Comments on some news items...

On the first item, I would be looking to move immediately!  I have enough problems with companies and their billings as it is (even a 1% error rate is too high).  The last thing I need is for the government my taxes go to pay being as inept.  They cannot keep up with their billing as it is.

On the second, if judges ruled on the LAW and did not make law, I would basically suck it up on bad decisions (they are human after all).  But when they defy the will of the people by making laws (Court in California and Arizona), then they need some accountability period!  California amended their Constitution!  The highest law of the land, and the clown decided that was still not enough.  There is no law he could have used to over turn that.  Nor the federal judge in Az.  These guys need to be at least subject to a recall.

On the fire department - I bet lots of people paid up after that fire!

I though the highest law in the land was the federal constitution not the state?

Only for matters of national defense and interstate commerce.  The constitution spells out what the feds can do, and it is not much.  And on the subject of marriage, that is intrastate, not interstate (and the reason there are so many problems today with the different laws).

The national constitution is the highest law of the law - as per article six of the constitution

There is no statement regarding anything about national defense or interstate commerce in there and the vast majority of the early amendments were to do with the rights of the people - nothing to do with interstate commerce or anything affecting it (eg trial by jury etc).  Showing that the constitution was meant to be from the out set also giving the citizens of your country rights, under which the CA judges made their ruling.  Just as if CA had decided to ban the right for trial by jury.

Yes, let us forget the 10th amendment, shall we?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now show me in the constitution where the judge has the authority to usurp the 10th amendment.

Where does the 10th prevent the consitution being the supreme law of the land? You quite clearly said that the national consitution isn't the supreme law of the land which appears not to the match the document that lays out the rules of the USA

The 10th does nothing bar say what it can make law on - where does the 10th say that the constitution is not the supreme law of the land on whatever it makes laws on?

And the ruling was based on the obligation placed on each and every state under the 14th. 

The mayor is a Republican. Typical heartless, soulless Republican.

it is the supreme law of the land (satisfied?) where it has jurisdiction.  However the 10th - which is a part of that supreme law is it not? - clearly states it is not the answer to ALL LAWS of the land.  And in cases where SCOTUS has already rules are a STATES right, their constitution is the supreme law of THAT LAND.   And that is the situation I was commenting on.  A judge cannot usurp the highest legal document when making a ruling, yet taking a cue from Buzzy Ginsberg (who has decided that any other countries laws are better than the Constitution), this judge did.

And was clearly stupid since the ruling (or the refusal of SCOTUS to hear a case involving the issue) is that Marriage is a STATES issue, and not a federal one.  That is why Massachusetts can have gay marriages and Maine does not.  The judge made up a law.  Period.

Edit: And if you check on the court rulings on the issue where the courts have ordered gay marriage - you will note that in all cases, those courts said the law violated the STATES constitution, not the federal one.

Then it will be turned over on appeal and you can calm down.

But I bet that if the prop was that white/black/jewish people can't marry it would be against the national constitution. 

Ah, finially here come the hard facts.

But then you are denying them equal rights.  There is no law in this land that says that gays cannot get married.  That would be unconstitutional.  I defy anyone to definitely state otherwise.

As for the appeal, the judge has already been smacked down by the 9th circus no less!  But the technicalities are the sticking point.  There is a point of law called injured parties.  And if the court does not think you are part of that, there is nothing you can do, regardless.  over 60% of the people of California said they wanted their constitution to be that way.  but 2 of the people that did not are the only ones supposedly that can file an appeal (according to bozo the judge).

Must be MF's little toady.  Sounds like MF, walks like MF and has the same racist attitudes.

From what I have read it is going again to the 9th in December again.

If you re-phrase the issue to 'people have the right to marry consenting adults they are in sexual love with' then gays don't have the same rights and the difference in ways of approaching is the nub of the issue isn't it?

I can't imagine watching someone's house burn without trying to help, and I'm not a firefighter.

If a neighbor's house caught fire, I'd be out there with a hose, a bucket, anything to help them.  Even the one who never mows their grass, mooches garbage pick-up, and are all around not GOOD neighbors.

I understand compensation.  They could have went out and taken care of the fire, then billed the family, even put a "late" fee on it....just to let it burn though?

