Breaking. Prop 8.... struck down.

[rightwinger]

I am just shocked over how many people support a court overturning the will of the people through a legitimate vote.

sad

we are so screwed in this country.

I am just shocked that Americans think they should have the right to vote on other peoples rights

Its a state right...

If you have a problem with the state then move to a state you agree with..

First of all. The US Constitution supersedes any states law

States do not have the right to violate civil rights. We kind of established that 50 years ago

 

[Mr.Nick]

Hey.........if 2 people want to live together in an arrangement that results in tax breaks, as well as property and privledge to access each other in the hospital, why not?

Yeshua said "Love God above all else, and love one another like you love God".

Gender wasn't specified.

Man shall not lay in bed with another man.

Can you give me a quote of Yeshua actually saying that, from the Bible?

I bet you can't....................

We Catholics refer to him as Joshua.

No....

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

That is a matter of opinion. Perhaps not your opinion, but someone else's. Can you respect someone else's opinion?

 

[Mr.Nick]

I am just shocked that Americans think they should have the right to vote on other peoples rights

Its a state right...

If you have a problem with the state then move to a state you agree with..

First of all. The US Constitution supersedes any states law

States do not have the right to violate civil rights. We kind of established that 50 years ago

But the federal government has the right to supersede state rights?

Wrong!!!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because most people are Christians and under Christianity it is a sin...

To forbid same-sex marriage based on Christian dogma would be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

In the ruling, the court noted the similarity between Proportion 8 and Amendment 2 of he Colorado constitution, forbidding homosexuals from accessing that state’s anti-discrimination law, and struck down by the Supreme Court in Romer for the same reason: failing to have a legitimate reason to withhold a right or benefit from one group but not from others. Both are clearly a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

That Christians consider homosexuality a ‘sin’ is not a legitimate reason to deny equal protection, nor is the ‘historic’ perception or practice of marriage.

As was the case with Judge Walker, the Ninth Circuit is merely following precedent established by the Supreme Court, as it’s obligated to do.

I am just shocked over how many people support a court overturning the will of the people through a legitimate vote.

sad

we are so screwed in this country.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly, as demonstrated by Proposition 8. Our inalienable rights are not determined by a majority, voters don’t decide who will and who will not have his rights. And one does not forfeit his rights as a consequence of his state of residence. See: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

And in what universe do you speak for pets???

Maybe pets want to marry their masters...

Who says they don't and who the **** are you to impede them.

Pets aren’t persons, only persons are protected by the 14th Amendment.

Otherwise, it’s perfectly Constitutional to forbid people from marrying animals, inanimate objects, siblings, or having multiple spouses as such laws are applied to everyone equally – no specific class of persons is singled-out for exclusion.


The ruling for those interested:

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Prop-8-9th-CA-ruling-2-7-12.pdf

 

[Mr.Nick]

Hey.........if 2 people want to live together in an arrangement that results in tax breaks, as well as property and privledge to access each other in the hospital, why not?

Yeshua said "Love God above all else, and love one another like you love God".

Gender wasn't specified.

Man shall not lay in bed with another man.

Three verses back from that one: Do not have sexual relations with a woman during her period of menstrual impurity.

A few chapters back: But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you.

(God hates shellfish eaters.)

One chapter ahead: You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.

(God hates people who get haircuts and who shave)

Genesis: Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; so He took his life also.

(God hates birth control.)

And marriage in the eyes of government has absolutely nothing to do with religion..

 

[Katzndogz]

I"m waiting for some liberal to point out marriage in the Constitution. You do not have a Constitutional right to marry.

 

[syrenn]

I"m waiting for some liberal to point out marriage in the Constitution. You do not have a Constitutional right to marry.

I suggest you ask the married heterosexuals that question too. I would hazard the guess they will resounding say yes they have that right.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Because most people are Christians and under Christianity it is a sin...

