Ca Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[LuckyDan]

Yeah, but marriage has been around for centuries. What prompted the sudden need to "define" it? Answer: the need to prevent gays from marrying people of the same sex.

It's been around for centuries as a union between a man and a woman. gays have been around for centuries, too. Suddenly they can't be happy unless they marry other gays?

I might just as easily ask why homosexuals suddenly feel they need special rights, but it doesn't matter. The question before the court will be the constitutionality of Prop 8. Kagan will not vote as Stevens would have. Or at least isn't expected to. We'll see.

Well, that's not entirely true. It's a bit foggy, but there may have been gay marriage in Roman times, at least until it was outlawed by Constantine.

I did NOT know that!

This changes everything. I must quickly re-think my position....

 

[Yurt]

Judge to people. Vote if ya want to. It don't matter. Election don't matter.

come on willow....are you saying that if prop 8 made slavery of blacks constitutional again, and it was overturned...you would feel the same way?

 

[Oddball]

why was the prop initiated? what prompted it?

To define marriage.

and what prompted that? californians just did that out of the blue...you mean since california has been a state, no one knew what marriage meant?

interesting theory dan

Defining statutory marriage, not those under contractual or common law.

There's a difference.

 

[Tank]

Married or not, homosexuality is still wrong.

 

[LuckyDan]

Judge to people. Vote if ya want to. It don't matter. Election don't matter.

come on willow....are you saying that if prop 8 made slavery of blacks constitutional again, and it was overturned...you would feel the same way?

I gotta say. If I were black, that argument would insult me no end.

 

[Yurt]

To define marriage.

and what prompted that? californians just did that out of the blue...you mean since california has been a state, no one knew what marriage meant?

interesting theory dan

Defining statutory marriage, not those under contractual or common law.

There's a difference.

prop 8 amended the cal constitution dude....

 

[Father Time]

It's been around for centuries as a union between a man and a woman. gays have been around for centuries, too. Suddenly they can't be happy unless they marry other gays?

I might just as easily ask why homosexuals suddenly feel they need special rights, but it doesn't matter. The question before the court will be the constitutionality of Prop 8. Kagan will not vote as Stevens would have. Or at least isn't expected to. We'll see.

how is it special rights to allow same genders to marry? they are the same rights YOU have to marry someone of a different gender....the need to exclude marriage based on gender is unconstitutional as scotus has declared that anti sodomy laws etc....are unconstitutional

you are actually advocating for special rights, that is, the special right to marry someone of your choosing, but you are notwilling to share that right with someone who chooses to marry someone of their own gender.

Intra-gender marriage would be a special right, since gays currently have, and have always had, the same rights straights have to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Under that logic inter-racial marriage was also a special right.

 

[Yurt]

Judge to people. Vote if ya want to. It don't matter. Election don't matter.

come on willow....are you saying that if prop 8 made slavery of blacks constitutional again, and it was overturned...you would feel the same way?

I gotta say. If I were black, that argument would insult me no end.

why?

 

[Father Time]

Judge to people. Vote if ya want to. It don't matter. Election don't matter.

Yes because voter approved laws have never been ruled unconstitutional before.

What a drama queen.

 

[Oddball]

that's why sometimes the courts have to lead society rather than the other way around. same as the courts did during the civil rights era.

Spoken like the true authoritarian judicial oligarch we all knew you are.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Judge to people. Vote if ya want to. It don't matter. Election don't matter.

come on willow....are you saying that if prop 8 made slavery of blacks constitutional again, and it was overturned...you would feel the same way?

I gotta say. If I were black, that argument would insult me no end.

It wouldn't if I were a black man, since sexual orientation is just as much a personal trait as race.

 

[ConHog]

Married or not, homosexuality is still wrong.

So are you racist.

 

[WillowTree]

Judge to people. Vote if ya want to. It don't matter. Election don't matter.

come on willow....are you saying that if prop 8 made slavery of blacks constitutional again, and it was overturned...you would feel the same way?

