Prop 8 heads to Calif. Supreme Court

[Cecilie1200]

So I suppose you also believe that making interracial marriage legal even while public opinion was against it was the wrong thing to do....

What I believe is that interracial marriage is still just as irrelevant to this topic as it ever was, not only because race and homosexuality are not even remotely analogous, but also because interracial marriage was recognized through the legal, legitimate democratic process, and homosexual "marriage" was not.

Even democratic processes need to be checked by things like the Bill of Rights..

Find me homosexual "marriage", or any marriage, in the Bill of Rights - or anywhere in the US Constitution. Otherwise, this is also irrelevant.

There's no such thing as "the tyranny of the majority". It's a ridiculous nonsense phrase coined by people like you who want to justify being the REAL threat to the democratic process by way of replacing it with their "superior" understanding of how things should be.

I find your statement of "I wouldn't worry, because they'll get it democratically or not". THAT is exactly what I'm worried about, which you would notice if you didn't actually hate and fear the democratic process.

Power anywhere needs to be feared and checked. I have no idea where you get the idea that the majority cannot trample upon the rights of the minority.

Yeah. Like the usurped power of the judiciary to override the legally-stated will of the people and oppress them.

I didn't say "can't trample". That isn't the same as a tyranny. We've had this discussion ad nauseam on other threads.

As it happens, though, we're not talking about anyone's rights being trampled, except in your preferred vision of the future, where the voters are overridden by a REAL tyranny, consisting of a small minority and their pet judges.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Um no. Saying interracial marriage was about racial rights is like saying homosexual marriage is about gender rights. Is that more clear?

The fact of the matter is that people generally do reduce homosexual marriage to being only about lust, even if the people actually do love each other. They did that with interracial marriage too, saying these people needed to learn to control their lusts for the other race and stick to their own.

It was clear before. You compared homosexuality with race, and then told me you didn't, because what you actually did was compare homosexuality with race, and then you did it again. And now you've done it a third time. Let ME make it a little more clear. Anything having to do with race, interracial marrage, the civil rights struggles of blacks, etc. is irrelevant to this discussion, because they aren't comparable and there are no valid analogies or parallels whatsoever.

You still don't get it, apparently. I did not compare homosexuality with race unless you erroneously believe that anti-miscegenation laws were directed at a particular race. They applied equally to both races. They violated the rights of people with an attraction to another race. That person could be White or Black.

Would you care to tell me how "applied equally to both races" makes them any less about the subject of race in general? I never said, "You're comparing homosexuality to being black." I said you're comparing it to race. Doesn't matter WHICH race, or even all races. Therefore, if you are bringing laws that involved race in general into the argument, you are comparing homosexuality to race.

The fact of the matter is, I don't give a rat's ass what "people generally do", or more accurately, what YOU THINK "people generally do". You're responding to ME, and you're doing so as though I personally did so. I didn't, because I don't give a rat's ass WHY they want the state to recognize and sanction their relationships. It no more matters to me if their relationship is based on lust than if it's based on love, as so many people keep shouting as though it matters. If you want to rail against this particular argument, start a fresh post rather than sticking words in my mouth.

Hm okay, so this is based upon strict adherence to democracy only.[/QUOTE]

I think this particular thread is about the democratic process as exercised by the voters of California, yes. Certainly, any conversation with me is not about how other people view the motivations of homosexual couples.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Nice attempt at semantics, but it won't work. You don't think it hurts anybody, so you find it offensive that it's not recognized. Spare me the attempts at "I don't like it, but that doesn't mean you can describe it as me finding it offensive!"

So you disagree that actions that don't harm anybody should be legal? Or you disagree that homosexual marriage doesn't harm anybody?

I disagree that "harming people" as you define it is the sole basis for laws. I also disagree that legalized homosexual "marriage" doesn't harm anybody, partly because I reject your definition of "harm" as the only valid one. Mostly, though, I disagree with your implied position that the democratic process should be subverted and the Constitutional rights of the voters should be stripped from them when it suits you.

I notice, by the way, that you couldn't respond to the simple fact that your position is based as much on personal offense as mine, so instead of admitting it, you just jumped to another line of attack. Just wanted you to know that you hadn't gotten away with your smoke and mirrors.