To forbid same-sex marriage based on Christian dogma would be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

In the ruling, the court noted the similarity between Proportion 8 and Amendment 2 of he Colorado constitution, forbidding homosexuals from accessing that state’s anti-discrimination law, and struck down by the Supreme Court in Romer for the same reason: failing to have a legitimate reason to withhold a right or benefit from one group but not from others. Both are clearly a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

That Christians consider homosexuality a ‘sin’ is not a legitimate reason to deny equal protection, nor is the ‘historic’ perception or practice of marriage.

As was the case with Judge Walker, the Ninth Circuit is merely following precedent established by the Supreme Court, as it’s obligated to do.

I am just shocked over how many people support a court overturning the will of the people through a legitimate vote.

sad

we are so screwed in this country.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly, as demonstrated by Proposition 8. Our inalienable rights are not determined by a majority, voters don’t decide who will and who will not have his rights. And one does not forfeit his rights as a consequence of his state of residence. See: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

And in what universe do you speak for pets???

Maybe pets want to marry their masters...

Who says they don't and who the **** are you to impede them.

Pets aren’t persons, only persons are protected by the 14th Amendment.

Otherwise, it’s perfectly Constitutional to forbid people from marrying animals, inanimate objects, siblings, or having multiple spouses as such laws are applied to everyone equally – no specific class of persons is singled-out for exclusion.


The ruling for those interested:

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Prop-8-9th-CA-ruling-2-7-12.pdf

PETA would beat your head with a hammer....

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

You appear to assume that all women would be willing to commit to such a "union". Whose business is it, if all adults involved consent? And your observation about forced marriages and incest are a matter of oppositional propaganda.

 

[bodecea]

ooooooooooooo, miss nasties sister..

Looking for content in your post.


Nope....try again.

Oh yeah, like all the content in yours...

You read all mine? Already? Impressive. So, your rebuttals are........?

 

[bodecea]

Neither can a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Can a mentally retarded person consent or is there a limit there??

An adult can give informed consent. You REALLY need to educate yourself on informed consent before you get yourself in trouble with the law.

It is up to the courts to deem a mentally handicapped individual incompetent.

Ethically I agree, morally I do not.

Also, how does a judge define an individual???

One individual defines another?? - Yea that is a problem.

To me you're retarded....

 

[g5000]

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Prop-8-9th-CA-ruling-2-7-12.pdf[/url]

Thank you Mr. Jones. You saved me the effort.

And an outstanding post overall.

 

[bodecea]

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?

My rights are voted away by the "majority" every time there's an election. You have a point?

Such as?

 

[g5000]

PETA would beat your head with a hammer....

 

[rightwinger]

Its a state right...

If you have a problem with the state then move to a state you agree with..

First of all. The US Constitution supersedes any states law

States do not have the right to violate civil rights. We kind of established that 50 years ago

But the federal government has the right to supersede state rights?

Wrong!!!!

Yes they do.

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution

 

[bodecea]

Once marriage becomes a civil right we have more to worry about than same sex marriage.

Marriage is at best a qualified privilege.

Marriage isn't even a right..

From the Loving v. Virginia decision:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

 

[g5000]

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.

You appear to assume that all women would be willing to commit to such a "union". Whose business is it, if all adults involved consent? And your observation about forced marriages and incest are a matter of oppositional propaganda.

The Problem of Polygamy (Thom Brooks) - Academia.edu

 

[Mr.Nick]

Honestly I could care less about civil unions - I find the fact the federal government ruled against prop 8.

Why even put it on the ballot if the ******* thing was "illegal" to begin with?

What the ****....

Fags don't like the democratic system??

They were voted against and denied and now democracy is "wrong."

 

[Mr.Nick]

First of all. The US Constitution supersedes any states law

States do not have the right to violate civil rights. We kind of established that 50 years ago

But the federal government has the right to supersede state rights?

Wrong!!!!

Yes they do.

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution

Then why the **** do we have a Tenth Amendment??

Why do we have a Bill of Rights???