Fed Judge overturns CA ban on gay marriage

[Son of Liberty]

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.

Blah blah blah blah

Every time anything about gays comes up, there is someone who wants to quote scripture.
You have brought nothing to the discussion, all you have done is quote something that you believe in and are using that as ammunition against gays being married.

Here is the solution:

All the people who believe like you do, keep on doing what your doing, but you and the rest need to let the rest of Americas free society believe and do as they want also.
If two guys or girls want to get hitched so be it, mind your own. If they are not actually physically hurting you or finacially hurting you, it is none of your concern.

For some reason the religious folks who love their freedom to worship as they please have no issue with taking freedoms from anyone they deem unholy or in this case an abomination

 

[Lex Concord]

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.

NO! Read the book instead.

Though if you don't have time, movies are better than missing the message completely.

Plus, there's always

 

[henktermaat]

Blah blah blah blah

Every time anything about gays comes up, there is someone who wants to quote scripture.
You have brought nothing to the discussion, all you have done is quote something that you believe in and are using that as ammunition against gays being married.

Here is the solution:

All the people who believe like you do, keep on doing what your doing, but you and the rest need to let the rest of Americas free society believe and do as they want also.
If two guys or girls want to get hitched so be it, mind your own. If they are not actually physically hurting you or finacially hurting you, it is none of your concern.

For some reason the religious folks who love their freedom to worship as they please have no issue with taking freedoms from anyone they deem unholy or in this case an abomination

Double standard.

Californians, under the 10th amendment, rightfully decided twice to vote marriage as being defined a certain way. A single activist judge overturned their rights and freedoms to make that choice.

 

[Lex Concord]

Blah blah blah blah

Every time anything about gays comes up, there is someone who wants to quote scripture.
You have brought nothing to the discussion, all you have done is quote something that you believe in and are using that as ammunition against gays being married.

Here is the solution:

All the people who believe like you do, keep on doing what your doing, but you and the rest need to let the rest of Americas free society believe and do as they want also.
If two guys or girls want to get hitched so be it, mind your own. If they are not actually physically hurting you or finacially hurting you, it is none of your concern.

For some reason the religious folks who love their freedom to worship as they please have no issue with taking freedoms from anyone they deem unholy or in this case an abomination

Your generalization included me.

I am deeply offended, as it is in disagreement with my thoughts, words, and deeds

Seriously, not all religious folks fit the mold into which you would pour them.

I find it sad that so many libertarians think Christianity is incompatible with liberty, and that so many Christians believe liberty to be incompatible with following Christ.

 

[mrjarrell]

Thankfully, there are judges like this. And our system is set up to insure that the tyranny of the majority can be over ruled. Despite what some here might want, we aren't a democracy or a theocracy. Our system was designed to protect the rights of the minority from the wishes of the majority. A group of activist judges in DC just overturned an anti-freedom, anti-gun law, despite what the people of Chicago might have wanted. Hmm..perhaps judges are only activists when they rule against some anti freedom piece of law that certain people are in favour of. Maybe those same Californians will someday vote to outlaw guns....bet there'll be a loud cry for some judicial activism then.

 

[mrjarrell]

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.

Gosh. And it doesn't say a thing about lesbians. Guess ole jehovah is good with that.

 

[CarmelHP]

Thankfully, there are judges like this. And our system is set up to insure that the tyranny of the majority can be over ruled. Despite what some here might want, we aren't a democracy or a theocracy. Our system was designed to protect the rights of the minority from the wishes of the majority. A group of activist judges in DC just overturned an anti-freedom, anti-gun law, despite what the people of Chicago might have wanted. Hmm..perhaps judges are only activists when they rule against some anti freedom piece of law that certain people are in favour of. Maybe those same Californians will someday vote to outlaw guns....bet there'll be a loud cry for some judicial activism then.

So, voting to overturn a law that has a long common law history, and is an enumerated right within the Bill of Rights makes one an "activist judge," while voting to overturn a law adopted by popular referendum in an area of law traditionally within plenary state control, which has no favorable common law heritage (in fact, just the opposite) and no enumerated Bill of Rights protection makes a judge a defender of liberty? The lunatics are out in force, I'll retire to Bedlam as the asylum is empty.

 

[Expat]

So, voting to overturn a law that has a long common law history, and is an enumerated right within the Bill of Rights makes one an "activist judge," while voting to overturn a law adopted by popular referendum in an area of law traditionally within plenary state control, which has no favorable common law heritage (in fact, just the opposite) and no enumerated Bill of Rights protection makes a judge a defender of liberty? The lunatics are out in force, I'll retire to Bedlam as the asylum is empty.

well put.

 

[henktermaat]

Thankfully, there are judges like this. And our system is set up to insure that the tyranny of the majority can be over ruled. Despite what some here might want, we aren't a democracy or a theocracy. Our system was designed to protect the rights of the minority from the wishes of the majority. A group of activist judges in DC just overturned an anti-freedom, anti-gun law, despite what the people of Chicago might have wanted. Hmm..perhaps judges are only activists when they rule against some anti freedom piece of law that certain people are in favour of. Maybe those same Californians will someday vote to outlaw guns....bet there'll be a loud cry for some judicial activism then.

