Breaking. Prop 8.... struck down.

[grunt11b]

I am neither gay nor do I live in California.

So I don't really care.

You should care, because california is the proving grounds for every bit of legislation the rest of this country does not want. If california can squeak it past the supreme court somehow, there will be mission creep for the rest of us. It's how the progressives play the games, activist judges play a huge part in it.
Mission creep - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[g5000]

Gay MARRIAGE is not a civil right and you cheapen the history of Civil Rights protests by claiming so.

Marriage itself is a fundamental right that has been reenforced by more than one SCOTUS decision.

No one is arguing to deny marriage as it is DEFINED. The argument is who gets to define it? And I would suggest the 10th Amendment answers that question.

The time to argue that marriage is a state issue is way, way, way past. No one was bitching about the federal government's official sanctioning of marriages when they were getting federal tax breaks. No one was screaming that the federal government should stay out of marriage.

This "states rights" angle is complete bullshit. You let the federal government into your marriage, now you have to deal with that.

You can't exclude someone else from the same goodies you gladly took just because you don't like that they are black or gay or whatever.

 

[theHawk]

First of all, there was never a "ban" on homosexual marriages in California. All prop 8 did was say the State would not recognize same sex marriages anymore, although it made exceptions for some that have already occurred. A state not recognizing a gay marriage does not constitute a "ban".

Typical that liberals ruling the courts would rule against the will of the people, claiming that it is "unconstituional" even though there is nothing in the US Constitution pertaining to marriages.

Homosexuals still have "the right" to get married to each other by any church willing to perform the marriage. This "ban" doesn't change that in the slightest.

So please, continue with your disingenuous arguements of gay people having their "rights" taken away from them.

 

[syrenn]

It was expected the three judge panel are the three MOST liberal on the bench. Still one voted for Prop 8. The issue wll go to an en banc hearing next. Which is merely a formality. It was always going to end up in front of the Supreme Court.

Prop 8 will probably be struck down in its entirety eventually. It is part of the general trend toward degeneracy. If there was a reversal of direction now, that would be a surprise as the whole of the culture is moving on the path toward even more depravity.

Degeneracy... really?


How long was that nice hetro couple....what was her name.... Kim Kardashian....married?

Really.

If you are looking at me to say that Kim Kardashian's marriage wasn't a sham and a travesty you are looking in the wrong place. But then again, I did say that the whole culture was on a path to depravity A culture that normalizes same sex marriage should be expected to normalize Kardashian type marriages too.

My point with the kardashian is that i know more successful happy stable long term relationship gay couples... then i do heterosexual couples.

Marriage is something between two people. It should not be something between two people and the world.

 

[grunt11b]

I have no links yet.... but same sex marriage is a go in California again.

I dont get it, the people vote "No" each time, then a crooked judge strikes it down. That to me and anyone else who understands the constitution knows this is unconstitutional, California followed the constitution in having it placed on the ballot for a vote, the people spoke, and a judge rules against it. These judges need removed from the bench for constitutional violations. I do agree with Gingrich on that much.

The point is, "the people" do not have the right to vote to deny other peoples rights. The only discourse on "rights" is going to have to be in the court system.

It would only be denying them those rights if those rights where in the constitution, which they are not. So no, it is not denying anybody a RIGHT, because the right does not exist, therefore that is left to the states to decide, which california did through the ballot, and an activist judge struck the people down. Can you tell me where at in the constitution a United states citizen has a right to marry at all? It's not there, therefore the states handle marriage licenses and the process.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Homosexuals still have "the right" to get married to each other by any church willing to perform the marriage. This "ban" doesn't change that in the slightest.

I don't believe that is true. In most states, if not all, you need a marriage license to get married, which is another encroachment of government that needs to be gotten rid of. We shouldn't need government permission to be married.

 

[g5000]

Homosexuals didn't get to vote?

Yes we did. Are you saying that if a group is a minority, they just have to suck it up if the majority votes away their civil rights?

Gay MARRIAGE is not a civil right and you cheapen the history of Civil Rights protests by claiming so.

This is bullshit, too, often proclaimed by homophobic blacks.

To point out that a gay marriage is on equal footing with interracial marriage completely ruins the bigots' attempts to equate gays with incest or bestiality, see. They want you to see a slippery slope instead of looking at the fact that the argument for gay marriage is identical to that for interracial marriage.

 

[grunt11b]

I'm outtie!!!! time for work.

 

[Katzndogz]

Whether or not people are forced to participate in gay weddings (and many will be) isn't the issue. Everyone will be forced to accept these liasions as legal.

Remember when abortion was between a woman and her doctor? Those were the good old days, now we all have to pay for the decision. It is now normal health care. So unless you know exactly where it will end up, it's hard to be for this kind of depravity.

About the only thing people can do is take care of themselves. Keep your children away from degenerates, stay away from them yourself. When kids come home with what they learned in school, train them out of it. When you are in a position of being forced to accept a newly normalized same sex relationship, get out of it.

 

[mudwhistle]

It will all come down to can you vote on what rights others are allowed to have

So I take it you're against Democracy?

I think if you want to you should be able to marry your Zero-turn radius mower if it pumps your nads. But CA says no. So the 9th Circus Court of Appeals just trumped all over the will of the people.

What else is new.

 

[g5000]

First of all, there was never a "ban" on homosexual marriages in California. All prop 8 did was say the State would not recognize same sex marriages anymore, although it made exceptions for some that have already occurred. A state not recognizing a gay marriage does not constitute a "ban".

Typical that liberals ruling the courts would rule against the will of the people, claiming that it is "unconstituional" even though there is nothing in the US Constitution pertaining to marriages.

