Ca Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[Father Time]

Point being it's an unquantifiable trait.

What's to stop same-sex straights from marrying now?

I'm going to go with common sense.

Really?

What if a couple of lifer bachelor hetero roommates decide that they want to get in on all the state-bestowed benefits of marriage, without having to drag around "the old ball and chain"?

What's to stop them?

What's to stop a man and a women who are only roommates from doing the same thing?

 

[Father Time]

Bull.

Bull nothing.

All it took today was the say-so of a federal judge...What's to stop another one from affirming the "right" to polygamy?

apples/oranges....homosexuality is not illegal

Wait since when was group sex or having multiple roommates illegal?

Problem with >2 people marriages though is that it creates a giant legal mess and all sorts of problems 2 person marriages don't have.

 

[DavidS]

The public voted overwhelmingly for no gay marriage. A judge overturned this for activists who aren't content with just working out contractual agreements on the side like rational people. Therefore you have taken away the will of the people and supplanted it with activist special interest. People don't LIKE that when their vote is nullified by an asshole judge looking play social engineer because they feel entitled to.

It will be interesting IF it turns out SCOTUS bans gay marriage nation wide though. Willing to accept THAT decision too? The majority of Americans, particularly minorities would rejoice their will would matter.

Since when does the PUBLIC get to vote on the rights of other people? Usually the public gets to vote on something that effects them - but gay marriage DOESN'T effect anyone other than the gay couple who are getting married! The PUBLIC should have NEVER been allowed to vote for Proposition 8 - it should've never BEEN allowed to be a proposition in the first place!

Well seig heil to you too sport!

Glad to see you don't give a shit about democracy that you disagree with.

You just remember that the lack of tolerance you have for the majority will get you burned the instant they feel like doing something about the shot you're taking now.

Just warning you of what may come if you push too hard.

A few things:

A: You never answered my question. Let me repeat it in case you lack reading comprehension skills: Since when does the PUBLIC get to vote on the rights of other people?

B: I find it completely ironic that you are quoting something from Hitler, Seig Heil (It's actually Sieg Heil, but who's counting). Sieg Heil is a German phrase, which literally means "Hail [to] Victory." During the Nazi era, it was a common chant at political rallies. When meeting someone, it was customary in Nazi Germany to give the Hitler salute and say the words "Heil Hitler". "Sieg Heil" was reserved for mass meetings such as the ones at Nuremberg where "Sieg Heil" was shouted in unison by thousands. Often a Nazi official would shout into a microphone "Sieg" and the crowd would answer with "Heil," and there might be several repetitions of this at times in ever-increasing volume. At such rallies there was often a display of banners carrying the slogan "Sieg Heil" along with the swastika. The NSDAP (Nazi Party) made a pin badge in 1933 displaying a victory wreath, the Swastika, and the words "Sieg Heil". The expression itself was born during a party meeting, when Joseph Goebbels said "Sieg heil" and all supported the phrase (however an early associate of Hitler, Ernst Hanfstaengl, claimed to have devised it). Since Nazism argued that war was a way to determine the superior race and that Germans were that superior race, hailing war was to hail the struggle that would eliminate all others and establish, in a social Darwinist manner, the " New Order."

Why I find it ironic is that you support a viewpoint that the Nazis supported: Unequality. They felt that other people, mainly the Jews, did not deserve the same kind of rights that they enjoyed. Of course, this is a much more extreme version, but I'm sure racial segregation in the US, apartheid in South Africa and the Caste system in India are each less extreme versions that have the same thought process. The irony is that I believe homosexuals (male, female and transgendered) have the right to marry, thus I believe in equal rights for them... which is the opposite of what Nazis would believe.

I haven't read all of your posts on here, but I have never seen you complain about people not having the right to vote on freeing slaves, not having the right to vote on allowing women to have equal rights and not having the right to vote on giving black people equal rights. These rights have either been voted on by Congress or by Judges in the Court system. I fail to understand what you mean by "the lack of tolerance." People are welcome to their viewpoints in America - we have the first amendment and this online forum to voice their viewpoints, believe me I've said a lot of controversial stuff on here during the years.... but what America does NOT have the right to do is dis-allow people form enjoying the same rights as we do. Your religious viewpoints do not come into play when it's a legal matter because this country is not a theocracy - it is a DEMOCRACY - meaning we have separation between church and state, meaning there is no LEGAL way to dis-allow gay people from marrying. DOMA will soon be repealed and with it all people, men and men, women and women, men and women, transgender and transgender will all be allowed to be married. To disallow people to be married just because of the gender of the other person they want to be married to do is prejudiced and to be prejducied, for a legal reason, is illegal in this country. You cannot fire someone because they're black or gay, you cannot offer a woman a hire ranking position if she will sleep with you and you soon will not be allowed to outlaw gay marriage in any state.

