Fed Judge overturns CA ban on gay marriage

[henktermaat]

My problem with this is not one of morals at all:

1) This should have never gotten to the courts. This is an example of a Judge ruling supreme over the wishes of the people of the state. Why even have voting? There's literally no reason to vote if we go down this path. Just abolish the will of the people and have a judge rule supreme over every state, and stop trying to pretend we have a say in anything.

2) The single "ruler" judge can rule based on the unapproved thoughts of the people. This is the precursor to making certain thoughts illegal.

 

[ATOMonkey]

anyone should be able to marry anyone else they want. this is religion interfearing with govt. thank goodness this judge saw it right!

if 2 fags wanna get married then thats cool with me. it doesnt make my marriage to my wife any less signifigant. Theres no place in this country for people to try and shove their religious beliefs on others! try to tell me i can do something to my own body because your bible says its wrong, and watch what happens to your nose.

if your religion tells you not to do something then dont do it, but dont try to tell other people they cant do it. how would you like china coming in here and telling you how many kids you need to have? Christians are supposed to not judge others less they be judged, but that all I ever see and hear supposed christians doing, is judging and sentencing others. practice what you preach. and people wonder why im not religious??? maybe because i hate hypocrytes

Actually it says, "the measure you use to judge will be measured against you."

Just a point of clarity.

Procede with the thread.

 

[E5RANGER375]

My problem with this is not one of morals at all:

1) This should have never gotten to the courts. This is an example of a Judge ruling supreme over the wishes of the people of the state. Why even have voting? There's literally no reason to vote if we go down this path. Just abolish the will of the people and have a judge rule supreme over every state, and stop trying to pretend we have a say in anything.

2) The single "ruler" judge can rule based on the unapproved thoughts of the people. This is the precursor to making certain thoughts illegal.

you dont get it. voting doesnt matter when the law thats voted for is federaly unconstitutional. ALL states must abide by the federal constitution first. If people voted to bring back slavery in california, would it be right because it was "voted for"??? take the issue out of the picture for a moment and insert slavery. its not constitutional

 

[E5RANGER375]

Actually it says, "the measure you use to judge will be measured against you."

Just a point of clarity.

Procede with the thread.

i think theres some other anti-judging quotes in there too that you missed. start reading

 

[henktermaat]

you dont get it. voting doesnt matter when the law thats voted for is federaly unconstitutional. ALL states must abide by the federal constitution first. If people voted to bring back slavery in california, would it be right because it was "voted for"??? take the issue out of the picture for a moment and insert slavery. its not constitutional

How is a ruling on marriage constitutional? I might be missing something here...

Last I knew, we're all against constitutional rulings on marriage. Let the states handle it and all....

 

[hoosiertriangle]

I've grown quite weary of trying to figure out what box I'm supposed to live in as a christian. I can't ask to pray at school, I can't talk about what behavior I think is right and wrong, I can't boycott institutions that promote activities I disagree with, I can't disagree with somebody because I'm pushing my thoughts down their throats, I can't raise my children the way I want, I can't speak out about moral decline, I can't promote politicians who agree with my point of view because I'll be called a bigot, a hate monger, a hypocrite, a crazy person, a lunatic, or a liar.

I don't know how I'm supposed to anything other than shut up, support things I don't agree with, and like it. It would be far easier to just reprogram people rather than respect them for their differences.

anyone should be able to marry anyone else they want. this is religion interfearing with govt. thank goodness this judge saw it right!

if 2 fags wanna get married then thats cool with me. it doesnt make my marriage to my wife any less signifigant. Theres no place in this country for people to try and shove their religious beliefs on others! try to tell me i can do something to my own body because your bible says its wrong, and watch what happens to your nose.

if your religion tells you not to do something then dont do it, but dont try to tell other people they cant do it. how would you like china coming in here and telling you how many kids you need to have? Christians are supposed to not judge others less they be judged, but that all I ever see and hear supposed christians doing, is judging and sentencing others. practice what you preach. and people wonder why im not religious??? maybe because i hate hypocrytes

 

[henktermaat]

I've grown quite weary of trying to figure out what box I'm supposed to live in as a christian. I can't ask to pray at school, I can't talk about what behavior I think is right and wrong, I can't boycott institutions that promote activities I disagree with, I can't disagree with somebody because I'm pushing my thoughts down their throats, I can't raise my children the way I want, I can't speak out about moral decline, I can't promote politicians who agree with my point of view because I'll be called a bigot, a hate monger, a hypocrite, a crazy person, a lunatic, or a liar.

I don't know how I'm supposed to anything other than shut up, support things I don't agree with, and like it. It would be far easier to just reprogram people rather than respect them for their differences.

It's all predicted.

And the tyranny directed at us is twisted around backwards to make us look like the ones dishing out tyranny. And by supposed libertarians, to boot.