If you extend privileges and tax breaks and legal standing to one group of people, you must extend it to all. You cannot deny it to someone just because you don't like them. And that IS in the Constitution.

Homosexuals still have "the right" to get married to each other by any church willing to perform the marriage. This "ban" doesn't change that in the slightest.

Oh, so if two women marry each other, they can then file a married tax return, right? And all the inheritiance laws and legal standing given to married people on the state and federal levels apply to them, right? RIGHT!?!?

Wrong.

Dipshit.

 

[bodecea]

I have no links yet.... but same sex marriage is a go in California again.

I dont get it, the people vote "No" each time, then a crooked judge strikes it down. That to me and anyone else who understands the constitution knows this is unconstitutional, California followed the constitution in having it placed on the ballot for a vote, the people spoke, and a judge rules against it. These judges need removed from the bench for constitutional violations. I do agree with Gingrich on that much.

Another person who thinks the majority can vote away the rights of the minority. You are one of the reasons the Founders inserted the Bill of Rights into the Constitution in the first place. They were very, very concerned about people like you.

 

[g5000]

It will all come down to can you vote on what rights others are allowed to have

So I take it you're against Democracy?

I think if you want to you should be able to marry your Zero-turn radius mower if it pumps your nads. But CA says no. So the 9th Circus Court of Appeals just trumped all over the will of the people.

What else is new.

The people cannot vote to deny rights to other people. Rights trump everything.

Did you not go to grammar school and learn this stuff?

 

[High_Gravity]

Whether or not people are forced to participate in gay weddings (and many will be) isn't the issue. Everyone will be forced to accept these liasions as legal.

Remember when abortion was between a woman and her doctor? Those were the good old days, now we all have to pay for the decision. It is now normal health care. So unless you know exactly where it will end up, it's hard to be for this kind of depravity.

About the only thing people can do is take care of themselves. Keep your children away from degenerates, stay away from them yourself. When kids come home with what they learned in school, train them out of it. When you are in a position of being forced to accept a newly normalized same sex relationship, get out of it.

Ok who exactly is going to be "forced" to participate in gay weddings?

 

[g5000]

I have no links yet.... but same sex marriage is a go in California again.

I dont get it, the people vote "No" each time, then a crooked judge strikes it down. That to me and anyone else who understands the constitution knows this is unconstitutional, California followed the constitution in having it placed on the ballot for a vote, the people spoke, and a judge rules against it. These judges need removed from the bench for constitutional violations. I do agree with Gingrich on that much.

Another person who thinks the majority can vote away the rights of the minority. You are one of the reasons the Founders inserted the Bill of Rights into the Constitution in the first place. They were very, very concerned about people like you.

Indeed.

 

[bodecea]

It doesn't really matter because I'm not arguing whether or not gay marriage should be legal. I already said I have no problem with it.

My point is that there is no reason for people to participate in a voter referendum if in the end one party will sue to get the results they ultimately want.

Are you saying that anyone who sues because they didn't get what they want will win? Or does there have to be some constitutional merit to their suit?


Or maybe you are saying that Americans should not be allowed an appeals process?

If you're going to hold a referendum then either respect the result or don't have it in the first place. It's a waste of time and money and it turns people off to the democratic process.

Even if the referendum is to vote away the civil rights of a minority? You really want that to be the standard? And when YOU someday become part of a minority a referendum is going after? Will you be okay with your rights being voted away by a majority?

 

[theHawk]

Homosexuals still have "the right" to get married to each other by any church willing to perform the marriage. This "ban" doesn't change that in the slightest.

I don't believe that is true. In most states, if not all, you need a marriage license to get married, which is another encroachment of government that needs to be gotten rid of. We shouldn't need government permission to be married.

That pertains to state recognized marriages. Homos can still do a marriage on their own, Californians are just saying "we won't recognize it".

 

[Inthemiddle]

It would only be denying them those rights if those rights where in the constitution, which they are not. So no, it is not denying anybody a RIGHT, because the right does not exist, therefore that is left to the states to decide, which california did through the ballot, and an activist judge struck the people down. Can you tell me where at in the constitution a United states citizen has a right to marry at all? It's not there, therefore the states handle marriage licenses and the process.

So the government is the creator and grantor of rights? Interesting position....

 

[bodecea]

Gay MARRIAGE is not a civil right and you cheapen the history of Civil Rights protests by claiming so.

It became a civil right when they voted to deny homosexuals the right to marry the person they love

So if Ralph , an adult, Loves Mary, his adult Sister, and she loves him, and they are denied the right to marry, IS THAT ALSO a Civil Right issue?

How about if John , an adult, loves Mary, Sybil and Rachael, all 3 adults and they love him, if they can not get married is that too a Civil Right?

Or do you ADMIT that the State has a compelling interest in defining what is marriage and who can legally do so?

Those MIGHT be civil rights issues if brought up with compelling arguments.

 

[Avatar4321]

I have no links yet.... but same sex marriage is a go in California again.

I dont get it, the people vote "No" each time, then a crooked judge strikes it down. That to me and anyone else who understands the constitution knows this is unconstitutional, California followed the constitution in having it placed on the ballot for a vote, the people spoke, and a judge rules against it. These judges need removed from the bench for constitutional violations. I do agree with Gingrich on that much.

Another person who thinks the majority can vote away the rights of the minority. You are one of the reasons the Founders inserted the Bill of Rights into the Constitution in the first place. They were very, very concerned about people like you.

Actually, they were far more concerned about people like you trying to force your will on the people.