Prop 8 Showdown

[rightwinger]

Who will win California's Prop. 8 trial? - The Week

The debate over same-sex marriage took a significant step forward this week, with the completion of closing arguments in the San Francisco trial over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the statewide ban on gay marriage Californians approved in 2008.

Judge Walker will almost certainly overturn Prop. 8: This trial is a lock in favor of gay marriage, says Andrew Cohen at Politics Daily. The defenders of Prop. 8 presented a shockingly "odd" and "weak case," with "hapless" witnesses and precious little evidence. The proponents, meanwhile, offered up 17 witnesses and a strong factual record. If "evidence matters to" Judge Walker, he has "virtually no other choice" but to strike down Prop. 8.

If Prop. 8 loses it's because the judge is biased: The "openly homosexual" Judge Walker "came into this courtroom strongly inclined to rule against Prop. 8," says Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, quoted at LifeSiteNews.com. He was "extremely open" to the anti-Prop. 8 case, and seemed baffled by our side's argument that procreation is what marriage is all about. Walker probably "will overturn Prop. 8" — not because of the arguments in the courtroom, but because of his own bias.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I could careless what happens in Cailfornia this is a state issue. But what bugs the shit out of me is when the activist from Cailifornia will push this issue on my state.

 

[Political Junky]

Hopefully Prop 8 will be struck down. Then the US can join other civilized nations in allowing marriage between same sex couples.

 

[B. Kidd]

Does anyone really think that when California goes broke, when police and fire services break down, when tent cities really multiply with the homeless and hungry, that anyone will give a shit about Prop. 8; no less care about whether anyone is gay or not?

Until then, be my guest and carry on with a debate over Prop. 8.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hopefully Prop 8 will be struck down. Then the US can join other civilized nations in allowing marriage between same sex couples.

You have some sort of problem with democracy?

Proposition 8 was voted on by the citizens of California, and you think one man can tell them all that they don't have a right to a vote because you disagree with the result. Would you be as comfortable with it if a vote had been held and SSM approved and someone took it to court to overturn it?

 

[bodecea]

Who will win California's Prop. 8 trial? - The Week

The debate over same-sex marriage took a significant step forward this week, with the completion of closing arguments in the San Francisco trial over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the statewide ban on gay marriage Californians approved in 2008.

Judge Walker will almost certainly overturn Prop. 8: This trial is a lock in favor of gay marriage, says Andrew Cohen at Politics Daily. The defenders of Prop. 8 presented a shockingly "odd" and "weak case," with "hapless" witnesses and precious little evidence. The proponents, meanwhile, offered up 17 witnesses and a strong factual record. If "evidence matters to" Judge Walker, he has "virtually no other choice" but to strike down Prop. 8.

If Prop. 8 loses it's because the judge is biased: The "openly homosexual" Judge Walker "came into this courtroom strongly inclined to rule against Prop. 8," says Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, quoted at LifeSiteNews.com. He was "extremely open" to the anti-Prop. 8 case, and seemed baffled by our side's argument that procreation is what marriage is all about. Walker probably "will overturn Prop. 8" — not because of the arguments in the courtroom, but because of his own bias.

So, according to Maggie Gallagher's own words, they'll be working next to eliminate the right to marry for anyone who will not or cannot procreate? Or is that just another lie?

 

[B. Kidd]

B. Kidd: "I haven't eaten in a week. I'm ready to fall the fuk down. Can you spare an extra can of 'Beefaroni' ?

Disheveled Drag Queen: "I think so. Sure."

B. Kidd: "Wait. I noticed that you have hair on your chest and you're wearing a dirty dress. Are you gay or sumthin' ?"

Disheveled Drag Queen: "Yeah, so what?"

B. Kidd: "You know where you can shove that 'Beefaroni'. You're the reason I'm starvin' in the first place".

 

[bodecea]

Hopefully Prop 8 will be struck down. Then the US can join other civilized nations in allowing marriage between same sex couples.

You have some sort of problem with democracy?