I try to base my personal opinions on facts and logic, but you're correct that it remains my personal opinion and nothing more. But that should be assumed on a political forum. What else should law prohibiting activities between adults be based upon besides harm, in your personal and therefore invalid opinion?

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Would you care to tell me how "applied equally to both races" makes them any less about the subject of race in general? I never said, "You're comparing homosexuality to being black." I said you're comparing it to race. Doesn't matter WHICH race, or even all races. Therefore, if you are bringing laws that involved race in general into the argument, you are comparing homosexuality to race.

It's a difference of status versus action. Most racist laws damaged the rights of somebody because they were Black, not because of any action they did. They couldn't vote because they were Black. They were owned because they were Black. They had to drink from separate fountains because they were Black. Anti-miscegenation laws were different in that it was a type of sexuality that was of concern, i.e. sexuality between people of different races, much like same sex marriage is concerned with sexuality between people of the same gender. Now is SSM about gender? Only in the sense that anti-miscegenation was about race, and that would be a very limited sense. Both issues are fundamentally about sexuality.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you disagree that actions that don't harm anybody should be legal? Or you disagree that homosexual marriage doesn't harm anybody?

I disagree that "harming people" as you define it is the sole basis for laws. I also disagree that legalized homosexual "marriage" doesn't harm anybody, partly because I reject your definition of "harm" as the only valid one. Mostly, though, I disagree with your implied position that the democratic process should be subverted and the Constitutional rights of the voters should be stripped from them when it suits you.

I notice, by the way, that you couldn't respond to the simple fact that your position is based as much on personal offense as mine, so instead of admitting it, you just jumped to another line of attack. Just wanted you to know that you hadn't gotten away with your smoke and mirrors.

I try to base my personal opinions on facts and logic, but you're correct that it remains my personal opinion and nothing more. But that should be assumed on a political forum. What else should law prohibiting activities between adults be based upon besides harm, in your personal and therefore invalid opinion?

The law should be based upon what the voters want it to be. I firmly believe that people get the government and the society they deserve, and they SHOULD.

By the way, as regards your obvious belief that you were being so cute and clever, we weren't talking about whether or not your posts are your opinion. We were talking about whether or not your opinions constitute reality, which you seem to think they do with your constant assertions that "the law is based on . . ." followed by your opinion.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

So I suppose you also believe that making interracial marriage legal even while public opinion was against it was the wrong thing to do....

What I believe is that interracial marriage is still just as irrelevant to this topic as it ever was, not only because race and homosexuality are not even remotely analogous, but also because interracial marriage was recognized through the legal, legitimate democratic process, and homosexual "marriage" was not.

Actually no, anti-miscegenation laws were overturned by SCOTUS (1967, Loving v. Virginia) against popular opinion, not via democratic processes. The majority was against interracial marriage for another 24 years past the decision.

Even democratic processes need to be checked by things like the Bill of Rights..

Find me homosexual "marriage", or any marriage, in the Bill of Rights - or anywhere in the US Constitution. Otherwise, this is also irrelevant.

The 14th amendment has been cited for both gay marriage and interracial marriage.

Power anywhere needs to be feared and checked. I have no idea where you get the idea that the majority cannot trample upon the rights of the minority.

Yeah. Like the usurped power of the judiciary to override the legally-stated will of the people and oppress them.

Oppress them huh? How would they even be affected by gay marriage?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Would you care to tell me how "applied equally to both races" makes them any less about the subject of race in general? I never said, "You're comparing homosexuality to being black." I said you're comparing it to race. Doesn't matter WHICH race, or even all races. Therefore, if you are bringing laws that involved race in general into the argument, you are comparing homosexuality to race.

It's a difference of status versus action. Most racist laws damaged the rights of somebody because they were Black, not because of any action they did. They couldn't vote because they were Black. They were owned because they were Black. They had to drink from separate fountains because they were Black. Anti-miscegenation laws were different in that it was a type of sexuality that was of concern, i.e. sexuality between people of different races, much like same sex marriage is concerned with sexuality between people of the same gender. Now is SSM about gender? Only in the sense that anti-miscegenation was about race, and that would be a very limited sense. Both issues are fundamentally about sexuality.

