Oh, Yes, About that "Liberal" Cally Judge

[Ravi]

A conservative gay judge? OMFG the world is coming to an end!!!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Just heard on a religious program that the Judge is gay. If true shouldn't he have withdrawn from the case for conflict of Interest?

Sure...and then any straight judge should have withdraw for the same reason.

We already know that there isn't a Constitution right for gay marriage, but a gay judge just legislated that there is a Constitutional right.

We know that the Constitution doesn't give the government any authority to regulate marriage one way or another, but here we have conservatives demanding the government define marriage.

 

[bodecea]

Sure...and then any straight judge should have withdraw for the same reason.

We already know that there isn't a Constitution right for gay marriage, but a gay judge just legislated that there is a Constitutional right.

We know that the Constitution doesn't give the government any authority to regulate marriage one way or another, but here we have conservatives demanding the government define marriage.

The so-called conservatives forget that part.

 

[ConHog]

We already know that there isn't a Constitution right for gay marriage, but a gay judge just legislated that there is a Constitutional right.

We know that the Constitution doesn't give the government any authority to regulate marriage one way or another, but here we have conservatives demanding the government define marriage.

The so-called conservatives forget that part.

LOL - Whatever you were on here screaming that gays had the right to marry to until I pointed out to you that NO ONE had a right to marry.

And ABSOLUTELY this gay judge should have recused himself, even though I think the decision was the correct one.There should be NO hint of impropriety in court cases, even though we all know there is all the time.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So, there is no such thing as a legal/civil marriage? The only marriages that exist are those done by religions?

That's how it's supposed to be. Marriage is a religious ceremony, and the state has no business interfering.

What about the countless religions and churches that want to perform same-sex marriages, but are currently unable to, due to the law?

They're WHAT?! No one is preventing churches from performing any wedding ceremony they care to. All the law prevented was the couple filing for state recognition of their relationship as a marriage.

It'd be nice if people would argue issues based on logic and reality, instead of hormones and fuzzy thinking.

 

[LuckyDan]

Yup, Dan, those are the points I wanted to make.

The most liberal groups didnt want him...not to mention some of his views are more libertarian than not.

Looks like the fundamentalist Christians lose again, not only on the case, but on trying to smear the person.

They're not quite you're only obstacle, nor have they lost. Yet.

But I'm not optimistic. Marriage will be a thing of the past, one way or the other.

But hey, we'll all be "equal!" Isn't that what really matters, more than anything else?

how is marriage a thing of the past?

When the definition changes to the point that it becomes meaningless, marriage will become a thing of the past.

And worse, when we abandon in the name of equality for god's sake, the preference of the traditional home, where children are raised by one father and one mother, and then legally term the very notion that such a home is the best available for children as bigoted, no matter how well it has served them and society as a whole, we will have subordinated their best interests for no better reason than to accomodate the sexual predilections of a relative few.

It is the most radical of egalitarian ideals, and ironically leads to unfairness in that it vilifies as haters and bigots anyone who claims the obvious, that a better way has served us well for many, many years.

So, yeah. I'm against it.

 

[bodecea]

They're not quite you're only obstacle, nor have they lost. Yet.

But I'm not optimistic. Marriage will be a thing of the past, one way or the other.

But hey, we'll all be "equal!" Isn't that what really matters, more than anything else?

how is marriage a thing of the past?

When the definition changes to the point that it becomes meaningless, marriage will become a thing of the past.

And worse, when we abandon in the name of equality for god's sake, the preference of the traditional home, where children are raised by one father and one mother, and then legally term the very notion that such a home is the best available for children as bigoted, no matter how well it has served them and society as a whole, we will have subordinated their best interests for no better reason than to placate the sexual predilections of a relative few.

It is the most radical of egalitarian ideals, and ironically leads to unfairness in that it vilifies as haters and bigots anyone who claims the obvious, that a better way has served us well for many, many years.
So, yeah. I'm against it.

Really? on what planet?

 

[LuckyDan]

how is marriage a thing of the past?

When the definition changes to the point that it becomes meaningless, marriage will become a thing of the past.

And worse, when we abandon in the name of equality for god's sake, the preference of the traditional home, where children are raised by one father and one mother, and then legally term the very notion that such a home is the best available for children as bigoted, no matter how well it has served them and society as a whole, we will have subordinated their best interests for no better reason than to placate the sexual predilections of a relative few.

It is the most radical of egalitarian ideals, and ironically leads to unfairness in that it vilifies as haters and bigots anyone who claims the obvious, that a better way has served us well for many, many years.
So, yeah. I'm against it.

Really? on what planet?

Earf.

What planet do you live on?