Proposition 8 was voted on by the citizens of California, and you think one man can tell them all that they don't have a right to a vote because you disagree with the result. Would you be as comfortable with it if a vote had been held and SSM approved and someone took it to court to overturn it?

We have a Republic with a Constitution protecting the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If we had a vote tomorrow about whether to prevent Muslims from building their houses of worship in the U.S....would it be ok if the majority forbid them from doing so?

 

[rdean]

If "civil rights" were put up to a vote, many people in certain parts of this country will still wear "price tags".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...-conservative-exceptionalism.html#post2425152

Beside, I can name dozens of contributions to the US from the gays, but from the "conservatives"? The only contributions I can name are not really positives. Iraq, letting Bin Laden go, the Katrina clean up, Confederate day, the rape of education, Bush, mine safety deregulation, oil drilling deregulation, the economy. Oh, they do breed. So, I guess, "cannon fodder" is a "plus".

 

[captaingeech]

I really see no reason why not to let people marry someone of their same sex. I'm interested in hearing the reasons why people are against it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We have a Republic with a Constitution protecting the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If we had a vote tomorrow about whether to prevent Muslims from building their houses of worship in the U.S....would it be ok if the majority forbid them from doing so?

Good try, but the right to marry is not mentioned in the Constitution, while the right to vote is. As far as I know SCOTUS has never overruled an actual vote of the people, and I know they have even thrown out challenges to marriage laws based on religious duty. This case should not be in court.

 

[B. Kidd]

Hopefully Prop 8 will be struck down. Then the US can join other civilized nations in allowing marriage between same sex couples.

You have some sort of problem with democracy?

Proposition 8 was voted on by the citizens of California, and you think one man can tell them all that they don't have a right to a vote because you disagree with the result. Would you be as comfortable with it if a vote had been held and SSM approved and someone took it to court to overturn it?

We have a Republic with a Constitution protecting the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If we had a vote tomorrow about whether to prevent Muslims from building their houses of worship in the U.S....would it be ok if the majority forbid them from doing so?

One: Such a vote would never be put forth nationally to be voted on by the minority or a majority.
Two: Because 'one' will not happen, it would be a fool's speculation as to how the outcome of such a hypothetical vote would turn out.
Three: A 'tyrannical' majority is just an imagination, because the Gov't doesn't represent both minorities and the majority anymore. The gov't only represents a self serving privileged class; being itself, combined with an economic privileged class. That's where the current tyranny lies.
I see you haven't gotten the memo yet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If "civil rights" were put up to a vote, many people in certain parts of this country will still wear "price tags".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...-conservative-exceptionalism.html#post2425152

Beside, I can name dozens of contributions to the US from the gays, but from the "conservatives"? The only contributions I can name are not really positives. Iraq, letting Bin Laden go, the Katrina clean up, Confederate day, the rape of education, Bush, mine safety deregulation, oil drilling deregulation, the economy. Oh, they do breed. So, I guess, "cannon fodder" is a "plus".

The Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Civil Rights Act, and freeing the slaves, all those were highlights of Republican platforms.

 

[syrenn]

Its no ones business who anyone wants to marry so long as they are of legal age. If gay's want to marry that's up to them. The STATE should not oppose that and should recognize it as a legal and binding marage. If the church doesn't want to "recognize" it that's fine too.

 

[Political Junky]

I really see no reason why not to let people marry someone of their same sex. I'm interested in hearing the reasons why people are against it.

The "reasons" cons give are many. There's Adam and Steve. God wants it to be one man and one woman, even though God wanted men to have multiple wives at one point. The list goes on and on and on.

 

[captaingeech]

I really see no reason why not to let people marry someone of their same sex. I'm interested in hearing the reasons why people are against it.

The "reasons" cons give are many. There's Adam and Steve. God wants it to be one man and one woman, even though God wanted men to have multiple wives at one point. The list goes on and on and on.

The religious reason is a good reason not to allow gay marriage within a particular church. The political debate is about whether or not to allow gay marriage in the civil law books. This is a conflation of two separate issues. I'm interested in knowing why people don't want to allow same sex marriage to be legal according to the state.