 

[Father Time]

I love the logic, the Constitutional amendment is unconstitutional.

Yes Avatar it's entirely possible for a State amendment to violate a Federal amendment and thus be struck down!

 

[Steerpike]

Whenever someone drags the Nazis into an argument, you know they don't have any good points to make.

 

[DavidS]

Really? So you're saying the people have no right to vote directly on the laws that govern their lives by direct referendum?

How does gay marriage effect their lives directly? Let's say you born, raised and married in California. How is your life directly effected by gay marriage? Are you going to lose business and money? Is your marriage threatened? Can you prove that your life today is any different than it was yesterday other than your prejducice against gay people now that gay marriage is allowed in CA?

hmmm the victimless crime argument. ::: cast ignore ::: Worthless argument.

Of course you can't answer the question because you know I'm right.

 

[Oddball]

I'm going to go with common sense.

Really?

What if a couple of lifer bachelor hetero roommates decide that they want to get in on all the state-bestowed benefits of marriage, without having to drag around "the old ball and chain"?

What's to stop them?

What's to stop a man and a women who are only roommates from doing the same thing?

Nothing at all...But the context here is same-sex couples.

 

[Father Time]

Whenever someone drags the Nazis into an argument, you know they don't have any good points to make.

You ever hear of Godwin's law?

 

[Steerpike]

Whenever someone drags the Nazis into an argument, you know they don't have any good points to make.

You ever hear of Godwin's law?

No, but I just looked it up and I like it.

 

[Oddball]

I love the logic, the Constitutional amendment is unconstitutional.

Yes Avatar it's entirely possible for a State amendment to violate a Federal amendment and thus be struck down!

Where, in the judge's extremely flimsy list of criteria, did he cite any federal authority to intervene?

BTW...It's been ruled that the 14th Amendment applies to opposite-sex couples, as it relates to their ethnicity, not reputed sexual appetites.

 

[Father Time]

Whenever someone drags the Nazis into an argument, you know they don't have any good points to make.

You ever hear of Godwin's law?

No, but I just looked it up and I like it.

It comes with a handy card

Of course it never said those who invoke it lose but hey.

 

[B. Kidd]

Not really funny that 'Boedicka' and supporters equates segragationists to those that oppose gay marriage.
After the sacrifice of the lives and blood of Blacks striving for equality for multiple-decades in our country, if I was Black, I'd be pissed over someone comparing homophobes to segragationists; because after all, in struggles for equality, there IS NO HISTORICAL CLOSE COMPARISON between the Black struggle and the gay struggle.
The Gay Klan, is not too far removed from the ignorance of the original Klan in making SUCH a comparison.

 

[R.C. Christian]

We need Woody Harrelson's dad now more than ever.

 

[Cuyo]

If this goes to the SCOTUS then marriage equality may become the law of the land.

Indeed - The homophobes may have just self-destructed.

 

[Steerpike]

Not really funny that 'Boedicka' and supporters equates segragationists to those that oppose gay marriage.
After the sacrifice of the lives and blood of Blacks striving for equality for multiple-decades in our country, if I was Black, I'd be pissed over someone comparing homophobes to segragationists; because after all, in struggles for equality, there IS NO HISTORICAL CLOSE COMPARISON between the Black struggle and the gay struggle.

Actually, I've talked to a number of black people about this. Only anecdotal, but yes, it makes them extremely angry to hear this comparison. I wonder if the high percentage black support in Prop 8 is to some extent backlash over this comparison being made. I think supporters of gay marriage (of which I am one) would do well to stay away from this comparison.

 

[Steerpike]

If this goes to the SCOTUS then marriage equality may become the law of the land.

Indeed - The homophobes may have just self-destructed.

With the current court, it is just as likely (or maybe more likely) that the opposite will be the case, and those fighting Prop 8 will have established Supreme Court precedent that gay marriage is not protected.

 

[Cuyo]

Point being it's an unquantifiable trait.

What's to stop same-sex straights from marrying now?

I'm going to go with common sense.

Really?

What if a couple of lifer bachelor hetero roommates decide that they want to get in on all the state-bestowed benefits of marriage, without having to drag around "the old ball and chain"?

What's to stop them?

I've long said, Why the hell not? What's wrong with that? A marriage in the eyes of the State is nothing more than a partnership among individuals in the "Business" of personal life. Why can't any two people be "Partners?" Why must it be a sexual relationship?

 

[AllieBaba]

How odd..the left can even make homosexuality a race issue.

How do they do that? It's like a weird gift.

 

[R.C. Christian]

nevermind.

 

[Dr Grump]

So what?

What's to stop the next federal judge from deciding that state polygamy statutes violate the "rights" of the parties who wish to freely involve themselves in it?

Nothing, and why should it. What's wrong with polygamy?