Fed Judge overturns CA ban on gay marriage

[E5RANGER375]

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.

Our founders formed a Republic, not a democracy. the form of govt in the U.S. is a republic, but the left would wish you to believe its a democracy.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Aside from the "negative term" comment that was pretty spot on.

thanks. just to clarify, my use of the word "negative term", wasnt meant to be a demeaning term. people in the gay community refer to themselves with that word too. i was simply using it as another word for gay.

 

[PatriotPride]

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.

Are you always this condescending? You and I will have to continue to...disagree.

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

And what exactly ARE you for? It's a valid question.

Aside from the fag 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 just not allowed to make others do the same.

It is no different with abortion, gay marriage, etc. 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 have no right to tell two consenting adults that they should not be offered 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.

Yet ANOTHER bitter person with a problem with Christianity. Let me clue you into something---EVERYONE'S beliefs, and not just Christians', influence our laws and "impact others" as you put it. Look at the slew of anti-Christian (or anti-FAITH) laws and lawsuits that have come into being in the past few decades. The list goes on. For the record, YES I am a Christian. YES, God has said that homosexuality is not only a sin, but an abomination. That being said, I don't hate gays. If someone wants to be gay, then by all means, be gay. I won't give you any grief over it. But I DO take offense to wanting extra rights. WHY get married? Has anyone really stopped to consider the implications (economical, political, etc) of gay marriage, or are the heads still buried in the sand? Homosexuality is unnatural folks. There is no way around it. It serves no reproductive purpose, is contrary to the beliefs of evolution, and is in direct contradiction of God's mandates. If homosexuals want to be in a relationship, live together, sleep together---then that is their choice, and I agree that the government should have no say in the matter as our country is not ruled by religious law. However, when the clamoring hordes demand "equality" (read---"extra rights"), I ask why? If you live together, have a relationship, possibly raise an adopted family...then what is the concern regarding marriage? I suppose the economic incentives have nothing to do with it... Stop with the fallacies...pedophilia and bestiality? REALLY? Speaking of a "mature conversation"...both are UNNATURAL, but have been made illegal. There is no argument that pedophilia is a crime deserving of death, but bestiality is another issue entirely. If a man wants to sleep with another man, what's the harm? Likewise, if a man wants to sleep with a donkey, what's the harm? It's not hurting anybody

And did you REALLY bring up abortion? Tell me that this discussion has not become THAT ridiculous---if you want to discuss the legalized murder of children, please do so in another thread. This one has not COMPLETELY derailed yet...although it's well on it's way.

 

[Eddie]

Don't forget, gay marriage means gay divorce. The divorce rate in California should double in a few years. Think of all the poor, hungry lawyers all those new divorces will help feed.

 

[PatriotPride]

Our founders formed a Republic, not a democracy. the form of govt in the U.S. is a republic, but the left would wish you to believe its a democracy.

You're right. My mistake (and an idiotic one at that). Republic---power vested in the PEOPLE. Democracy---power vested in the GROUP. Sorry.

 

[PatriotPride]

To clarify: My MAIN issue with this is not gay-marriage. It's the fact that the people ruled that gay-marriage is prohibited, and a Fed judge decided to overturn that ruling. Many members on here may CLAIM that they want to limit government involvement, but when the chips are down, they are ALL FOR government intervention when it suits their agenda. The double-standard is saddening.

 

[360]

Marriage has nothing to do with same sex/opposite sex. It's a legal definition. Also, the people who are against gay marriage are the ones who only see the sexual part of gay people. Gay people are just as productive members of society as straight people, and should be afforded the same rights as male/female married couples. When two people decide to get married, all they are doing is entering into a legal bond where the two people decide to take on life as a pair instead of alone. Anything acquired while married remains property of two said people. Some folks believe when a couple get divorced that if one entered the relationship with only a pair of shoes, they should leave the relationship with only a pair of shoes, however, both parties knew what they were doing and waived their rights to intellectual and personal properties.

Marriage isn't what it used to be. It is only a contract of obligation, responsibility, and sharing. When that is no longer possible, then it ends.

Gay or not, people should be allowed to sign on the dotted line and declare themselves a team.

 

[CarmelHP]

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.

I thought maybe I had imagined this Amendment:

U.S. Constit. 15th Amd

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

So, discrimination on account of race, which has an actual Amendment prohibiting it, is exactly the same as legislation defining marriage? Let's throw logic, history, law and sense out the window in support of a radical agenda.

 

[CarmelHP]

Don't forget, gay marriage means gay divorce. The divorce rate in California should double in a few years. Think of all the poor, hungry lawyers all those new divorces will help feed.

I like that you're always able to see the bright side.

 

[jclark]

Marriage has nothing to do with same sex/opposite sex. It's a legal definition. Also, the people who are against gay marriage are the ones who only see the sexual part of gay people. Gay people are just as productive members of society as straight people, and should be afforded the same rights as male/female married couples. When two people decide to get married, all they are doing is entering into a legal bond where the two people decide to take on life as a pair instead of alone. Anything acquired while married remains property of two said people. Some folks believe when a couple get divorced that if one entered the relationship with only a pair of shoes, they should leave the relationship with only a pair of shoes, however, both parties knew what they were doing and waived their rights to intellectual and personal properties.

