Fed Judge overturns CA ban on gay marriage

[$mooth]

Why do you care what two (or more) consenting adults do? That's the part I can never get. I don't waste two seconds thinking about the way other people want to live their lives.

fixed.

 

[dross]

fixed.

My name is dross, and I support this correction.

 

[shibumiseeker]

fixed.

My name is dross, and I support this correction.

+1 for both (or more) of you.

 

[BigMatt]

OPINION - I tend to believe that being gay is not a choice. People are gay because it's in their genetic makeup. There are exceptions to the rule, but for the most part I think that is true.

FACT - Taking away rights of an individual because of a hereditary trait or genetic makeup is discrimination.

OPINION - To those who are saying "I can take giving them a civil union, just don't call it marriage" could just as easily be saying that about blacks or asians, or people under 5' tall or... (fill in the blank)

Behavioral kinks (polygamy) are different.

 

[dross]

OPINION - I tend to believe that being gay is not a choice. People are gay because it's in their genetic makeup. There are exceptions to the rule, but for the most part I think that is true.

FACT - Taking away rights of an individual because of a hereditary trait or genetic makeup is discrimination.

OPINION - To those who are saying "I can take giving them a civil union, just don't call it marriage" could just as easily be saying that about blacks or asians, or people under 5' tall or... (fill in the blank)

Behavioral kinks (polygamy) are different.

The jury is out as to whether it's an inherited trait. To me, it doesn't matter whether it's a choice or genetics.

My choices are no one else's business unless I initiate force upon them.

Well, force is okay sometimes, if you use a safeword.

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

Why do you care what two consenting adults do? That's the part I can never get. I don't waste two seconds thinking about the way other people want to live their lives.

I don't care what consenting adults do. A marriage license isn't needed for that.

Adultery is between consenting adults, yet that goes on all the time. Marriage is not defined between same-sex people. If they want some sort of a legal union, then incest should be legal too....polygamy should be legal....it's all consenting adults. The 50 year old perv who wants to "marry" a 16 year old boy, though legally he is a consenting adult.

Next, it will be the woman who want to "marry" Fido...he loves her to death and is an adult, albeit canine.

Nahhhhhh I could care less about what consenting adults do behind closed doors in the privacy of their own homes. But the marriage part should remain between a man and wife, as it has for several thousand years.

It would be really tough for hermaphrodites I suppose....what do they do, "marry" themselves? Do they need a license to go F _ _ _ themselves?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

But yet people of a similar mindset preach to their friends and family about freedom and how they love it... and would even fight and die for it.

I suspect this wouldn't be such an issue if people weren't trying to mainstream their preferences. I'm willing to let people do what they want in private; I don't want them teaching my kids that what I tell them is immoral is moral after all and that I'm just an '-ist'. Push on me, I'll likely push you back...

 

[dross]

I suspect this wouldn't be such an issue if people weren't trying to mainstream their preferences. I'm willing to let people do what they want in private; I don't want them teaching my kids that what I tell them is immoral is moral after all and that I'm just an '-ist'. Push on me, I'll likely push you back...

I agree. A gay teacher shouldn't have to hide it, but he neither should he discuss it, or advocate it. Just as a hetereosexual teacher shouldn't teach that being gay is immoral.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I agree. A gay teacher shouldn't have to hide it, but he neither should he discuss it, or advocate it. Just as a hetereosexual teacher shouldn't teach that being gay is immoral.

I agree to the extent that such things shouldn't be taught in public schools and shouldn't be mandated for school curricula. As a parent, I should be able to teach my children, or have taught to my children in an appropriate setting, my concepts of morality, providing I don't advocate, or allow to be advocated, violence against others (including the kinds of verbal abuse and bullying to which children tend). I reinforce those moral lessons by living them myself in front of my children.

I know this training works because it worked when my parents used it with me; and it worked with my son, when my wife and I used it on him.

 

[dross]

I agree to the extent that such things shouldn't be taught in public schools and shouldn't be mandated for school curricula. As a parent, I should be able to teach my children, or have taught to my children in an appropriate setting, my concepts of morality, providing I don't advocate, or allow to be advocated, violence against others (including the kinds of verbal abuse and bullying to which children tend). I reinforce those moral lessons by living them myself in front of my children.

I know this training works because it worked when my parents used it with me; and it worked with my son, when my wife and I used it on him.

I'm not sure I see where you disagree with me. Parents should be able to teach their kids anything they want.

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

I'm not sure I see where you disagree with me. Parents should be able to teach their kids anything they want.

Not so sure about that one...I know a few who are dumber than a box of rocks...

 

[MilitaryArms]

Adultery is between consenting adults,

...yet in most states it's not against the law. Most states these days are "no fault", which I find curious... but that's not really the point.