 

[syrenn]

I really see no reason why not to let people marry someone of their same sex. I'm interested in hearing the reasons why people are against it.

The "reasons" cons give are many. There's Adam and Steve. God wants it to be one man and one woman, even though God wanted men to have multiple wives at one point. The list goes on and on and on.

The religious reason is a good reason not to allow gay marriage within a particular church. The political debate is about whether or not to allow gay marriage in the civil law books. This is a conflation of two separate issues. I'm interested in knowing why people don't want to allow same sex marriage to be legal according to the state.

One word

Homophobia

 

[Harry Dresden]

If "civil rights" were put up to a vote, many people in certain parts of this country will still wear "price tags".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...-conservative-exceptionalism.html#post2425152

Beside, I can name dozens of contributions to the US from the gays, but from the "conservatives"? The only contributions I can name are not really positives. Iraq, letting Bin Laden go, the Katrina clean up, Confederate day, the rape of education, Bush, mine safety deregulation, oil drilling deregulation, the economy. Oh, they do breed. So, I guess, "cannon fodder" is a "plus".

name something from the FAR-LEFT Dean that helped this Country....so far in my State all the programs from your kind of people,those ones WAAAAAAAY out there beyond the left field bleachers....havent done to well....you know all those Entitlement programs....dont work to well....so yea Cannon Fodder.....your breed knows it well....matter of fact....Cannon Fodder is something the FAR-left has given America....you guys invented it.....

 

[B. Kidd]

I really see no reason why not to let people marry someone of their same sex. I'm interested in hearing the reasons why people are against it.

The "reasons" cons give are many. There's Adam and Steve. God wants it to be one man and one woman, even though God wanted men to have multiple wives at one point. The list goes on and on and on.

The religious reason is a good reason not to allow gay marriage within a particular church. The political debate is about whether or not to allow gay marriage in the civil law books. This is a conflation of two separate issues. I'm interested in knowing why people don't want to allow same sex marriage to be legal according to the state.

Because religion and politics is sorta like siamese twins that haven't been legally seperated yet, if ever at all.
The political debate has its' roots historically in Judeo-Christian principles, that actually, the 'rule of law' in our country, both criminal law and civil law, was initially founded upon.
So, it's not really two seperate issues, cause there's an overlap between them in most states, in alot of people's minds, and as a result of that, a connection still exists. Which is why they conflagurate (which I think is the word you meant to use in your above post.)
Two heads from the same body that argue with themselves.

 

[rightwinger]

Who will win California's Prop. 8 trial? - The Week

The debate over same-sex marriage took a significant step forward this week, with the completion of closing arguments in the San Francisco trial over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the statewide ban on gay marriage Californians approved in 2008.

Judge Walker will almost certainly overturn Prop. 8: This trial is a lock in favor of gay marriage, says Andrew Cohen at Politics Daily. The defenders of Prop. 8 presented a shockingly "odd" and "weak case," with "hapless" witnesses and precious little evidence. The proponents, meanwhile, offered up 17 witnesses and a strong factual record. If "evidence matters to" Judge Walker, he has "virtually no other choice" but to strike down Prop. 8.

If Prop. 8 loses it's because the judge is biased: The "openly homosexual" Judge Walker "came into this courtroom strongly inclined to rule against Prop. 8," says Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, quoted at LifeSiteNews.com. He was "extremely open" to the anti-Prop. 8 case, and seemed baffled by our side's argument that procreation is what marriage is all about. Walker probably "will overturn Prop. 8" — not because of the arguments in the courtroom, but because of his own bias.

So, according to Maggie Gallagher's own words, they'll be working next to eliminate the right to marry for anyone who will not or cannot procreate? Or is that just another lie?

Amazing that this is the cornerstone of the anti-gay marriage argument

Should married couples have to sign an agreement to have children? Should old people be allowed ti marry? Should infertile marriages be disolved?

Besides, gay couples do have children