And you are against the system until the very day a liberal activist judge unconstitutionally rules in favor of one of your pet agendas. It's not surprising really, just amusing.

 

[PatriotPride]

Gosh. And it doesn't say a thing about lesbians. Guess ole jehovah is good with that.

Study the languages of the Bible BEFORE making posts. It's embarassing.

 

[PatriotPride]

And you are against the system until the very day a liberal activist judge unconstitutionally rules in favor of one of your pet agendas. It's not surprising really, just amusing.

The nail has been hit squarely on the head. Just yesterday you were calling ME a bigot and ignorant for "wanting the government to step in and tell the Muslims they can't build a Mosque", but today you are all for government involvement. I can't keep up with you.

 

[mrjarrell]

And you are against the system until the very day a liberal activist judge unconstitutionally rules in favor of one of your pet agendas. It's not surprising really, just amusing.

Guess you still haven't read the ruling. There's a link back at the beginning. He ruled the law unConstitutional, as he should have. Prop 8 was democracy in action, nothing less than mob rule. They voted to treat a segment of society as unequal before the law, the judge corrected that. Guess you would have been in favour of it if they'd voted to take the vote away from blacks? Or women? Maybe if they had decided to forbid interracial marriages, it would have been all good for you? Never realised we had so many supporters of democracy around here.

 

[PatriotPride]

I support EQUAL rights, not EXTRA rights.

 

[PatriotPride]

Guess you still haven't read the ruling. There's a link back at the beginning. He ruled the law unConstitutional, as he should have. Prop 8 was democracy in action, nothing less than mob rule. They voted to treat a segment of society as unequal before the law, the judge corrected that. Guess you would have been in favour of it if they'd voted to take the vote away from blacks? Or women? Maybe if they had decided to forbid interracial marriages, it would have been all good for you? Never realised we had so many supporters of democracy around here.

That's the best straw man I've heard in awhile. Well done!

So you are saying that you ARE against democracy. After all, it's just "nothing less than mob rule".

So much for the will of the people. We MUST NEED a judge to determine which laws we want to be held to.

 

[Son of Liberty]

Your generalization included me.

I am deeply offended, as it is in disagreement with my thoughts, words, and deeds

Seriously, not all religious folks fit the mold into which you would pour them.

I find it sad that so many libertarians think Christianity is incompatible with liberty, and that so many Christians believe liberty to be incompatible with following Christ.

You are right I read your post after I posted mine. I after I did I thought well he dosent fit with what i just said. I thought about editing it, but i was too lazy, i guess.

Anyway you are dead on, btw I am a christian also, and I do believe religion and liberty can go hand in hand, as long as the religious folks can understand that just because they believe it, dosent make it law.
And that America is meant to be the land of the free not the land of the free only if you agree with me.

On to the question of peoples thoughts lead to action, it's like this 7000 or how ever many people there were, thought gays shouldn't be allowed to marry and they put it into action by voting on it. So their thoughts lead to their actions, as do most everyones, in some way or another.
Since the brain controls your actions

Maybe some people don't have brains and they just have nervous systems, like some bugs do, then they would just react.

 

[Lex Concord]

That's the best straw man I've heard in awhile. Well done!

So you are saying that you ARE against democracy. After all, it's just "nothing less than mob rule".

So much for the will of the people. We MUST NEED a judge to determine which laws we want to be held to.

I am against democracy.

From no other source is tyranny more easily digested.

 

[mrjarrell]

I support EQUAL rights, not EXTRA rights.

Your ignorance is hanging out again. The judge ruled precisely the way he did because Prop 8 violated the 14th Amendments equal protections. If you'd actually read the ruling you'd know that. This case IS about equal rights and the judge ruled accordingly.

 

[mrjarrell]

That's the best straw man I've heard in awhile. Well done!

So you are saying that you ARE against democracy. After all, it's just "nothing less than mob rule".

So much for the will of the people. We MUST NEED a judge to determine which laws we want to be held to.

I'm 100% against democracy. Just as the Founders of this nation were.

 

[PatriotPride]

I am against democracy.

No other source of tyranny is more easily digested.

Care to clarify? Democracy, in it's current perversion, may be tyrannical, but you'll be hard-pressed to find another system that works better.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

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 gay people 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

Aside from the "negative term removed" comment that was pretty spot on. A gay couple getting marriage does not hurt anyone at all in any single way.

People who are Christians need to understand that they are allowed to believe whatever they want, but their beliefs should not impact other peoples lives and in this instance that is exactly what is happening. Christians are not persecuted for their beliefs. You are allowed to pray in school just not mandate others do. You are allowed to boycott whatever you want but cant make others do the same.

People think they have the right to say what is acceptable for other based solely on their beliefs and do not take into consideration that others have different beliefs. I'm not gay, I am happily married to my wife, but I shouldn't be able to tell two consenting adults that they should not have the same rights as I have.

Then you have those who make the claim that this will just lead to other things such as; lowering the age of consent, bestiality, etc. Really? You honestly believe that two consenting adult men entering into a marriage is really the same as pedophilia or bestiality? If you truly do believe that, there is no point in continuing a mature conversation.