Adultery is nothing like being gay. At its most basic level, adultery hurts another party with whom you have a formal and legal agreement. Being gay doesn't.

Marriage is not defined between same-sex people.

By current law, no it's not. That doesn't make it just. Not all that long ago Blacks and women weren't allowed to vote under the law. Just because it was the law at the time, was is just?

Discrimination against gays will be viewed as unjust in the future. Unfortunately you're on the losing side of the argument just as the slavers were in the 1860's.

If they want some sort of a legal union, then incest should be legal too....polygamy should be legal....it's all consenting adults. The 50 year old perv who wants to "marry" a 16 year old boy, though legally he is a consenting adult.

All non-sense. One could argue, using your logic, that allowing Blacks to vote would lead to making murder legal, sex with animals required, abortion mandatory if you have over 2 children already, etc. In other words, they have absolutely nothing in common and there's absolutely no evidence one will lead to the other.

Next, it will be the woman who want to "marry" Fido...he loves her to death and is an adult, albeit canine.

And if we allow women to vote pretty soon all men will be required to have a sex change at 30.

Nahhhhhh I could care less about what consenting adults do behind closed doors in the privacy of their own homes. But the marriage part should remain between a man and wife, as it has for several thousand years.

Why? How does it hurt you if two guys you've never met and will never meet get married? Would it change your quality of life? Would it effect your marriage? Would it change anything in your life other than giving complaining rights on the internet? Probably not.

 

[MilitaryArms]

I agree to the extent that such things shouldn't be taught in public schools and shouldn't be mandated for school curricula. As a parent, I should be able to teach my children, or have taught to my children in an appropriate setting, my concepts of morality, providing I don't advocate, or allow to be advocated, violence against others (including the kinds of verbal abuse and bullying to which children tend). I reinforce those moral lessons by living them myself in front of my children.

I know this training works because it worked when my parents used it with me; and it worked with my son, when my wife and I used it on him.

If you don't want your child's mind polluted with concepts you're opposed to, you probably don't want them in public school.

While I agree schooling should be neutral, it's simply unrealistic to think any public school... no matter how "good"... will impart ideals on your children you're probably not going to like.

My son will be in private school when he's old enough. Even then it's no guarantee something won't be said or taught that you disagree with. If you're really that worried about it, home schooling is about your only option.

 

[raider600]

I'm glad they can still Marry. Lets hope it stays that way. It's not the end of the world. Lets keep Gvt out of Marrage.

 

[Delmar]

I'm glad they can still Marry. Lets hope it stays that way. It's not the end of the world. Lets keep Gvt out of Marrage.

Marraige has only been one thing, throughout human history, until the government got involved.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

If you don't want your child's mind polluted with concepts you're opposed to, you probably don't want them in public school.

While I agree schooling should be neutral, it's simply unrealistic to think any public school... no matter how "good"... will impart ideals on your children you're probably not going to like.

My son will be in private school when he's old enough. Even then it's no guarantee something won't be said or taught that you disagree with. If you're really that worried about it, home schooling is about your only option.

Perhaps the single most agreeable thing you've said that I've read, kudos.

Any less what?

Any less worthy.

Actually, the SCOTUS ruled in Heller that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Thus, they ruled the exact opposite of what you *think* they're going to rule. How is it you extrapolate that ruling to mean they're going to rule all "guns are illegal"?

Well, perhaps you can explain to me why Gun ownership is restricted in certain areas.

Perhaps you could explain why people need "permits" to own something which the Constitution says is a Right.

Both of these examples seem to violate the Constitution, IMHO.

You seem to hate Government.

Cant say I like what I see, experienced and have known.

You probably believe in UFO's,

And you dont? ROTFL The oldest Religions DO NOT EVEN DISPUTE ALIENS AND SPACESHIPS, THEY COMPLETELY ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTANCE OF SOLAR PEOPLE.

Research: Celtic Mythology, Vedic Mythology, Sumerian Mythology... There are certainly more, including Hebrewism.

Only someone with little knowledge in these areas might contest the existances.

think the Trade Center was taken down by bombs planted by the government and that Elvis is in hiding with Hitler in a government bunker somewhere. Just guessing though...

Close

But despite your cries that the sky is falling, we've actually made some pretty big inroads through the courts in the last few years including the recent Chicago decision. So to think the SCOTUS is going to rule "guns are illegal" indicates to me you're completely lost on the subject.

Hmmmm... How are those Chicago laws again? Last I heard the ordances were pretty tyrannical.

Funny how laws never effect the criminals, just the law abiding citizens.

It's against INGO policy to back up your claims by posting direct links and your own commentary referencing those links? Did they apply special rules just for you?

...just when I thought I've heard every excuse on the internet.