Strange how no one can see the double standard. The blindness runs deep.

 

[Roadie]

The two issues to the whole "gay marriage" thing, as far as I can see, are:

1. Homosexuals who live together want the same property, next-of-kin, and inheritance rights as married couples. In this, I think they are justified and should have a legal remedy.

2. The main thing they seem to want, though, is to have their sexuality made co-equally moral in the eyes of society. They are proceding with this goal on multiple fronts, assisted by the NEA in putting their view of morality in the schools (while Christianity is forbidden), and by aggressively pursuing the "normalization" of their sexuality through the institution of marriage. Although they want to live their lives as they see fit, they don't seem willing to accord the rest of society, which doesn't agree with them, the same courtesy.

EXACTLY.

As a Christian, I believe that homosexuality is a sin(Christians tend to put too much emphasis on this sin, as compared to others, I think, but that is another discussion).

However, I have come to the thinking that I would support Civil Unions, for many of the reasons previously mentioned in this thread. Marriage as a covenant between two people, and a State recognized marriage, are actually two different things. By making gay marriage legal, however, you start the push toward forcing churches to accept and perform gay marriages against their beliefs.

Call it a Civil Union, give it the same STATE sponsored rights, but leave the choice to the churches as to whether or not to perform them, with no legal ramifications if they choose not to.

 

[Roadie]

I've grown quite weary of trying to figure out what box I'm supposed to live in as a christian. I can't ask to pray at school, I can't talk about what behavior I think is right and wrong, I can't boycott institutions that promote activities I disagree with, I can't disagree with somebody because I'm pushing my thoughts down their throats, I can't raise my children the way I want, I can't speak out about moral decline, I can't promote politicians who agree with my point of view because I'll be called a bigot, a hate monger, a hypocrite, a crazy person, a lunatic, or a liar.

I don't know how I'm supposed to anything other than shut up, support things I don't agree with, and like it. It would be far easier to just reprogram people rather than respect them for their differences.

ANOTHER great post!

Funny how those who call us intolerant, are so intolerant of us, eh?

 

[henktermaat]

if your religion tells you not to do something then dont do it, but dont try to tell other people they cant do it. how would you like china coming in here and telling you how many kids you need to have? Christians are supposed to not judge others less they be judged, but that all I ever see and hear supposed christians doing, is judging and sentencing others. practice what you preach. and people wonder why im not religious??? maybe because i hate hypocrytes

Misquoting the Bible aside,

That's like telling the people of California not to have an opinion on what their own state does... and making up things in your own head about how they feel and what their morals, beliefs, and motives are. Yet you support the will of one single man, while ignoring his own conflict of interest...

That's tyranny, and that's hypocrisy.

 

[Lex Concord]

So much here, where to begin.

First, by what right does the federal government insert itself into questions of marriage? It's not explicit in the constitution, nor does it seem evident in the penumbra's thereof.

Second, as most activists in this arena will tell you, it is not the acceptance of their union by the masses which is sought, but specifically the acceptance by the state and the implied contractual benefits attached thereto. While technically, many such remedies are available through contract law (co-ownership of property, wills, etc.), the codified marriage automatically ascribes these and makes the boundaries much lower. Furthermore, many of the benefits of marriage still wouldn't apply, such as Social Security survival benefits, etc., without state recognition.

While, as a Christian, I believe homosexual behavior to be a sin, I do not believe it should be persecuted or prosecuted. Nowhere in the Bible I read did Jesus admonish anyone to preach or convert via the sword, whether the sword is yours or the government's (yours by proxy).

I firmly believe all governments should get out of the marriage business.

Marriage should only involve three parties, in my eyes. God, and the two being united. If they can find a church which would make such a spiritual union (and there are plenty) more power to them.

Sadly, the state has inserted itself into the institution of marriage and has ascribed these numerous benefits and legal statuses, mostly due to the heinous entitlement system that our forebears allowed to be born and which we allow to survive. These entitlements and their structure relating to state-sanctioned marriage are the shackles which tend to make us more willing to bind ourselves to the state, as opposed to God, in our marriages.

Without government entitlements, contractual assignment of property rights could easily handle most concerns for all couples, regardless their preference.

I honestly believe that if we could return the government to its original limited state, eliminating entitlements and penalties and benefits based on an individual's status, most such issues would be of no concern.

Sadly, there seems no way to stuff that genie back into the bottle, and it certainly won't go of its own accord.

 

[Stickfight]

Misquoting the Bible aside,

That's like telling the people of California not to have an opinion on what their own state does... and making up things in your own head about how they feel and what their morals, beliefs, and motives are. Yet you support the will of one single man, while ignoring his own conflict of interest...

That's tyranny, and that's hypocrisy.