And NOW you're changing your argument to try to pretend that this is what you've been trying to say all along, ie. that they AREN'T the same thing. But if you thought that, you wouldn't have brought it up. And telling me that SSM isn't about gender implies that I said it was at some point. I didn't. You are, once again, arguing against things that were never in my posts.

They aren't comparable, and therefore nothing that has to do with race in any way, shape or form is relevant to this topic, because homosexuality is a behavior, and race is not. Stop talking about race, and then trying to pretend that talking about race isn't really talking about race, enabling you to continue talking even more about race.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

I disagree that "harming people" as you define it is the sole basis for laws. I also disagree that legalized homosexual "marriage" doesn't harm anybody, partly because I reject your definition of "harm" as the only valid one. Mostly, though, I disagree with your implied position that the democratic process should be subverted and the Constitutional rights of the voters should be stripped from them when it suits you.

I notice, by the way, that you couldn't respond to the simple fact that your position is based as much on personal offense as mine, so instead of admitting it, you just jumped to another line of attack. Just wanted you to know that you hadn't gotten away with your smoke and mirrors.

I try to base my personal opinions on facts and logic, but you're correct that it remains my personal opinion and nothing more. But that should be assumed on a political forum. What else should law prohibiting activities between adults be based upon besides harm, in your personal and therefore invalid opinion?

The law should be based upon what the voters want it to be. I firmly believe that people get the government and the society they deserve, and they SHOULD.

By the way, as regards your obvious belief that you were being so cute and clever, we weren't talking about whether or not your posts are your opinion. We were talking about whether or not your opinions constitute reality, which you seem to think they do with your constant assertions that "the law is based on . . ." followed by your opinion.

I suppose I'm occassionally guilty of dropping the word "should" in such statements.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Would you care to tell me how "applied equally to both races" makes them any less about the subject of race in general? I never said, "You're comparing homosexuality to being black." I said you're comparing it to race. Doesn't matter WHICH race, or even all races. Therefore, if you are bringing laws that involved race in general into the argument, you are comparing homosexuality to race.

It's a difference of status versus action. Most racist laws damaged the rights of somebody because they were Black, not because of any action they did. They couldn't vote because they were Black. They were owned because they were Black. They had to drink from separate fountains because they were Black. Anti-miscegenation laws were different in that it was a type of sexuality that was of concern, i.e. sexuality between people of different races, much like same sex marriage is concerned with sexuality between people of the same gender. Now is SSM about gender? Only in the sense that anti-miscegenation was about race, and that would be a very limited sense. Both issues are fundamentally about sexuality.

And NOW you're changing your argument to try to pretend that this is what you've been trying to say all along, ie. that they AREN'T the same thing. But if you thought that, you wouldn't have brought it up. And telling me that SSM isn't about gender implies that I said it was at some point. I didn't. You are, once again, arguing against things that were never in my posts.

They aren't comparable, and therefore nothing that has to do with race in any way, shape or form is relevant to this topic, because homosexuality is a behavior, and race is not. Stop talking about race, and then trying to pretend that talking about race isn't really talking about race, enabling you to continue talking even more about race.

I haven't changed my position on this at all, actually. Gay marriage and interracial marriage are very similar issues. The rhetorical arguments for and against each have been mostly the same.

You saying that anti-miscegenation laws were about race rights is equivalent to saying that anti-gay marriage laws is about gender rights. Both are about (arbitrary) regulation of sexuality.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's a difference of status versus action. Most racist laws damaged the rights of somebody because they were Black, not because of any action they did. They couldn't vote because they were Black. They were owned because they were Black. They had to drink from separate fountains because they were Black. Anti-miscegenation laws were different in that it was a type of sexuality that was of concern, i.e. sexuality between people of different races, much like same sex marriage is concerned with sexuality between people of the same gender. Now is SSM about gender? Only in the sense that anti-miscegenation was about race, and that would be a very limited sense. Both issues are fundamentally about sexuality.

And NOW you're changing your argument to try to pretend that this is what you've been trying to say all along, ie. that they AREN'T the same thing. But if you thought that, you wouldn't have brought it up. And telling me that SSM isn't about gender implies that I said it was at some point. I didn't. You are, once again, arguing against things that were never in my posts.

