Prop 8 struck down

[DrDawkinstein]

If I could do that I would not need to put up with the old lady

 

but wouldnt that make you gay?!? or it doesnt count if the other man is yourself??

[tennesseeboy]

1. I don't care about California

2. I think people should marry pretty much who they want to assuming they're of age and the government should stay out of it.

3. Marriage is a wonderful institution. Populated by folks who belong in an institution. If gays want to marry let them suffer like heterosexuals do

[Gary M]

I'm not the most overly religious person but can I ask why religious groups (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, whatevs) are so opposed to the term "marriage" being applied to gays? I just don't see the uproar in terminology that seems to be happening here.

 

Because if a gay couple asked to be married in the Catholic church and the pastor refuses, he will be "discriminating" against them, even though everyone should know by now that the Catholic church teaches that homosexuality is wrong. If you don't agree with that you are not Catholic and should not be asking to be married there, but they won't let that stop them.

[John Adams]

let the state perform legal civil unions and let religious or social institutions perform marriage why is this so freaken hard- one is the union of legal/financial entities the other the union of spiritual/emotional entities.

 

The OC's of the world won't allow it, that's why.

 

Episopalians would be willing to marry homosexual couples. As would many other mainstream religions. The man-woman marriage nutcases won't let the religions do it. The right wants to tell religions how they can operate. It's kind of hard for OC to justify isn't it?

[GG]

I'm not the most overly religious person but can I ask why religious groups (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, whatevs) are so opposed to the term "marriage" being applied to gays? I just don't see the uproar in terminology that seems to be happening here.

 

Because marriage as an institution is rooted within religious confines, not in a secular state. States adopted marriage in a legal framework because in the 19th century no one would have considered giving the same rights to same sex couples. That's why religious groups are up in arms, because they view marriage as a covenant between two people & God, with gays having no place in that relationship.

 

If they had to do it over again, chances are, "marriages" would not be institutionalized by the states, only civil unions would be. That's why states should do the right thing and de-institutionalize marriage, adopt civil unions as the law. Thus, you & your partner will be joined in a union with full rights, benefits and drawbacks. If you still want to get married, go to the clergy of your choice and seek out their permission.

[John Adams]

The rational first argument was supplanted by the liberal jackass 2nd argument, and therefore failed miserably. As I said, they purposefully picked a political fight and got their ass kicked. That pretty much sums it up.

 

Getting outvoted doesn't make them wrong.

 

I could ask: I just don't see why gay people are demanding that their civil unions be called "marriages". I just don't see the uproar in terminology here.

 

How do you answer that?

 

They are demanding it because:

 

(1) For many of them, especially the Christians, they want to be married. And the denominations that would so it (not the kooky fringe ones even), aren't allowed to marry them. So you want to tell religions what they can and can't do regarding their marriage ceremonies. It's sad that you won't let people practice one of their religious sacraments but whatever. Your "rationality" breaks down because gay is gross.

(2) If you are civilly joined to your husband, and end up in court over something like custody, imagine all the arguments that can be applied because the laws are written regarding marital custody and all the legal precedent is written for marriage. Gays would probably like to rely on hundreds of years of precedent and (some) predictability regarding their legal rights concerning: divorce, powers of attorney, adoption, custody, marital privilege, inheritance, benefits, etc.

 

So the fight over a word has import at least for religious and legal reasons. Swallow about the first one because it's true. Lots and lots of gay people want to be married in church--and call themselves married--but you won't let them.

[John Adams]

Because marriage as an institution is rooted within religious confines, not in a secular state. States adopted marriage in a legal framework because in the 19th century no one would have considered giving the same rights to same sex couples. That's why religious groups are up in arms, because they view marriage as a covenant between two people & God, with gays having no place in that relationship.

 

If they had to do it over again, chances are, "marriages" would not be institutionalized by the states, only civil unions would be. That's why states should do the right thing and de-institutionalize marriage, adopt civil unions as the law. Thus, you & your partner will be joined in a union with full rights, benefits and drawbacks. If you still want to get married, go to the clergy of your choice and seek out their permission.

 

Yeah, that would work fine. You want to be civilly unioned? Go to the courthouse and sign the papers.

 

You want to be married? Go to the Fairy house and float around in the magic pixie dust if that's what you believe in, but leave the "marriages" to whatever religion wants to define it as.

[RkFast]

I'm not the most overly religious person but can I ask why religious groups (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, whatevs) are so opposed to the term "marriage" being applied to gays? I just don't see the uproar in terminology that seems to be happening here.

