🚀 go-pugleaf

"LeRoy Blue" <leroyblue@billon.net> wrote in message 
news:2a4vg4160615v46tpgfvlg9mc8tn2iba8d@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:31:50 -0800, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill
> Z.) wrote:
>
>>LeRoy Blue <leroyblue@billon.net> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:35:20 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill
>>> Z.) wrote:
>>>
>>>>LeRoy Blue <leroyblue@billon.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:19:07 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill
>>>>> Z.) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Nope - the California Supreme Court is more likely to be right about
>>>>>>it, where "it" was the question of "whether a domestic partnership
>>>>>>conveys the same rights as marriage".  Our system of goverment does
>>>>>>not ensure that the voters make good decisions or wise decisions,
>>>>>>and certainly not optimal decisions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The majority rules by way of the content of the states Constitution.
>>>>> Live with it.
>>>>
>>>>Try to answer what was said, not something you just made up.
>>>>
>>>>The majority has no right to rule on what is factually right or wrong:
>>>>if the majority decides that the value of pi is 3.2 (which apparently
>>>>the Indiana state legislature once tried to do and almost got it
>>>>passed - http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aux/pi.html), Euclidean
>>>>geometry will not change.  Nor will the laws of physics.
>>>
>>> Fallacy; the refuge of the defeated.
>>
>>Wrong - not a fallacy at all.  We were discussing facts, not voter
>>decisions, nor whether some marital arrangement is acceptable to
>>people.
>>
>>BTW, I'd say exactly the same thing regardless of whether I was in
>>favor of Proposition Eight or opposed to it: domestic partnerships
>>simply are not legally equivalent to marriage for the reasons the
>>California Supreme Court stated, and that is what was being
>>discussed.
>
> The people contend that two people of the same sex cannot marry. A
> marriage can only be the joining of one man and one woman. Equivalency
> is not a factor.

The State Supreme Court can see this as denying rights based on sexual 
preference.

They can therefore find this prop as invalid.

"The people" do not vote for the judges of the State Supreme Court.

Learn from other states.