They aren't comparable, and therefore nothing that has to do with race in any way, shape or form is relevant to this topic, because homosexuality is a behavior, and race is not. Stop talking about race, and then trying to pretend that talking about race isn't really talking about race, enabling you to continue talking even more about race.

I haven't changed my position on this at all, actually. Gay marriage and interracial marriage are very similar issues. The rhetorical arguments for and against each have been mostly the same.

You saying that anti-miscegenation laws were about race rights is equivalent to saying that anti-gay marriage laws is about gender rights. Both are about (arbitrary) regulation of sexuality.

I never said anything was about race rights. I said "race". And no, I've never considered homosexuality to primarily be about gender, nor is my objection to the comparison based on anything having to do with gender. It's based on the fact that homosexuality is a behavior, and race is not.

And marriage is not about sexuality, so laws concerning what is and is not recognized as a marriage are not about sexuality, either. And that's completely aside from the fact that the laws in question are ALSO not about preventing anyone from forming relationships as and with whomever they choose.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

And NOW you're changing your argument to try to pretend that this is what you've been trying to say all along, ie. that they AREN'T the same thing. But if you thought that, you wouldn't have brought it up. And telling me that SSM isn't about gender implies that I said it was at some point. I didn't. You are, once again, arguing against things that were never in my posts.

They aren't comparable, and therefore nothing that has to do with race in any way, shape or form is relevant to this topic, because homosexuality is a behavior, and race is not. Stop talking about race, and then trying to pretend that talking about race isn't really talking about race, enabling you to continue talking even more about race.

I haven't changed my position on this at all, actually. Gay marriage and interracial marriage are very similar issues. The rhetorical arguments for and against each have been mostly the same.

You saying that anti-miscegenation laws were about race rights is equivalent to saying that anti-gay marriage laws is about gender rights. Both are about (arbitrary) regulation of sexuality.

I never said anything was about race rights. I said "race". And no, I've never considered homosexuality to primarily be about gender, nor is my objection to the comparison based on anything having to do with gender. It's based on the fact that homosexuality is a behavior, and race is not.

And marriage is not about sexuality, so laws concerning what is and is not recognized as a marriage are not about sexuality, either. And that's completely aside from the fact that the laws in question are ALSO not about preventing anyone from forming relationships as and with whomever they choose.

Okay if gay marriage is not about homosexual sex, then why were you saying SSM is about homosexual behavior while interracial marriage was about race? The parallel between arguments against homosexual and interracial marriage both stem from a perceived need to regulate sexuality. I myself said that marriage is not only about sexuality, but sexuality is implied to be part of marriage. I don't believe it has to be, that's just how it currently is. That was why I made the caveat about boiling marriage down to sexuality in an earlier post. Opponents to interracial marriage and SSM both do that so I was trying to argue on the terms of the majority, so to speak.

Your main line of attack here has everything to do with the democratic process though. I believe democratic processes, like any form of power, need to be checked. This is probably a difference we're not going to be able to reconcile.

 

[KittenKoder]

Actually it has become about homosexual behavior for one reason, it's the weapon people use to attack the concept. Though in reality marriage should not be about the sexual activity ... hell, the legal state of marriage isn't even about love though it should be. It's only about how partners are treated by the law, and this is the primary reason it should be legal.

 

[Valerie]

Actually it has become about homosexual behavior for one reason, it's the weapon people use to attack the concept. Though in reality marriage should not be about the sexual activity ... hell, the legal state of marriage isn't even about love though it should be. It's only about how partners are treated by the law, and this is the primary reason it should be legal.

Right, KittenKoder.

After all, who's to say some rabid group can't petition for people who are otherwise offensive to the majority to be excluded from the benefits of legal partnership as well?

Alcoholic parents, pot heads, drug addicts, people with low IQs, those who are infertile, those who've been divorced three times, cigarette smoking fatsos, Muslims, Infidels, whatever the majority says......? C'mon now, really?

Talk about tyranny of the majority.

Should society be able to wag their finger and discriminate in such a manner? Of course not! We are not a democracy that can vote to discriminate, we are a constitutional republic which provides equal protection under the law for ALL citizens.