 

Because two people of the same sex joining in a union is not how the religious define "marriage."

[Alaska Darin]

Because two people of the same sex joining in a union is not how the religious define "marriage."

When did they acquire sole possession of the word?

[GG]

Yeah, that would work fine. You want to be civilly unioned? Go to the courthouse and sign the papers.

 

You want to be married? Go to the Fairy house and float around in the magic pixie dust if that's what you believe in, but leave the "marriages" to whatever religion wants to define it as.

 

There's that little separation of religion clause. If a religion wants to deny gays the opportunity to get married within its hallowed grounds, then it's the religion's choice. Just like partitions for men & women in ultraorthodox Jewish temples & in mosques. Or mlae only priests? Discriminatory? Yeah. Legal? Yeah.

 

The state should be out of marriage because it's a religious institution. The state only got invloved in it because it didn't dawn on anyone at the time that there would be a problem down the road.

[Alaska Darin]

3. Marriage is a wonderful institution. Populated by folks who belong in an institution. If gays want to marry let them suffer like heterosexuals do

Sincerely,

 

A lawyer

 

[Steely Dan]

Once again the will of the people is taken away from judges.

 

Although, as a Californian, I can not say I'm shocked.

 

Quite possibly the dumbest thing I have read on this board in a long time and I've had to read most of what Hossage has written....

 

If it were for the will of the people, blacks would still be slaves and women wouldn't have the right to vote. But you go on thinking that bigotry is a-ok.

 

Explain to me, how what I stated is bigotry?

 

I can not wait to hear this.

 

I can't speak for anyone else but here's my opinion on that;

 

bigot

 

1. Main Entry: big·ot

Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\

Function: noun

Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot

Date: 1660

 

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

— big·ot·ed \-gə-təd\ adjective

 

— big·ot·ed·ly adver

 

Do you get it yet? A better question is why don't you think it's bigotry?

 

The people of this country can't make laws just because they want to. The laws have to be in line with that pesky constitution. So the will of the people is not always legal and we've made great strides in this country due to realizing that.

 

Another question I have is; why do you care? How does this affect your life?

 

The will of the people of the state of California can't override a clause in the Constitution. Federal law is not an a la carte menu.

 

Funny thing is that this will ultimately end up with a Supreme Court decision that gay marriage can't legally be banned under the equal protection clause, thereby meaning that the people of the great, confused state of California will have legalized gay marriage via trying to ban it. Good job, Californians.

 

 

 

 

The 9th Circus...my favorite source of judicial what-the-!@#$ery. Sometimes I think that court requires mushrooms to be consumed on the bench.

 

:lol:

 

 

Maybe he is...

 

 

 

Linky

 

The ruling puts Walker at the forefront of the gay marriage debate and marks the latest in a long line of high-profile legal decisions for the longtime federal judge.

 

He was appointed by Ronald Reagan, but his nomination was held up for two years in part because of opposition from gay rights activists. As a lawyer, he helped the U.S. Olympic Committee sue a gay ex-Olympian who had created an athletic competition called the Gay Olympics.

 

Walker is a Republican. He said he joined the party while at Stanford University during the Vietnam War protests, and spent two years clerking for a judge appointed by Richard Nixon.

 

People shouldn't let facts get in the way of an argument. Whenever a conservative movement suffers a defeat in the court system it's an "activist" judge who's responsible. Any decisions made they agree with aren't activist judges.

 

Could it be possible that this ruling is based on the law, which supersedes the will of the people? If somebody doesn't believe in the Constitution they should move somewhere that allows oppression based on bigoted beliefs. I'm sure they'd be happier.

 

 

I get a good laugh at how bigots try to rationalize hatred.

 

 

 

Referendums, as a rule, are fairly ridiculous, IMO. This country is a Republic, based on representative democracy. In general people rarely do enough research to know all the ins-and-outs of any particular law or proposal You might argue the same is true for our representatives, but they have staffs who research and report to them. The least capable and informed representative is far more capable and informed than the least of the general public.

 

If you accept that about 10% of the population is gay, then I would expect gay rights to have a poor chance among the general public who, at best, have little concern or knowledge of their plight. Can you imagine where would be now if slavery was put to a general referendum? What about integration? Thankfully redheads never have been considered a lesser class. They wouldn't have a chance.

 

The very idea that every group has to fight the same fight against bigotry, with the same people using the same arguments on the other side, is a HUGE black mark on our country. Shame on people for making basic human rights something that has to be earned in pieces over time because "the majority" of morons don't give a crap about anyone other than themselves.

 

What he said!

