Breaking. Prop 8.... struck down.

[Katzndogz]

The nation is becoming too degenerate, across the board, to not be forced to accept one more depravity as normal behavior.

A year ago, I was sued by a lesbian couple because I refused to paint their wedding portrait. It took me five months to win my case and then only because they failed to prove that I was in the "business" of portrait painting for financial gain. What they wanted was essentially a favor and didn't get it. Will there ever come a day when a same sex couple could force this kind of servitude? Sure, normalcy is moving in that direction.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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?

No, which is why I don't support direct democracy. Look at all the problems it's caused you folks in Cali.

 

[syrenn]

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?

If marriage was only a religious institution.... you would not need a civil license to be married.

 

[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.

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

And that opens up a whole set of new issues. If it's not legitimate, what's the point?

 

[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.

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.

Forced to? Forced to? You sound upset that they did. As for me, I am DELIGHTED that they did. It was a very wise decision because it did not take long for certain elements in government to try to take those enumerated rights away....i.e. the Alien and Sedition Acts.

 

[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.

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

They don't last long enough to make "illegal". By the time they want some kind of "right" associated with a sham marriage, the marriage is over. It would be more fair to say that the Kardashian types are just more degenerates totally in tune with the culture of the day.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

You are exactly right. In spite of what the courts say or the law says, you are free to continue hating anyone you wish

What you cannot do is force the government to accept your hate

 

[bodecea]

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?

Arms are....but show me the word "gun(s)" in the Constitution. Is it right next to the words "separation of church and state"?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Just like they FORCED CHURCHES to marry inter-racial couples after Loving v Virginia......no, wait.

 

[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?

If marriage was only a religious institution.... you would not need a civil license to be married.

And that's why marriage licenses should be abolished.

 

[Katzndogz]

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?

So if a gay couple goes to a photographer and a caterer for their wedding plans, you would totally respect a denial of service. If a landlord refused to rent to a same sex couple, you would feel they were completely within their rights.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Since marriage is a religious institution shouldn't it be up to the various religions to define marriage for themselves?

It's not anymore, that's the problem.

Government, state or federal, should have no say in the matter either way.

Ideally.

 

[rightwinger]

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".

And that opens up a whole set of new issues. If it's not legitimate, what's the point?

What the court is saying is that California cannot say they will grant certain privleges to one type of marriage and not another

 

[Katzndogz]

Like group marriages. They will be just as legal.

Not because there is some kind of benefit to society but because the whole of the culture is moving toward degeneracy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

So if a gay couple goes to a photographer and a caterer for their wedding plans, you would totally respect a denial of service. If a landlord refused to rent to a same sex couple, you would feel they were completely within their rights.

That comes down to property rights. You should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. That said, the government does not recognize that right.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

So if a gay couple goes to a photographer and a caterer for their wedding plans, you would totally respect a denial of service. If a landlord refused to rent to a same sex couple, you would feel they were completely within their rights.

We have already been through this with serving blacks and interracial weddings which were also banned at one time

 

[Inthemiddle]

The nation is becoming too degenerate, across the board, to not be forced to accept one more depravity as normal behavior.

It's not depravity.

 

[JohnA]

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?

i kinda of agree with you but this is more about taken away somebodys RIGHTS

the majority cant do that .
think its a state matter not federal

 

[High_Gravity]

Like group marriages. They will be just as legal.

Not because there is some kind of benefit to society but because the whole of the culture is moving toward degeneracy.

How so? if I want to marry 3 women how is that any of your business>?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

Are you suggesting that we should make a habit of voting on the civil rights of our citizens?

The government should have no involvement in who gets married period.

That maybe one of your most stupid comments.