Maybe they can legally defend the word "marriage" but they can not vote to exclude people from equal legal benefits because they find their lifestyle offensive. I'm not sure why the gays find "separate but equal" so offensive, as I think it's going to be the real solution here. Separate labels with equal legal status, what's wrong with that?

 

[KittenKoder]

Hmm ... speaking of which, those damned junkies shouldn't be allowed marriage, or any legal right. I say the first drug conviction ... send them away.

Oddly I do actually believe that way, but if there was a majority who did, would it be right to actually send them all off to some remote island with enough drugs to kill an elephant each and then let them have at it? Of course not, would it be right to stop them from getting access to the same legal rights offered by a contract of marriage? Probably not. But if we pushed for it how much you wanna bet that people who oppose gay marriage would "defend their right".

 

[Valerie]

Hmm ... speaking of which, those damned junkies shouldn't be allowed marriage, or any legal right. I say the first drug conviction ... send them away.

Oddly I do actually believe that way, but if there was a majority who did, would it be right to actually send them all off to some remote island with enough drugs to kill an elephant each and then let them have at it? Of course not, would it be right to stop them from getting access to the same legal rights offered by a contract of marriage? Probably not. But if we pushed for it how much you wanna bet that people who oppose gay marriage would "defend their right".

Right, there are all sorts of bad parents and bad marriages, so gay people shouldn't be able to be legal partners.....why? Not to stereotype, but I'd rather my father be some gay effeminate man than some violent drunk jerk, for example.

FTR, I think most of the people who want to "defend marriage" are not bigoted gay haters, they're just confused about what makes sense legally vs what they think is "right" as a result of the emotion and fear that gets infused into the debate. Both sides would do well to respect each others legal rights, IMO.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I haven't changed my position on this at all, actually. Gay marriage and interracial marriage are very similar issues. The rhetorical arguments for and against each have been mostly the same.

You saying that anti-miscegenation laws were about race rights is equivalent to saying that anti-gay marriage laws is about gender rights. Both are about (arbitrary) regulation of sexuality.

I never said anything was about race rights. I said "race". And no, I've never considered homosexuality to primarily be about gender, nor is my objection to the comparison based on anything having to do with gender. It's based on the fact that homosexuality is a behavior, and race is not.

And marriage is not about sexuality, so laws concerning what is and is not recognized as a marriage are not about sexuality, either. And that's completely aside from the fact that the laws in question are ALSO not about preventing anyone from forming relationships as and with whomever they choose.

Okay if gay marriage is not about homosexual sex, then why were you saying SSM is about homosexual behavior while interracial marriage was about race? The parallel between arguments against homosexual and interracial marriage both stem from a perceived need to regulate sexuality. I myself said that marriage is not only about sexuality, but sexuality is implied to be part of marriage. I don't believe it has to be, that's just how it currently is. That was why I made the caveat about boiling marriage down to sexuality in an earlier post. Opponents to interracial marriage and SSM both do that so I was trying to argue on the terms of the majority, so to speak.

Marriage laws are NOT about "regulating sexuality". Why can't you get it through your head that no one gives a rat's ass about your sex life, or anyone else's? It doesn't matter if you think that sex is an implied or understood part of marriage or not. That is not the purpose of the law in regards to deciding which relationships to endorse and which ones not to.

The government sanctions marital relationships because of a perceived benefit to society from the existence of those relationships (in general, not in specific). For it to endorse and encourage a certain kind of behavior - and that IS what the government is doing in this case - it must define exactly which behavior it is endorsing and what it consists of. This does not mean that people are not free to engage in other behaviors if they so desire and if it is not illegal. It just means that those behaviors are not ones the government has seen fit to endorse or encourage.

The difference between interracial marriage and homosexual "marriage" is that interracial marriage fits the goverment's set definition of those relationships it will sanction under the heading of "marriage", and required a twisting of and addition to that description in order to exclude it. Homosexual "marriage" does not , by definition, fit the description of the relationship that the government has chosen to sanction, and would require a twisting of and addition to that description in order to include it.

Your main line of attack here has everything to do with the democratic process though. I believe democratic processes, like any form of power, need to be checked. This is probably a difference we're not going to be able to reconcile.

