Breaking. Prop 8.... struck down.

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

You can hardly complain about the government stopping gay people from getting married, or vice versa, when you support the government's involvement in marriage in the first place.

 

[Katzndogz]

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

You are equating a normal man and a normal woman who's skin color is different with an abnormal behavior. So it doesn't make any sense. It's like saying we now allow blacks to sit at the lunch counter so we must also allow masturbating into the punch bowl.

 

[Inthemiddle]

It's long, I haven't read it yet. But for those who are interested, here is the court's decision.

 

[High_Gravity]

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

You are equating a normal man and a normal woman who's skin color is different with an abnormal behavior. So it doesn't make any sense. It's like saying we now allow blacks to sit at the lunch counter so we must also allow masturbating into the punch bowl.

Katz you are going too far, allowing blacks to sit at a lunch counter is nothing like allowing peepz to wack off in public.

 

[JohnA]

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

It will come down to "does the State have a compelling interest in legislating the activities of people in the bedroom" and the answer is yes. Unless you think Polygamy and Incest between consenting adults is ok.

But this issue is not even about sex it is about the ability of the abnormal to marry. And the decision will also hinge on the concept of " what defines marriage". And do the States have a compelling interest in regulating the institution of Marriage. The simple answer is YES the State DOES have a compelling interest. The follow on question being does the State have a compelling interest to define what is and is not marriage. And again the answer is yes they do.


The final decision will be nearly unanimous though, due to the political climate and the cowardice of many the Supreme Court will most likely vote 7-2 or 9-0 to agree with the 9th.

why do you think the state has a *compelling interest *to define what goes on in a bedroom between consenting adults .
do we need in a modern society the state to * nanny* us in our private lives ?.

 

[g5000]

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.

This is exactly why Libertarians say the government should get out of the marriage business altogether.

Think about it. If the government was not involved in marriage AT ALL, what would we be arguing about?

Nothing.

But since we let government into marriage, we must treat everyone equally with respect to marriage and its privileges.

Like I keep saying, you invite the government into your house, you can't bitch when the government acts like the government. You lost your bitching privileges when you accepted government into your marriage a long time ago.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

What depravity is...... is telling blacks they are not worthy of being in the company of whites

What depravity is....is telling a white and a black who love each other that they are not allowed to marry

What depravity is......is telling people they are not allowed to show who they love in public

We are a much more moral society than we used to be. It is not even close

 

[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.

And that's why marriage licenses should be abolished.

Really?

I could care less what religion recognizes marriage. I DO care if the government does.

 

[g5000]

You are equating a normal man and a normal woman who's skin color is different with an abnormal behavior. So it doesn't make any sense. It's like saying we now allow blacks to sit at the lunch counter so we must also allow masturbating into the punch bowl.

Jesus, you reallly need it spelled out for you, don't you?

Jerking off into a punch bowl can cause harm to others.

Some guy screwing another consenting adult male cannot cause any harm to others.

You have a critical thinking deficit.

 

[rightwinger]

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>?

I could never understand why you would be legally allowed to marry one woman and have illegitimate children with the other two but if you tried to legally acknowledge the other relationships you are breaking the law

 

[bodecea]

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.

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

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Really?

I could care less what religion recognizes marriage. I DO care if the government does.

All the government has to recognize is a contract between individuals. Why should you require permission from the government to enter into a contract? Now whether or not that contract is a marriage is a religious question, or a personal question. There's no reason why non-religious people couldn't enter into a contract and call it a marriage if they wanted to.

 

[bodecea]

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.

A group in CA actually started a petition for that very thing. It did not come close to getting enough signatures for consideration.

 

[Alan Stallion]

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.

And that's the thing... they'll use the force of government (the judiciary) to extort money and service from people who do not share their beliefs/perversion, and that is the heart of the tyrannical homosexual activist. And this ties into property rights too, especially in regards to churches.

Anybody who does not see that is either ignorant or disingenuous.

 

[Katzndogz]

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

You are equating a normal man and a normal woman who's skin color is different with an abnormal behavior. So it doesn't make any sense. It's like saying we now allow blacks to sit at the lunch counter so we must also allow masturbating into the punch bowl.

Katz you are going too far, allowing blacks to sit at a lunch counter is nothing like allowing peepz to wack off in public.

That is just MY POINT! Skin color is NOTHING like behavior. Not close, not in the same ball park.

You got the point, and came to the wrong conclusion. Incidentally the polygamous family that has some sort of reality show, just sued over the unconstitutional bigamy laws. That didn't take long.

Judge allows `Sister Wives' suit challenging Utah bigamy law to proceed | masslive.com

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A federal judge has ruled there's sufficient evidence to allow a polygamous family made famous by a reality TV show to pursue a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Utah's bigamy law.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups on Friday dismissed Utah's governor and attorney general from the case, but allowed the suit to proceed against Utah County Attorney Jeffrey Buhman, the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune report.

 

[bodecea]

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.

No more and no less than if that photographer and a caterer refused service to an interracial couple or an interfaith couple.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Make your case.

 

[g5000]

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>?

I could never understand why you would be legally allowed to marry one woman and have illegitimate children with the other two but if you tried to legally acknowledge the other relationships you are breaking the law

Polygamy invariably means one man, more than one woman. It never means one woman, several men.

And so women end up subordinated to men. So that is harm #1.

Through the basics of math, available women for marriage become more and more scarce, which inevitably leads to female children being forced into marriage. It is also very common for incestous marriages to occur for the same reasons. So that is harm #2 and harm #3.

The slippery slope argument fails.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

A group in CA actually started a petition for that very thing. It did not come close to getting enough signatures for consideration.

That's because both sides want to force their definition of marriage on the other, and want to use the state to do it. If you get the state out of the way everyone could define marriage for themselves, and associate with whatever religion agrees with them.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

No more and no less than if that photographer and a caterer refused service to an interracial couple or an interfaith couple.

You personally would find that the photographer and the caterer has the right then to deny services based on their personal opinion.