Wrong.

That one gave me a chuckle, just because of how you phrased it.

So you are advocating special rights for a minority? Not saying that it's wrong or right. Seems everyone wants to be special, above others, and they damn well better get a law saying so. IMO the Constitution is for everyone, its intent was not to create a special class of protected people. The laws must fit a wide range of people, so do we convolute it with thousands of special provisions for everyone with "special needs"? That power is given to the states. A man wants to marry another man, move to Vermont or place your one vote just like everyone else.

As a side note: IMO the only thing that gays are missing out on over "breeders" (their term) is hospital visitation (that and special restrooms). Insurance provides for same sex partners. Nothing is barring them from co-habituating. A will can determine property disbursal. They are missing the "marriage penalty" at tax time, but they are welcome to write the IRS a check for the difference if they are feeling left out. When the peoples of Europe, and other places felt persecuted they left and here (not to Canada, who has even offered payment to immigrants in the past). Something tells me things are not nearly bad enough here, that they feel persecuted enough to move to one of the more progressive places on earth. That should say something.

Right! It would have been simple to bill the man the cost of the equipment usage, and firefighters pay, etc. That would have still encouraged others to pay the fee on time, the fire dept. would have earned money over the the cost of the $75, and they wouldn't have gotten the bad press standing there watching this guys house burn down. Knowing the cost for fire fighting gear, I'm reasonably sure some of this man's tax money went to the fire dept. at some point. If the local government wanted all they need to do was add the $75 to the yearly property tax, which is what most do anyway. It's about as bad as the airlines charging for a baggage and a snack after you buy the ticket.

The original judge ruled that the people of California (who voted for the amendment) had no standing, only Ahnold and Jerry did.  The 9th circus said "wait a minute", but has not decided if they do yet.  They just said they were not clear they do.  Which indicates that the case has a lot of merit, but the technicalities are being debated. (who has standing).

and if you indeed re-phrase the issue, you are correct.  But then that would also apply to polygamists, siblings and in the case of PETA, beastialists.  Again, there are no rights denied.  But there is a request for more rights.

When I first read Tova's response, I thought "Perfect!", but then thought about it and it would not work. Why would anyone pay the fee in that case until after the fire?

But Nitro Cruiser came up with the solution!  Do not bill them for the fee, bill them for the total cost!

That being said, I would still move out of the jurisdiction.  Nitro knows that this state has a mix of systems in place.  Some are Volunteer, and others are all paid.  So we have choices (and it could be just across the street).  The property taxes are designed for the purpose of providing those community services.  if they need more to do so, then raise the taxes (which has its own pitfalls - for politicians!).  But I am not going to live in a place where they start nickle and diming you to death.  As it will not stop with just Fire, it will grow to everything the locality does (and your taxes will just be used to pay over inflated salaries for the elected officials).

Yeah that's how those things usually work. One seems like a good idea, so before you know it three or four is poping up. If they really needed the money $75 over the course of the year in the property tax isn't so bad (I'm not against spending, just wasteful spending). A small pumper can easily cost over a quarter million dollars (thank goodness these aren't annual purchases). Even if I had paid firefighters, I would augment it with volunteers to offset the cost. Where I grew up in PA (and my parents still live) all we had was volunteers, and it works quite well.

I wish colleges would knock a few buck off tuitions if students volunteered for one of the local fire dept. That's community service that gets too often overlooked.

My point is that the essence of the case (as I understand that people who want gay marriage) is if it is a right to marry somebody you love - or the person of the other sex.

And there is a hell of a difference between homosexuals marrying and people marrying animals or their siblings and allowing homosexuals to marry would not lead to people being allowed to marry animals - after all allowing people to marry people of the other sex did not allow people to marry siblings or animals of the other sex. 

And the right of the two would outweigh the vote if it breaks the rights given to those two (the argument under the 14th) in the same if CA voted to allow slavery. 

Dont forget that until which phrasing of which right is equal has been decided prop 8 is still in affect so the 'judge activism' hasn't really manged a great deal and the legal system as a whole appear to be functioning with 'the vote is in affect until it is proved unconstitutional'.