[DC Tom]

3. Marriage is a wonderful institution. Populated by folks who belong in an institution. If gays want to marry let them suffer like heterosexuals do

 

I told my wife this morning, "If the people of CA really wanted to make sure gays didn't get married, they'd make it illegal for gays to get divorced."

[Steely Dan]

I told my wife this morning, "If the people of CA really wanted to make sure gays didn't get married, they'd make it illegal for gays to get divorced."

 

 

If these people are really for "Defense of Marriage" they need to toughen laws on spousal abuse, polygamy, child abuse and adultery. For some reason though defending marriage doesn't have anything to do with that. It only has to do gays marrying. If the same amount of work was put into those issues they'd be defending marriage a lot better, JMO.

[John Adams]

Because two people of the same sex joining in a union is not how the some of the religious define "marriage."

 

Fixed that for you.

 

2M Episcopalians (among many others) can marry in their own church, except where the government says they can't. Nice church and state separation there.

[tennesseeboy]

Sincerely,

 

A lawyer

 

Actually from a lawyer's point of view I like the idea. Divorce courts would have a whole new clientele. Mediators, private investigator's lawyers all would cash in. Isn't this a GREAT country?

[Steely Dan]

Actually from a lawyer's point of view I like the idea. Divorce courts would have a whole new clientele. Mediators, private investigator's lawyers all would cash in. Isn't this a GREAT country?

 

 

The people who will cash in the most, IMO, are wedding planners and associated wedding business'. You know these guys weddings are gonna be FAB-U-LOUS!!

[The Avenger]

Referendums, as a rule, are fairly ridiculous, IMO. This country is a Republic, based on representative democracy. In general people rarely do enough research to know all the ins-and-outs of any particular law or proposal You might argue the same is true for our representatives, but they have staffs who research and report to them. The least capable and informed representative is far more capable and informed than the least of the general public.

 

If you accept that about 10% of the population is gay, then I would expect gay rights to have a poor chance among the general public who, at best, have little concern or knowledge of their plight. Can you imagine where would be now if slavery was put to a general referendum? What about integration? Thankfully redheads never have been considered a lesser class. They wouldn't have a chance.

 

The very idea that every group has to fight the same fight against bigotry, with the same people using the same arguments on the other side, is a HUGE black mark on our country. Shame on people for making basic human rights something that has to be earned in pieces over time because "the majority" of morons don't give a crap about anyone other than themselves.

 

Well stated.

 

The issue is whether Constitution affords these rights to these people. Short of actually ammending the Constitution itself, you can not by referendum of the people nor passage of the legislature, deny these rights. The only exception to this is if the state has a compelling interest in doing so.

 

So, the questions to be decided are:

 

1. Are homosexual couples entitled to the Constitutional right to marry? The latest ruling indicaes that they are under the equal protection clause

2. Is there a compelling state interest in not allowing homosexual couples to marry? The ruling indicates that there is not.

 

The arbitors of these matters are the courts - not the people, not the legislature.

 

Again, the conservatives scream about usurping the will of the people and activist judges. In the end "the people" can no more deny anyone a Constitutional right than they could take one away from you (what if they passed a referendum that only white people could marry?), nor is there anything "activist" about a fair interpretation of the Constitution and it applicability to anyone.

[The Dean]

Actually from a lawyer's point of view I like the idea. Divorce courts would have a whole new clientele. Mediators, private investigator's lawyers all would cash in. Isn't this a GREAT country?

 

 

"What a country! "

 

-Yakov Smirnoff

[Heels20X6]

Well stated.

 

The issue is whether Constitution affords these rights to these people. Short of actually ammending the Constitution itself, you can not by referendum of the people nor passage of the legislature, deny these rights. The only exception to this is if the state has a compelling interest in doing so.

 

So, the questions to be decided are:

 

1. Are homosexual couples entitled to the Constitutional right to marry? The latest ruling indicaes that they are under the equal protection clause

2. Is there a compelling state interest in not allowing homosexual couples to marry? The ruling indicates that there is not.

 

The arbitors of these matters are the courts - not the people, not the legislature.

 

Again, the conservatives scream about usurping the will of the people and activist judges. In the end "the people" can no more deny anyone a Constitutional right than they could take one away from you (what if they passed a referendum that only white people could marry?), nor is there anything "activist" about a fair interpretation of the Constitution and it applicability to anyone.

 

 

See, this is a fallacy. TRUE conservatives (not the "religious right") could truly give a rat's pa toot about gay marriage. It's the "religious right" that have somehow become the voice of the Republican party and have made this out to be an issue.