RoyTullis:  I absolutely love your cat and the headphones.  Always did.  And I agree with you that it's a much prettier sight than that of Hitler.  Of course, pictures of Hitler are aimed at shocking the sensibilities of those who have them. 

The real point you should be asking Gube~is who is crafting these badly written "laws" which will be over turned ?

And ,neverleft,it may well stand.Wasn't there something about a Presidential race and this red herring being drug thru the streets the last election? Yeah I think so.This is no threat to anyone, at all period.The economy,jobs,,these things "should not stand" as they are, but folks get all riled up over something that is a non-issue.

They said the same thing about mixed-race marriages, neverleft.

This is not over until it's over.   This will never stand, even in California.

Catpaw, a majority of one *DID* settle this issue.  And settled it in such a way that overturning it would take a major change to the Constitution.  Good thing they made the right decision.

dinbri. (whatever that is)

I take offence at your avatar of Hitler with head phones.  My cat was here first and is of much better character.

I haven't read the arguments or deliberations but I don't think a majority of one will settle this issue.

The court DID NOT legislate from the bench.  The voters legislated.  The courts held up this new legislation against existing legislation (the Constitution) and, rightly in my opinion, said "you can't legislate that, it's unconstitutional."  Why some people are so obsessed with keeping a few harmless couples from being happy is a different mystery.

The whole gay marriage thing is about rights...possibly shared health plans?

gube: Point taken. Courts have a responsibility to protect the rights of a minority; but as you have pointed out, they have of late overstepped the bounds and taken on the role of legislation.Liberal judges don't seem to realize that the more they legislate from the bench, the more they restrict themselves with new laws passed by voters. Reinstatement of the death penalty and the Three Strikes law are but two examples of the voters mandating what the courts can and cannot interpret.

CATPAW WHATS THE POINT OF HAVING ELECTIONS IF A COURT WILL OVERTURN IT'S RESULTS............sorry for caps

Bubble: The Chinese were here legally. Illegal aliens are here illegally.

bubble: Thanks for your input. I was beginning to think I was the only one who knew what a "Chinaman's chance" was.

Gube: there is no doubt that Bush and company have their own agenda that does not include the approval of the American public. Immigration is just one issue on the list. This is why we have political campaigns and elections.

The definition of marriage will decide the gay marriage issue. (Without marriage defined, I could marry my cat or have a harem of children.) Personally, I think the institution is a formality. If gays can have a legal civil union/partnership then so can cohabiting couples who don't want to bother with marriage. In that respect, I'm disappointed to see the marriage definition overturned.  

That's the spirit, Gube.  I wish more Bakersfield voters, in particular,  would refuse to go to the polls in protest.

.

We'll let you know how the election turns out, 'kay?

The Federal Coolie Act of 1862 prohibited the importation of criminals and of women for "immoral purposes." In 1877, a Congressional committee charged with examining the criminal influence of Chinese immigrants published its findings in a report entitled, "Address to the People of the United States upon the Evils of Chinese Immigration." While charges of everything from leprosy to prostitution were emphasized, it was also noted that the Chinese had monopolized at least twelve occupations through their labor forces, thus pushing white laborers out of jobs. The report sums up its complaints against the immigrants by stating:

During their entire settlement in California they have never adapted themselves to our habits, mode of dress, or our educational system, have never learned the sanctity of an oath, never desired to become citizens, or to perform the duties of citizenship, never discovered the difference between right and wrong, never ceased the worship of their idol gods, or advanced a step beyond the traditions of their native hive. Impregnable to all the influences of our Anglo-Saxon life, they remain the same stolid Asiatics that have floated on the rivers and slavedin the fields of China for thirty centuries of time.

Your immigration rants should remind of us of previous immigrant hate filled times. Here is one example, I could post 50 others:

Fear of Chinese immigrants taking over jobs was coupled by a growing concern over the criminal element. While there was certainly a criminal factor in place--as seen in the "tongs"--fear of such an element was grossly exaggerated.

A 1909 study on Chinese Immigration notes: "The Chinese became the scape-goats for the evils of the time; they were stoned, robbed, maltreated in the streets with impunity by the idler and the hoodlum, who suffered no restraint."

This scape-goating is exemplified in legislative action of the time. In 1854, the Committee on Vice and Immorality linked anti-Chinese sentiment with a decrease in gambling and increases in Temperance, Sunday-School attendance and refined society. It seems that taking out frustrations on immigrants who didn't have any legal right to protest was good for building moral character.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/...

I think gay marriage is fine. What should they be exempt from the agony and torture the rest of us have to endure ?  I just wonder how long it will be before they start whining about how the divorce laws should not pertain to them because, (you guessed it)  they're gay and it's a special circumstance. But they are normal, right.

There's going to be a proposed amendment to the state constitution on November's ballot.

It is fun to watch the Jesus-schmeezusers flail their arms and scream, isn't it?