Here's the rule you're trying to hide behind.

Personal choice. If you want the Gold, you got to dig for it.

We're getting started, finally. But you have a little ways to go. You've cited a few sources but you've failed to include your own commentary as to why you feel these sources justify your position that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is illegal.

Should be quite obvious how the 14A violate the Founders intent/desires but also some of the Acts established, nevermind the Constitution.

How does this make Section 1 of the 14 Amendment illegal?

Did you read it? Did you also google the Unconstitutionality of the 14A, there are several sites that deal in that direction.

What it basically means, in a nutshell, that IF the 14A is unconstitutional, that means it's in violation of that ACT.

Again, in your view how does this negate or conflict with Section 1 of the 14th Amendment?

It shows the conflict of the Founders intent/desires/thoughts, OF WHICH the 14A goes against.

How does this relate to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment and our discussion here?

Had the Founders desires been fulfilled, the 14A would've been a moot. The very notion that this existed shows a very real commitment to the cause.

Again, the Founders, not even Lincoln would have ever supported the 14A.

Ambiguous. What quotes specifically are you referencing here and how do they relate to the legality of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment?

No pick and choose, read entirely. Learning is certainly harder than being told what to think, believe, accept.

...and what does this:

...have to do with this:

Are you serious?

Read the cites above, then come back to this question, if you cannot understand the violation, then I cannot do a thing to help you.

More specifically, how does the Preamble conflict Section 1 of the 14th Amendment thereby making it illegal in your view?

Why do you keep refering to just one section 1? Im talking of the entire 14A that is in violation. Get a dictionary, and go through every single word of the preamble, then get back to me.

How can one show an "arrogance of debating"? I'm a noun, debate is a verb.

These comments, while insulting, and false, shows a false sense of arrogance.

So you claim to have this vast knowledge of the founders (which you obviously don't) and your response to someone that asks you to cite references for your claims is "go Google it"?

Your lack of debate skills mirrors that of your knowledge of history.

Anyway, I certainly never failed a history course and given what I've seen here posted by you, I would say history probably wasn't your strong point.

History was a strong point; unfortunately, I also did not attend a Public School, but a Private College Level Prep Military Academy.

I was not able to check 3 or A for my answers, but write out full pages for my answer to a single question. Never recieved below a B, was mainly an A Student in History.

Just because you surf conspiracy websites all day long doesn't mean your an authority on US history.

Oh, and what conspiracies sites do I surf? What I've said is NOT historically or factually wrong, you just have a differing belief/outlook on reality than the Founders.

Instead of taking cheap shot after cheap shot, why not back up your claim of being an authority on US history with some meaningful content in your posts? You keep hiding behind ambiguity and claims of being shackled by the rules.

No cheap shots, Why are you unable to use google? Do you also expect me to hold your hand while you pee, too? This is a grown up conversation, I should not have to spoon feed you; Heck, I should not EVEN EVER have to acknowlege this with someone who is appearantly an expert on the 14A.

You can believe that, and once it's over turned by the SCOTUS I'll buy you a beer. Until that point, it's the law of the land.

Keep the beer, dont hold your breath. America is falling from the dream that once was. The Idea of America is dead.

Now we walk in the shadow, with only the Name & Colors to help keep us delusioned about what America is.

Might aswell call this Communista, as it's growing more and more obvious how far America has fallen since it's grace, with the willful and ignorant populous blindly supporting, and not demanding righting the wrongs.

Once again for the sake of clarity, least you forget, I'm only discussing Section 1 of the 14th Amendment as it relates to the OP's post.

I speak of the entire 14A, not bits and peices. However, if the entire peice is in violation, then would it not make sense that Section 1 is also, while not completely er, is still in violation.

You have to remember, that if the 14A is unconstitutional, that would make anything that ever benefited from it, unconstitutional, too.

It's called a domino effect, and it being what it is, means, obviously that American politicians have been willful in carrying on, instead of making sure that 14A is Constitutional.

 

[dross]

Marraige has only been one thing, throughout human history, until the government got involved.

You're right, it used to be between a couple and their church, then the government got involved. And people have a right to equal treatment under their government. Let's get the government out of ALL marriage. Problem solved.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

...

By current law, no it's not. That doesn't make it just. Not all that long ago Blacks and women weren't allowed to vote under the law. Just because it was the law at the time, was is just?

Could you explain the bigger picture, behind two gays being married? It seems more like a companion aspect, than anything "MARRIAGE" was intended for. And if this is the obvious case, then it's only prudent to suggest that they just not even mess with Marriage & it's definition.

What do you mean by "Blacks and women"?

As for your question, this can be reversed. Just because something is law, doesnt make it Just.

Discrimination against gays will be viewed as unjust in the future.