Nope, that's not what I"m saying. GEt real Yurt, What are the chances someone would put slavery up for a vote? They did however allow the citizens of California to vote not once but twice on this issue> They voted no. Now my understanding is that a "civil union" would cover everything the gay and lesbian community says it wants. Why does it have to be "marriage" which traditionally is a religious ceremony. Go to the court house and get hitched. Marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and a woman. Why isn't "civil unions" adequate in lieu of marriage?

 

[LuckyDan]

how is it special rights to allow same genders to marry? they are the same rights YOU have to marry someone of a different gender....the need to exclude marriage based on gender is unconstitutional as scotus has declared that anti sodomy laws etc....are unconstitutional

you are actually advocating for special rights, that is, the special right to marry someone of your choosing, but you are notwilling to share that right with someone who chooses to marry someone of their own gender.

Intra-gender marriage would be a special right, since gays currently have, and have always had, the same rights straights have to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Under that logic inter-racial marriage was also a special right.

No. One can't choose their skin color or their race or their gender. One man-one woman excludes no one, singles out no one.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Because the law calls it marriage and not civil unions, willow.


Judge Walker wrote: "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail??blogid=150&entry_id=69382#ixzz0vgOLiP8V

 

[Oddball]

Judge to people. Vote if ya want to. It don't matter. Election don't matter.

come on willow....are you saying that if prop 8 made slavery of blacks constitutional again, and it was overturned...you would feel the same way?

Nope, that's not what I"m saying. GEt real Yurt, What are the chances someone would put slavery up for a vote? They did however allow the citizens of California to vote not once but twice on this issue> They voted no. Now my understanding is that a "civil union" would cover everything the gay and lesbian community says it wants. Why does it have to be "marriage" which traditionally is a religious ceremony. Go to the court house and get hitched. Marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and a woman. Why isn't "civil unions" adequate in lieu of marriage?

Not only that, but slavery is an act of aggression against the enslaved.

No such aggression exists in the denial of gays a statutory marriage.

 

[LuckyDan]

come on willow....are you saying that if prop 8 made slavery of blacks constitutional again, and it was overturned...you would feel the same way?

I gotta say. If I were black, that argument would insult me no end.

why?

Because it compares being a homosexual to enslavement. That's a long damn walk.

 

[The Infidel]

Yeah, but marriage has been around for centuries. What prompted the sudden need to "define" it? Answer: the need to prevent gays from marrying people of the same sex.

It's been around for centuries as a union between a man and a woman. gays have been around for centuries, too. Suddenly they can't be happy unless they marry other gays?

I might just as easily ask why homosexuals suddenly feel they need special rights, but it doesn't matter. The question before the court will be the constitutionality of Prop 8. Kagan will not vote as Stevens would have. Or at least isn't expected to. We'll see.

how is it special rights to allow same genders to marry? they are the same rights YOU have to marry someone of a different gender....the need to exclude marriage based on gender is unconstitutional as scotus has declared that anti sodomy laws etc....are unconstitutional

you are actually advocating for special rights, that is, the special right to marry someone of your choosing, but you are notwilling to share that right with someone who chooses to marry someone of their own gender.

I will tell you how.... I cant marry someone of my gender either! (Im a heterosexual) How does that equate that I want special rights?
I am sick and tired of activists judges deciding to just nullify the will of the people by overturning their votes.

Why was there ever a vote? If they are going to ignore them.... why have them? Why not just put a king in the place of Obama and let him decide everything for us???!!!???

Would all you idiots be defending the judge if they had declared to uphold the gay marriage ban?
I doubt it.

When are the people of California going to start kicking these liberal assholes out of office?

 

[WillowTree]

Because the law calls it marriage and not civil unions, willow.

Sky, THE LAW defines marriage as "between a man and a woman." My question is if "civil unions" give you all the rights and privileges you seek why not agree to "civil unions" Nothing then to stop you from a "religious" or "spiritual" ceremony seperate from the union.

 

[Father Time]

Intra-gender marriage would be a special right, since gays currently have, and have always had, the same rights straights have to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Under that logic inter-racial marriage was also a special right.

No. One can't choose their skin color or their race or their gender. One man-one woman excludes no one, singles out no one.

Yes! Before that every race had the right to marry someone of the same race. Marrying someone of a different race would've been special rights using your logic.