That's because this thread isn't really about whether or not the government SHOULD sanction homosexual relationships, no matter how hard you and others try to make that be the topic. This thread is about whether or not the voters of California - or any state - have the legal right to set the boundaries on what the government will and won't endorse. Whether you agree with the boundaries they set or not, it is undeniably clear that they DO have the right to set them.

One does not "check" democratic powers by Unconstitutionally stripping them from the people and superimposing the will of the minority onto a helpless and unwilling populace. And that's assuming that one even believes that the democratic powers of the people need to be "checked" at all. At any rate, what you believe SHOULD happen is immaterial to a discussion of what the actual law IS.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

It doesn't matter if you think that sex is an implied or understood part of marriage or not. That is not the purpose of the law in regards to deciding which relationships to endorse and which ones not to.

Allowing certain people to marry each other is not an "endorsement" of their marriage or lifestyle. There is no implied value judgement in allowing people to get married. It is a specific type of contract. The government recognizing a contract is not an endorsement of that contract.

The government sanctions marital relationships because of a perceived benefit to society from the existence of those relationships (in general, not in specific).

The government doesn't generally disallow those marital relationships it does not believe will benefit society - but rather only does so in cases of regulating sexuality. A legitimate example would be not allowing siblings to marry as their offspring would be deformed and thus a 3rd party would suffer. Less legitimate examples include laws against interracial marriage and gay marriage.

While it might be true that marriage was mostly meant to benefit the children of those who marry, the government does not need to make childbearing a requirement for marriage because not every marriage has to be towards that goal. Why? Because first and foremost a marriage is a contract between private individuals.

For it to endorse and encourage a certain kind of behavior - and that IS what the government is doing in this case - it must define exactly which behavior it is endorsing and what it consists of. This does not mean that people are not free to engage in other behaviors if they so desire and if it is not illegal. It just means that those behaviors are not ones the government has seen fit to endorse or encourage.

This would have some merit if all heterosexual marriages were something anybody might want to endorse or encourage. There are loveless marriages, sexless ones, religionless ones. Some are based only upon sex, and some are based only upon sharing resources. We don't regulate it that closely because it is a contract that is supposed to be available to all. People do take exception when there is a perceived threat to children or moral sexuality. This inherently shows they do not understand how society or morality works.

The difference between interracial marriage and homosexual "marriage" is that interracial marriage fits the goverment's set definition of those relationships it will sanction under the heading of "marriage", and required a twisting of and addition to that description in order to exclude it. Homosexual "marriage" does not , by definition, fit the description of the relationship that the government has chosen to sanction, and would require a twisting of and addition to that description in order to include it.

Building a society around defending traditional definitions is ridiculous.

Your main line of attack here has everything to do with the democratic process though. I believe democratic processes, like any form of power, need to be checked. This is probably a difference we're not going to be able to reconcile.

That's because this thread isn't really about whether or not the government SHOULD sanction homosexual relationships, no matter how hard you and others try to make that be the topic. This thread is about whether or not the voters of California - or any state - have the legal right to set the boundaries on what the government will and won't endorse. Whether you agree with the boundaries they set or not, it is undeniably clear that they DO have the right to set them.

One does not "check" democratic powers by Unconstitutionally stripping them from the people and superimposing the will of the minority onto a helpless and unwilling populace. And that's assuming that one even believes that the democratic powers of the people need to be "checked" at all. At any rate, what you believe SHOULD happen is immaterial to a discussion of what the actual law IS.

The actual law is unclear:

The [California] Supreme Court is hearing arguments on three points: Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? Does it violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution? And, if it's constitutional, does it affect the 18,000 marriages of same-sex couples performed in the 4 1/2 months before it passed?

Justice Joyce Kennard said the court was being asked to decide between two rights — the right of the people to change the constitution and the right to marry.

FOXNews.com - California High Court Weighs Arguments in Gay Marriage Ban - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

On a national level, the Constitution cannot be amended by a direct vote. Our country is still rather federal in that regard. In California it can, but only if the change is not significant enough to warrant being called a revision. Revisions require 2/3 from the legislatures as well. Starr argues that it would have to change the structure of government to be considered a revision. But the California Constitution is not that explicit on the difference between amendments and revisions.