Doubtful.

Unfortunately you're on the losing side of the argument just as the slavers were in the 1860's.

This is elitism. A small group of people forcing they're will on the majority is purely elitism.

All non-sense. One could argue, using your logic, that allowing Blacks to vote would lead to making murder legal, sex with animals required, abortion mandatory if you have over 2 children already, etc. In other words, they have absolutely nothing in common and there's absolutely no evidence one will lead to the other.

Be realistic. If the definition and standard of Marriage is destroyed, then whose to say what is acceptable.

25 years from now, Im sure I can expect to argue with you, regarding why Beastiality is wrong, and ofcourse, I'll be the evil sob whose discrimminating against the poor animal lovers.

Sorry, but this is a trend, and it only points in a direction which is unhealthy for ANY society.

The example you provided shows a flaw in logical thinking. What does Blacks voting have to do with beastility?

Why? How does it hurt you if two guys you've never met and will never meet get married? Would it change your quality of life? Would it effect your marriage? Would it change anything in your life other than giving complaining rights on the internet? Probably not.

Probably the infringment on other aspects of life.

Why do Gays need marriage? Why do they need BIG Govt sactioned marriages to feel legitimate?

Why do they need to destroy the sanctity of something which was NEVER intended for them.

Special interest?

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

You're right, it used to be between a couple and their church, then the government got involved. And people have a right to equal treatment under their government. Let's get the government out of ALL marriage. Problem solved.

I can agree. All benefits... Everything. Marriage should be a private affair.

 

[MilitaryArms]

Why do you keep refering to just one section 1? Im talking of the entire 14A that is in violation. Get a dictionary, and go through every single word of the preamble, then get back to me.

You can't follow a simple conversation apparently. First, this thread was a discussion of gay rights and the 14th Amendment was brought up, just section 1 as it relates to this case and discussion. You know, the whole equal protection under the law thing. I made this very clear in my initial posts. But you can't seem to stick to the topic no matter how many times I try to bring you back.

These comments, while insulting, and false, shows a false sense of arrogance.

Pot, meet kettle.

A false sense of arrogance, eh? Wow, you can peer into my mind from all the way over there. I'm falsely arrogant in your assessment. Damn. Busted. I'm actually quite humble and you nailed me on it.

Oh, and what conspiracies sites do I surf? What I've said is NOT historically or factually wrong, you just have a differing belief/outlook on reality than the Founders.

Oh, I don't know... the ones where you get stuff like this:

And you dont? ROTFL The oldest Religions DO NOT EVEN DISPUTE ALIENS AND SPACESHIPS, THEY COMPLETELY ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTANCE OF SOLAR PEOPLE.

Boy did I ever nail my assessment of you.

No cheap shots, Why are you unable to use google? Do you also expect me to hold your hand while you pee, too? This is a grown up conversation, I should not have to spoon feed you; Heck, I should not EVEN EVER have to acknowlege this with someone who is appearantly an expert on the 14A.

It's far from a "grown up" conversation. A grown up conversation would go something like this:

Poster 1: I believe the earth if flat.

Poster 2: I disagree. A sphere will always project a round shadow. Watching a lunar eclipse will give you all the evidence you need. Here's a great resource: How can one prove that the world is round?.

A sophomoric conversation goes like this:

Poster 1: The South fired the first shot of the Civil War.

Poster 2: No they didn't, go read a history book. Use Google to prove I'm right.

See the difference? In a healthy debate you cite your sources, present your evidence and exchange ideas. You don't say "you're wrong" and then offer absolutely nothing to back up your assertion(s).

But then this is a fruitless exercise. You're purposely obtuse and you even believe in flying saucers.

Keep the beer, dont hold your breath. America is falling from the dream that once was. The Idea of America is dead.

Oh, so you're a quitter. No one likes a quitter. While we're fighting for our rights every day, we're making progress. We live in a country where through our elected representatives we can effect change. It was designed that way, and it appears to be working for the most part. Heller and the Chicago decisions prove that. The fact most states allow concealed carry now where 30 years ago most didn't is further proof. Are we at an ideal spot? Nope, far from it.

The American dream isn't dead, we just have to fight for it. You've already given up and that's a testament to your character. I choose not to give up but to fight for what I hold dear.

I speak of the entire 14A, not bits and peices. However, if the entire peice is in violation, then would it not make sense that Section 1 is also, while not completely er, is still in violation.

Truth be told, I don't like the 14th Amendment as a whole either. But that's not at issue here.

I say we stop here. You have no desire to have an "adult" conversation and I have no desire to keep going back and forth with you in this fruitless exercise. There are others willing to have an actual discussion that doesn't consist of "You're wrong, now go use Google to prove me right".

...and with that.