That is just how the system works, opinions in the lower courts are arrived at by a single judge. If this gets appealed enough it'll get to a panel. Might be gays there, or some straights. The idea that the judge's sexuality creates a conflict of interest is preposterous. Wouldn't a straight person be just as conflicted? How would we ever decide issues specific to males or females? The aforementioned pre-op transvestites?

Anyway, all that said, I'm not sure why the Federal government is inserting itself in California's choices about marriage.

 

[henktermaat]

That is just how the system works, opinions in the lower courts are arrived at by a single judge. If this gets appealed enough it'll get to a panel. Might be gays there, or some straights. The idea that the judge's sexuality creates a conflict of interest is preposterous. Wouldn't a straight person be just as conflicted? How would we ever decide issues specific to males or females? The aforementioned pre-op transvestites?

Anyway, all that said, I'm not sure why the Federal government is inserting itself in California's choices about marriage.

I agree- but you missed the point. If the judge can judge the thoughts and minds of the 7 mil Californians, why aren't we even addressing his own thoughts?

Because he's untouchable.

 

[E5RANGER375]

I've grown quite weary of trying to figure out what box I'm supposed to live in as a christian. I can't ask to pray at school, I can't talk about what behavior I think is right and wrong, I can't boycott institutions that promote activities I disagree with, I can't disagree with somebody because I'm pushing my thoughts down their throats, I can't raise my children the way I want, I can't speak out about moral decline, I can't promote politicians who agree with my point of view because I'll be called a bigot, a hate monger, a hypocrite, a crazy person, a lunatic, or a liar.

I don't know how I'm supposed to anything other than shut up, support things I don't agree with, and like it. It would be far easier to just reprogram people rather than respect them for their differences.

you can do all those things. i have no problem with people following ANY religion they wish, as long as it doesnt interfier with my life by trying to make me follow your beliefs.

i agree with lex that the govt should be out of the marriage business. just call it civil unions which govt should be involved in, since it is a legal standing, and allow anyone to enter into one. the insurance companies are also against this because they dont wanna pay out claims, hmmmm big suprise there. but fighting same sex marriage on the basis of religion is wrong.

 

[henktermaat]

you can do all those things. i have no problem with people following ANY religion they wish, as long as it doesnt interfier with my life by trying to make me follow your beliefs.

i agree with lex that the govt should be out of the marriage business. just call it civil unions which govt should be involved in, since it is a legal standing, and allow anyone to enter into one. the insurance companies are also against this because they dont wanna pay out claims, hmmmm big suprise there. but fighting same sex marriage on the basis of religion is wrong.

I sorta agree. But if we have those kind of principles, then...

We would also add that since fighting same-sex marriage on the basis of religion is wrong, then legislating same sex marriage on the basis of the perceived thoughts of an opposing group also wrong. In addition, people should be able to think and act as they like, and if California wants to ban gay marriage (however they define it) then that should be their right.

I would also say that I believe in prople's right to fight anything they want for any reason. The Judge, being pro-gay himself, completely robbed Californians of their rights.

The will of the people no longer has meaning. If we support that, then we are part of the problem.

 

[Compatriot G]

Just to add a quick point here, the Bible calls homosexuality more than just sin. It is called an abomination.

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.


Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Just to add a quick point here, the Bible calls homosexuality more than just sin. It is called an abomination.

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.


Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

is not believing in god a abomination? i accepted death a long time ago. im not afraid of death its part of life and unavoidable.

"cowards die many times before their deaths, the valiant never taste of death but once. of all the wonders i have yet heard it seams to me most strange that men should fear, seeing that death a simple end shall come when it will come" << or something like that, hamlet, shakespeare

 

[Roadie]

I sorta agree. But if we have those kind of principles, then...

We would also add that since fighting same-sex marriage on the basis of religion is wrong, then legislating same sex marriage on the basis of the perceived thoughts of an opposing group also wrong. In addition, people should be able to think and act as they like, and if California wants to ban gay marriage (however they define it) then that should be their right.

I would also say that I believe in prople's right to fight anything they want for any reason. The Judge, being pro-gay himself, completely robbed Californians of their rights.

The will of the people no longer has meaning. If we support that, then we are part of the problem.

It's just another example of the Progressive influence on American Politics. MOST Americans didn't want the Healthcare bill shoved down our throats, but the Government feels it knows better what is right for us, than we do.

If Judges are allowed to start over-turning the will of Voters in this instance, what's next? THAT scares me.

 

[Son of Liberty]

There's no way the Mormon church was responsible for the majority of 7,000,000 votes.

I categorically don't agree with judging people on how they might think or feel.

So how do you judge folks, because they way a person feels and thinks, leads to their actions.

 

[henktermaat]

So how do you judge folks, because they way a person feels and thinks, leads to their actions.

Nothing personal, but you won't be a "son of liberty" for long promoting that kind of naive nonsense.

Go watch some movies. Start with 1984.