It also seems that Prop 8 creates a document that further contradicts itself in addition to being unclear on procedures. If the court ruled that gay marriage be allowed by the equal protection clause of California's Constitution, then that clause would need to be struck or revised for the amendment to make any sense from the perspective of the judges who made that ruling.

In any case, many people on both sides don't care about proper procedures or maximizing democracy quite like you do, they just use them to try to get their way. But what is at stake on either side is not the same. On one side it's the right to marry the person you want, on the other side it's the right to keep a traditional definition.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It doesn't matter if you think that sex is an implied or understood part of marriage or not. That is not the purpose of the law in regards to deciding which relationships to endorse and which ones not to.

Allowing certain people to marry each other is not an "endorsement" of their marriage or lifestyle. There is no implied value judgement in allowing people to get married. It is a specific type of contract. The government recognizing a contract is not an endorsement of that contract.

At this point, I am assuming that your pigheadedly dogged use of the phrase "allowing certain people to marry", despite having the reality that that is not the issue at hand pointed out to you at least four times, is a deliberate attempt at disingenuousness and propaganda and will be hereforth reacting to it with appropriate hostility. Just don't say you weren't warned, or that the attack is uncalled-for. You're practically sending out an engraved invitation for me to tell you what a lying sack of shit you are.

Last time, dumbass: no one is preventing anyone from marrying whomever they like, or forming any other relationship, despite your typically dishonest liberal bullshit to the contrary. We are talking specifically about the government RECOGNIZING those relationships, not about them existing. I know you self-deluded ignoramuses on the left love to rub one out to fantasies of jackbooted government thugs bursting into the houses of homosexuals and dragging them away in cuffs for DARING to indulge in "the love that dare not speak its name", but the truth is, no one on the left is that important or interesting to anyone else. We're trying to get back to IGNORING you losers, not sitting around morbidly fascinated with you.

I'm not going to bother to respond to the rest of your post, because your first paragraph has demonstrated that you are neither intelligent or honest enough to be worthy of any serious consideration. When you man up enough to address the truth instead of your wet dreams of the Sex Police, call me. I don't talk to liars.

 

[KittenKoder]

To simplify my whole point: Why not allow people to marry who they love, perhaps the divorce rate will drop and those of us who see marriage as just bullshit may have reason to actually care about married couples rights at all?

 

[LiveUninhibited]

It doesn't matter if you think that sex is an implied or understood part of marriage or not. That is not the purpose of the law in regards to deciding which relationships to endorse and which ones not to.

Allowing certain people to marry each other is not an "endorsement" of their marriage or lifestyle. There is no implied value judgement in allowing people to get married. It is a specific type of contract. The government recognizing a contract is not an endorsement of that contract.

At this point, I am assuming that your pigheadedly dogged use of the phrase "allowing certain people to marry", despite having the reality that that is not the issue at hand pointed out to you at least four times, is a deliberate attempt at disingenuousness and propaganda and will be hereforth reacting to it with appropriate hostility. Just don't say you weren't warned, or that the attack is uncalled-for. You're practically sending out an engraved invitation for me to tell you what a lying sack of shit you are.

Last time, dumbass: no one is preventing anyone from marrying whomever they like, or forming any other relationship, despite your typically dishonest liberal bullshit to the contrary. We are talking specifically about the government RECOGNIZING those relationships, not about them existing. I know you self-deluded ignoramuses on the left love to rub one out to fantasies of jackbooted government thugs bursting into the houses of homosexuals and dragging them away in cuffs for DARING to indulge in "the love that dare not speak its name", but the truth is, no one on the left is that important or interesting to anyone else. We're trying to get back to IGNORING you losers, not sitting around morbidly fascinated with you.

I'm not going to bother to respond to the rest of your post, because your first paragraph has demonstrated that you are neither intelligent or honest enough to be worthy of any serious consideration. When you man up enough to address the truth instead of your wet dreams of the Sex Police, call me. I don't talk to liars.

I'm hurt deeply inside. You have mortally wounded me with your words.

Insults work better if you touch upon the truth with them. I can't say I'm disappointed this dialogue is finished.