Uh, before you go accusing me of hyperbole, please re-read your proposed language.  It is on that alone I made my statement.  By your words, the others would also be legal as sexual love is not limited to non-blood related (or multiple) people.  And I did add the clarification of PETA to the animal one (I for one do not equate animals with people, but some do).

No, it never can.  The right of the 2 has to be weighed in conjunction with the right of people to live in a society of laws.  Now you may not like all of the laws (I sure as hell do not), but we have options - we can move.  But if we start talking about non-existent rights (there is no right to marriage - it is a privilege) for everyone based upon some preference we have, then we no longer have a society, but a collection of individual anarchists.

No, because that has been trumped already (but had not been before 1865).  Perhaps you need a different analogy?

Only because the 9th circus overturned the judges injunction.  And he issued the injunction based upon his own prejudices (not law) and the technicality of standing.

He states his ruling was based on the 14th amendment, but then I can make up things and claim the same.  It does not make it right or even good law.  Just as Roe v. Wade is bad law (no comments on abortion - just the ruling), so is this one.  For it is using houdini logic to create something that does not exist.

People have the right for fair and equal treatment and the USA that is a clearly defined right.  It would agaisnt that right to not allow homosexuals the privilege to drive (for example) based on nothing other than their homosexuality or banning ex-service men the privilege of a driving linceanse.  Being able to drive isn't a right but preventing a certain group from doing it based on purely on a class group would violate that groups fair and equal treatment right.  Banning people for their own actions is of course also fair and equal. 

It easy for privilages being denied to a certain group to also be violating a right.

Circular logic.  They have the right to a clearly defined right?  yes, and a Yellow sun is clearly a yellow sun.

Yes, that is covered by the 14th.  You can extend privileges to all, or none, but discrimination based upon a physical or spiritual characteristic is banned. 

Not in totality.  Denying convicted felons some of the freedoms we have (even though they have served their sentence) has been upheld for the public good (e.g. pedophiles at schools).  However I do understand the point you are trying to make.

And you went a long way around to not make it.  No one is denying gays any of the rights or privileges that we all enjoy.  They want a new privilege (which they are trying to frame as a right).  My first objection is their insistent upon calling it a right.  It clearly is not.  My second objection is in their dishonesty in not stating the truth - they want a new privilege.

Beyond that, I have a problem with government being involved in marriage period.  I have stated previously that I see a need for the government to recognize and approve of civil Unions (tax., inheritance and insurance wise).  Marriage pre-dates western law as a religious institution.  And the government is forbidden, by the first amendment, from making a law respecting it.  So if the Unitarians want to marry 2 gays, that is constitutional and the government has no business telling them they cannot (they can deny Civil union status to it).

As for the government allowing Civil Unions between gays, I have no problem with that.  It is not based upon a biological issue (as that of siblings) or a consensual one (as I believe - contrary to PETA and other whacko groups) with the issue of animals.  And the only objection I have to Polygamy (fine if you can keep up with it?????) is the benefits aspect.  Call it a kind of "anti-Mormonism" in the respect of the old teachings of that church said that a woman could not gain heaven unless married (no longer believed among the majority of Mormons).  In other words, I extend my benefits to my wife and it does cost my company, the government (although the marriage penalty they get me back for every cent), and society as a whole. 

But Gay unions?  They cost me nothing, in money or otherwise.  Although my faith states that Gays are sinning, I am not injured by their union (if I was a bible thumper, I may want to try to save them), nor is society or companies over and above what is already allowed.  So It is a non-issue to me.  Except their deceptions and cheapening of the true Civil Rights movement that ensured all people equal rights.

err that is kind of their point.  They have a physcial characteristic that the person they want to marry is the same sex as themselves.

And I agree about the whole marriage/civil union thingy.  I got married only because I could not get a civil partnership - in the UK that is only possible for same sex couples.  I didn't get married in a church and there was no reglious argument about it at all but it was still a marriage.

Doesn't prop 8 though make the government get involded in marriage though?  After all it prevent somebody starting a reglion (or a reglious offshoot) that allowed gays marriage.

Interesting... I've never noticed. What are those physical characteristics they have that hetrosexuals don't?