Marriage isn't what it used to be. It is only a contract of obligation, responsibility, and sharing. When that is no longer possible, then it ends.

Gay or not, people should be allowed to sign on the dotted line and declare themselves a team.

+1.
Gay guys are awesome. I wish there were twice as many.
That means there's more women available for us straight guys.

 

[CarmelHP]

+1.
Gay guys are awesome. I wish there were twice as many.
That means there's more women available for us straight guys.

How's that? You think a bunch of guys are going to switch sides? And how about lesbians, that takes TWO women out. Bet you didn't consider that?

 

[mrjarrell]

I thought maybe I had imagined this Amendment:

U.S. Constit. 15th Amd

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

So, discrimination on account of race, which has an actual Amendment prohibiting it, is exactly the same as legislation defining marriage? Let's throw logic, history, law and sense out the window in support of a radical agenda.

The people were not denied their right to vote. They went to the polls and voted for a law that was determined to be unConstitutional. No-one denied them the right to vote. You're really stretching there.

 

[360]

Out of 10,000 members, I would be willing to bet someone on this board is gay. Should they not be allowed to carry a gun because of it?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

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.

Where in the Constitution or the Amendments does it give power to the Federal Government to dictate to the States in matters not involving Interstate Commerce? Where does marriage fit into that?

You seem to want to trade the tyranny of the majority for the tyranny of the minority in a matter of morals, not law. The "activist" judges in DC overturned what was a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment, the CA judge had no such basis.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Where in the Constitution or the Amendments does it give power to the Federal Government to dictate to the States in matters not involving Interstate Commerce? Where does marriage fit into that?

You seem to want to trade the tyranny of the majority for the tyranny of the minority in a matter of morals, not law. The "activist" judges in DC overturned what was a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment, the CA judge had no such basis.

a married couple enter into a legal contract, so if they make a purchase for insurance or a vehicle, or anything out of state, isnt that interstate commerce? i dont know, im asking. we are dealing with a civil rights issue here and i think the federal govt has more than enough right to step in. the church groups dont want this going to the supreme court because they will lose.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Aside from the fag 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.

Got to disagree with you. Progressive politicians and judges have prevented us from praying in schools; they've restricted our free speech rights to protest against abortions; they're telling health care professionals of all types that they don't have the right to refuse to perform certain procedures that they feel are morally wrong; they're feeding our children moral concepts that we feel are wrong and ofttimes telling us we have no say. Recall the recent thread where a Christian student in counseling was expelled from her graduate program because she didn't want to counsel gays out of religion convictions.

Christians are becoming one of the most persecuted majorities in the country.

If you can stomach it, query NAMBLA and check out their agenda. Once gays are "normalized" in society, they'll be next. They have the road mapped out; the gay, lesbian & transgender lobby is blazing the trail.

 

[PatriotPride]

Out of 10,000 members, I would be willing to bet someone on this board is gay. Should they not be allowed to carry a gun because of it?

What? Where in blazes did that come from?

I'll have one of what he's having. Long day at work

 

[Roadie]

Aside from the fag 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.

I don't know what country you live in, but in this country Christians are losing more and more rights, every day. Extra curricular Bible clubs, which are allowed under the Establishment Clause, are being denied, shut down and persecuted in schools all over this country. Schools have been taken to court, and in many cases, the students won their rights back, but they shouldnt have had to go to that extreme.

This is happening in the same schools where Gay/Lesbian clubs, or Muslim clubs, etc are allowed, but some ignorant parent screams "Separation of Church and State!" and the school caves. (the fallacy of Separation should probably be saved for another thread)

Students participate in something called "See You at the Pole" where they get together and pray around the school flag pole. More and more schools are trying to ban this.

These are just a FEW examples of discrimination against Christians.

Tell me again that Christians aren't being persecuted?

 

[Yeah]

Where in the Constitution or the Amendments does it give power to the Federal Government to dictate to the States in matters not involving Interstate Commerce?

I haven't read the decision but I'll go out on a limb and guess the often abused Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Marriage has nothing to do with same sex/opposite sex. It's a legal definition. Also, the people who are against gay marriage are the ones who only see the sexual part of gay people. Gay people are just as productive members of society as straight people, and should be afforded the same rights as male/female married couples. When two people decide to get married, all they are doing is entering into a legal bond where the two people decide to take on life as a pair instead of alone. Anything acquired while married remains property of two said people. Some folks believe when a couple get divorced that if one entered the relationship with only a pair of shoes, they should leave the relationship with only a pair of shoes, however, both parties knew what they were doing and waived their rights to intellectual and personal properties.

Marriage isn't what it used to be. It is only a contract of obligation, responsibility, and sharing. When that is no longer possible, then it ends.

Gay or not, people should be allowed to sign on the dotted line and declare themselves a team.

I've asked this question before, perhaps someone would care to answer it. Disregarding whether homosexuality has been acceptable in any historical society, can anyone name a society where homosexual MARRIAGE has been codified? If you can't then let's have no more talk about marriage not being understood as being between a man and a woman. Unless someone can prove me wrong, it's always been about men and women procreating and producing children. Any society that fails to produce and rear children will disappear (was it the Shakers who didn't believe in marriage and procreation? wonder where they are today)