAN change my behavior.
A black person cannot wake up one morning and change their color. PERIOD.

[The Colonel]

It is not an obstacle "easily overcome" in a democratic country where the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between a man and a woman.

Civil unions are different to marriage.

This is identical to the argument that was made against interracial marriage in the US. A democratic country where “the overwhelming majority want the definition of marriage to remain as between” the same race. That was a fact back then. And here we go again, with the same excuses…excuses…excuses. The plain fact is that it is none of anyone’s business what interracial couples want to do with their lives, just as it is none of anyone’s business what gay couples want to do with their lives. Leave em alone and stop trying to impose your will on others. That has been the bane of human existence since time began.

Your WRONG!
You cant wake up one morning and say your NOT going to be black or white.
You CAN say that with sexuality though!

That's the difference.

No - you can't actually.

Sure you can.
By not having sex with the same sex.

Not only that... your also implying that homosexuals cannot control their own minds and thinking.
Are they that mentally undeveloped not to control themselves?

Or are you telling us that AA is a waste of tie because they cannot change an alcoholics behavior?
Or drug users cannot change their behavior?

Then I trust you will be sleeping with another male tonight then Fred?

I also trust that you can abstain permanently from heterosexual sex your whole life too? Never have a relationship and never love?

I don't think so.

If I wanted too... I could.
You see... I'm not an animal. I'm a thinking human with a brain that I can use to control myself.

You may be a hedonist hairless ape.... but I am not.

So why don't you then?

You can't prohibit something for some and then do the same yourself.

I have no need to at this time.
Point is...I CAN change my behavior.
A black person cannot wake up one morning and change their color. PERIOD.

They can actually. It's called body paint.

[myron myron]

The California Supreme Court legislated from the bench by subjecting the democratically enacted law to "strict scrutiny" and finding no "compelling state interest" by a 4-3 decision because the law would easily pass muster under a "rational basis" standard of review.

What a subversion of democracy.

Given that 48 states and the federal government define marriage as between a man and a woman, same-sex marriage will not be legally recognized outside Massachusetts and California.

The real issue for you isn't a legal one, is it?

It is an issue of democracy subverted by judicial diktat.

[The Colonel]

The California Supreme Court legislated from the bench by subjecting the democratically enacted law to "strict scrutiny" and finding no "compelling state interest" by a 4-3 decision because the law would easily pass muster under a "rational basis" standard of review.

What a subversion of democracy.

Given that 48 states and the federal government define marriage as between a man and a woman, same-sex marriage will not be legally recognized outside Massachusetts and California.

The real issue for you isn't a legal one, is it?

It is an issue of democracy subverted by judicial diktat.

In a true democracy, people are not discriminated against for being who they are, or in entering relationships with those they love.

That is diktat.

[myron myron]

The California Supreme Court legislated from the bench by subjecting the democratically enacted law to "strict scrutiny" and finding no "compelling state interest" by a 4-3 decision because the law would easily pass muster under a "rational basis" standard of review.

What a subversion of democracy.

Given that 48 states and the federal government define marriage as between a man and a woman, same-sex marriage will not be legally recognized outside Massachusetts and California.

The real issue for you isn't a legal one, is it?

It is an issue of democracy subverted by judicial diktat.

In a true democracy, people are not discriminated against for being who they are, or in entering relationships with those they love.

That is diktat.

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"?

[Fred75]

The California Supreme Court legislated from the bench by subjecting the democratically enacted law to "strict scrutiny" and finding no "compelling state interest" by a 4-3 decision because the law would easily pass muster under a "rational basis" standard of review.

What a subversion of democracy.

Given that 48 states and the federal government define marriage as between a man and a woman, same-sex marriage will not be legally recognized outside Massachusetts and California.

The real issue for you isn't a legal one, is it?

It is an issue of democracy subverted by judicial diktat.

In a true democracy, people are not discriminated against for being who they are, or in entering relationships with those they love.

That is diktat.

So then... when you disapprove of pedphilia and bstiality your condoning a non democratic society?

[The Colonel]

The California Supreme Court legislated from the bench by subjecting the democratically enacted law to "strict scrutiny" and finding no "compelling state interest" by a 4-3 decision because the law would easily pass muster under a "rational basis" standard of review.

What a subversion of democracy.

Given that 48 states and the federal government define marriage as between a man and a woman, same-sex marriage will not be legally recognized outside Massachusetts and California.

The real issue for you isn't a legal one, is it?

It is an issue of democracy subverted by judicial diktat.

In a true democracy, people are not discriminated against for being who they are, or in entering relationships with those they love.

That is diktat.

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"?

A CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH.

Ever heard of Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell?

Don't tell me about British history and UK Constitutional law because you will fail every time.

[myron myron]

See thread title.

And where exactly is Britain's constitution written?

[The Colonel]

See thread title.

And where exactly is Britain's constitution written?

Britain's constitution is "partially written and wholly uncodified" - Budge et al (1998)

The UK Constitution consists of Statute Law, Common Law, Royal Prerogative, Conventions, Works of Authority and elements of EU Law.

[myron myron]

See thread title.

And where exactly is Britain's constitution written?

Britain's constitution is "partially written and wholly uncodified" - Budge et al (1998)

The UK Constitution consists of Statute Law, Common Law, Royal Prerogative, Conventions, Works of Authority and elements of EU Law.

In other words, you cannot identify exactly what constitutes Britain's constitutiion.

[The Colonel]

See thread title.

And where exactly is Britain's constitution written?

Britain's constitution is "partially written and wholly uncodified" - Budge et al (1998)

The UK Constitution consists of Statute Law, Common Law, Royal Prerogative, Conventions, Works of Authority and elements of EU Law.

In other words, you cannot identify exactly what constitutes Britain's constitutiion.

I just have: those six sources. It does not rest in a single document, and some of it doesn't rest in any document(s) at all.

[myron myron]

See thread title.

And where exactly is Britain's constitution written?

Britain's constitution is "partially written and wholly uncodified" - Budge et al (1998)

The UK Constitution consists of Statute Law, Common Law, Royal Prerogative, Conventions, Works of Authority and elements of EU Law.

In other words, you cannot identify exactly what constitutes Britain's constitutiion.

I just have: those six sources. It does not rest in a single document, and some of it doesn't rest in any document(s) at all.

The operative word in my question was "exactly."

[The Colonel]

See thread title.

And where exactly is Britain's constitution written?

Britain's constitution is "partially written and wholly uncodified" - Budge et al (1998)

The UK Constitution consists of Statute Law, Common Law, Royal Prerogative, Conventions, Works of Authority and elements of EU Law.

In other words, you cannot identify exactly what constitutes Britain's constitutiion.

I just have: those six sources. It does not rest in a single document, and some of it doesn't rest in any document(s) at all.

The operative word in my question was "exactly."

So what?