Breaking. Prop 8.... struck down.

[Katzndogz]

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.

As soon as you ask someone else to consider your "marriage" normal, legal and binding, you have invited in the the world.

If you think that a photographer should not have the right to decline services for a same sex wedding you have invited in the world. If you think that a counselor is wrong to refuse counseling for same sex couples you have invited in the world. You can't claim that this relationship is private just between two people AND want the right to browbeat everyone else into accepting it.

 

[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.

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.

Really, you have to extend tax breaks to all? You're fucking joking right? Tell that to the upper 5% of this country that pays an insane amount of tax compared to half the people in this country don't have to pay any federal income tax at all.

Income brackets aside, what about single people? Why shouldn't single people get the same tax breaks as married? So you see, people are already being discriminated against in our Federal tax laws. So don't expect me to defend them.

 

[g5000]

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.

Yes, and when you are in a position of being forced to accept a newly normalized marriage of a black man to a white woman, get out of it.

Keep your children away from them.

In fact, just stay inside all the time.

 

[bodecea]

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

Marriage is NOT in the constitution, therefore is up to the states "It is not listed in the california constitution either" so therefore it is left to the people. The people have spoken, and an activist judge overruled the people. Which is a violation of that judges oath, he/she should be removed from that bench and sent down the road.
How much does anyone want to bet that it was the gay judge that overruled it?

Neither is procreation, or guns, or the right to have a job....but these ARE understood rights. Are you saying that something MUST be in the Constitution before it is even considered a right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Simply not true, the Founders had no intention of putting in the Bill of Rights. They were forced to by New York and Virginia which REFUSED to vote for the Constitution until something was inserted expressly stating what the Government could NOT do.

The writers argued that since the Document was very specific about powers and authority no one needed a list of what the Government could not do. After all all the Government could do was what the Document spelled out....... and we have seen how well that theory played out.

 

[bodecea]

What a SHOCK. The extremely leftist 9th Circuit Court has ruled in favor of another leftist agenda. I just can't believe it!

Equal protection and rights is a left wing agenda? That's a pity.

At least TruthSeeker56 is honest enough to admit it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

Marriage is NOT in the constitution, therefore is up to the states "It is not listed in the california constitution either" so therefore it is left to the people. The people have spoken, and an activist judge overruled the people. Which is a violation of that judges oath, he/she should be removed from that bench and sent down the road.
How much does anyone want to bet that it was the gay judge that overruled it?

Neither is procreation, or guns, or the right to have a job....but these ARE understood rights. Are you saying that something MUST be in the Constitution before it is even considered a right?

Firearms are most assuredly IN the Constitution. Or did you miss the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Dr.Drock]

I'm in favor of gay marriage, i think it's pathetic in 2012 that this is still an issue.

However I want gov't out of all marriages. I think it'd be best for gays themselves to know which organizations and which churches aren't bigotted against them, so they know where to have their celebration.

Jesus spoke directly about divorce and how remarrying is adultery, never a word about gay marriage. If you want to get preachy and blather about morals, help those who are already married.

 

[Liability]

The SCOTUS is not likely (or easily) going to be able to dodge this hot potato.

The table is now pretty much set.

 

[bodecea]

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.

And yet, we don't see you and others like you rushing to make Kim Kardshian type marriages illegal, do we?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I notice rightwinger ran away after I destroyed his "Love" claim being a civil right.

 

[Alan Stallion]

These activist judges are imposing their will and violating their oath to protect and defend the constitution (state and federal). They can now force businesses to provide benefits they do not morally agree with. They can force religious groups to marry people they do not morally agree with. They will use the falsely applied notion of "equality" to squash our First Amendment rights of free association, free speech, freedom of religion.

This goes beyond any one person's marriage, this affects us all. We voted on this fair and square, twice, and not one single person was harmed. Not one. If somebody wants to pretend his/her relationship to a same-sex partner or animal or tree is a "marriage," they are free to pretend without imposing and forcing their values on us to comply with their perversion of reason.

Let's face facts. This is an attack on Christianity, on our freedoms and liberties, on our voting rights, on our free speech rights, on our property rights. This is tyranny.

 

[bodecea]

I have no problem with gay marriage, but the people of California voted not to have it in their state. If judges are just going to overturn the will of the people then why vote at all?

Basically, people who are not homosexual and who squirm at the very idea of homosexual sex got to vote on what rights should be extended to homosexuals

Yep, and until they get a majority in california to vote for gay marriage it should not be implemented at all. We live by rule of law, regardless of who's feelings it hurts. If you are going to bypass this particular case when it comes to the constitution what wont you bypass to get something else rammed through?
It's funny how leftists are always gun grabbing and trying to pass laws making it even harder for people to buy guns and own them "when we actually DO have a right to keep and bear arms" but when it comes to gay marriage "Which is not in the constitution" god forbid!

I am a self identified Leftist and I don't grab guns....in fact I own guns and know how to use them.

What leftists have been by grabbing YOUR guns lately?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Since marriage is a religious institution shouldn't it be up to the various religions to define marriage for themselves? Government, state or federal, should have no say in the matter either way. It seems to me that if Mormons wanted to define marriage one way, and Catholics wanted to define it another way then who is anybody else to get involved and stop them?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Basically, people who are not homosexual and who squirm at the very idea of homosexual sex got to vote on what rights should be extended to homosexuals

Yep, and until they get a majority in california to vote for gay marriage it should not be implemented at all. We live by rule of law, regardless of who's feelings it hurts. If you are going to bypass this particular case when it comes to the constitution what wont you bypass to get something else rammed through?
It's funny how leftists are always gun grabbing and trying to pass laws making it even harder for people to buy guns and own them "when we actually DO have a right to keep and bear arms" but when it comes to gay marriage "Which is not in the constitution" god forbid!

I am a self identified Leftist and I don't grab guns....in fact I own guns and know how to use them.

What leftists have been by grabbing YOUR guns lately?

Disingenuous at best.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Scary the ignorance some people show towards our Constitutional Republican form of government.

 

[bodecea]

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.

You must have an AWESOME mower that is able to consent to a legal contract and all.

 

[bodecea]

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".

Not anymore.

 

[bodecea]

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....

And.....he asserts that if it ISN'T in the Constitution, it isn't a Right. That TOO is an Interesting position. Totally and completely wrong....but interesting nonetheless.

 

[bodecea]

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.

What am I forcing on the people? Am I forcing you to have a gay wedding now?