Fed Judge overturns CA ban on gay marriage

[Blackhawk2001]

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.

Think about how you're stretching this to justify the same federal intervention that you abhor in other areas.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Think about how you're stretching this to justify the same federal intervention that you abhor in other areas.

no im not stretching anything more than anything else. i believe in equality and freedom for ALL in America, because thats what we stand for. No American citizen regardless od race, religion, age, sexual preference, creed, etc, should be oppressed and held down by the govt or religious finatics.

this is a civil rights issue. and even though im not gay, i support their cause because its right in the eyes of freedom!

the fact is that anyone who is blocking same sex marriage, is FOR MORE govt. and I will NEVER be for MORE govt. EVER.

 

[Yeah]

It is a stretch go move from marriage being historically between a man and a woman, to it being about a man and a woman procreating. Unless you can show that somewhere in the past marriages were automatically dissolved due to an absence of procreation.

You are right though, that I can't think of any past where gay marriage was allowed. I don't know that that should hold back the United States though.

Over what timeline would you expect evolution to eliminate homosexuality?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Going to amplify my last.

The whole point of marriage in an evolutionary sense and leaving any religion aside, is procreation and protection of the next generation. Marriage evolved as a method to keep the male around to support his children and their mother through the children's extended juvenility (as opposed to say, chimpanzees who mature in just a couple years). Whether you have patriarchal societies where men have multiple wives, or matriarchal societies where women have multiple husbands, the point is always the same; keep enough adults around to create and support the next generation of children. With this view of evolution, homosexuals are a dead end - they don't reproduce

 

[E5RANGER375]

Going to amplify my last.

The whole point of marriage in an evolutionary sense and leaving any religion aside, is procreation and protection of the next generation. Marriage evolved as a method to keep the male around to support his children and their mother through the children's extended juvenility (as opposed to say, chimpanzees who mature in just a couple years). Whether you have patriarchal societies where men have multiple wives, or matriarchal societies where women have multiple husbands, the point is always the same; keep enough adults around to create and support the next generation of children. With this view of evolution, homosexuals are a dead end - they don't reproduce

who cares if they reproduce?? same sex couples DO adopt you know. they can also have surogates. so they are taking care of oposite sex peoples kids that they abandoned.

all the same sex couples want is the freedom to be legaly recognized for the purpose of the same bennefits me and my wife have. we can have insurance together, we can adopt children, we can have joint bank accounts, etc. all that fun stuff

i realy cant believe that in AMERICA we are still talking about this issue. to me its as simple as the right to bear arms.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

It is a stretch go move from marriage being historically between a man and a woman, to it being about a man and a woman procreating. Unless you can show that somewhere in the past marriages were automatically dissolved due to an absence of procreation.

You are right though, that I can't think of any past where gay marriage was allowed. I don't know that that should hold back the United States though.

Over what timeline would you expect evolution to eliminate homosexuality?

Biblical descriptions, if I'm not mistaken. In England, the King Henry the VIII set aside a number of wives until he got his heir. I believe several societies from the Persians to the Jews had laws allowing a barren wife to be set aside.

 

[mrjarrell]

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.

Then you missed reading the ruling where he based his judgment on the 14th Amendment and how Prop 8 violated that Amendment.

 

[mrjarrell]

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)

This is a fallacy promulgated by the anti freedom forces. If we adhered to that then we should forbid marriages for women past menopause or those who are sterile. Marriage has historically been about property, not procreation.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

This is a fallacy promulgated by the anti freedom forces. If we adhered to that then we should forbid marriages for women past menopause or those who are sterile. Marriage has historically been about property, not procreation.

No one has yet provided me with the name of a society that codified gay marriage.

 

[mrjarrell]

No one has yet provided me with the name of a society that codified gay marriage.

Before we threw off the British yoke there had never been anything like America, is that a reason we should discount our system? No-one had previously built a car or plane before it was done, does it mean we shouldn't drive or fly? Gay "relationships" on a par with marriage have existed in some societies. Some Native American societies recognised same sex marriages. The Spartans were often pair bonded with male partners, and women were only used for procreation. Even if we were the first society, so what? We've been first in many areas and they've all been for the best in the long run, especially where freedom is concerned. In this area we have a lot of catching up to do.

 

[Compatriot G]

Then you missed reading the ruling where he based his judgment on the 14th Amendment and how Prop 8 violated that Amendment.

Ah yes, the 14th Amendment! The one that has been used to bully and batter the states since its inception. Has anybody read their history of this amendment? It was never legally ratified. The states of the CSA were forced to ratify this amendment to end the military occupation of their lands. I don't believe the Constitution allows the federal government to force the states to ratify any amendment.

So, we had a judge in California use an illegal amendment to force the citizens of California to accept something they didn't want. Whatever happened to states' rights? Oh yeah, it died in 1865.

 

[mrjarrell]

Ah yes, the 14th Amendment! The one that has been used to bully and batter the states since its inception. Has anybody read their history of this amendment? It was never legally ratified. The states of the CSA were forced to ratify this amendment to end the military occupation of their lands. I don't believe the Constitution allows the federal government to force the states to ratify any amendment.

So, we had a judge in California use an illegal amendment to force the citizens of California to accept something they didn't want. Whatever happened to states' rights? Oh yeah, it died in 1865.

*yawn* The SCOTUS just used the 14th Amendment to rule against Chicago's draconian gun laws. Guess they shouldn't have done that, huh? That nasty old 14th Amendment done gone and did it again....

 

[PatriotPride]

*yawn* The SCOTUS just used the 14th Amendment to rule against Chicago's draconian gun laws. Guess they shouldn't have done that, huh? That nasty old 14th Amendment done gone and did it again....

*YAWN*

 

[Truckerman79]

Discuss

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

 

[infidel]

Maybe people should just mind their own ****ing business. If they aren't keeping themselves busy enough to worry about more important things, they aren't productive enough.

 

[Eddie]

No one has yet provided me with the name of a society that codified gay marriage.

In due time, though already "married" to Pythagoras, a freedman, he formally "married" Sporus, and assigned the boy a regular dowry according to contract; and the Romans as well as others publicly celebrated their wedding.

Cassius Dio — Epitome of Book 62

 

[jclark]

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?

You all can jump the queer fence as far as I'm concerned. Just don't do it in my yard, or I'll turn the hose on ya!

Lesbians......I'm not interested in girls that wear more flannel than I do.

 

[CarmelHP]

Then you missed reading the ruling where he based his judgment on the 14th Amendment and how Prop 8 violated that Amendment.

So, this right was just laying there in the penumbra, was it? A right not before contemplated anywhere, ever, springing out from the shadows. Not overturning a badge of slavery that the Reconstruction Amendments were specifically meant to eliminate, but a newly minted right out of whole cloth. Amazing feat of judicial magic, and I'm told I'm "stretching." Just another milestone on this county's march to the dustbin of history.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

You love to spin, don't you? You also love to ignore the intended message and move along with your own version.

Is what you're saying that the ONLY reason Mormons (where do other Christians fall in this, by the way?) oppose gay marriage is because they hate the gays? It's got nothing to do with the fact that homosexuality is a sin and they oppose behavior that they see only only accepts, but condones a sinful act? Are you also saying that because they are Mormon, they are incapable of distinguishing between the person and the act? It's all the same to them?

One final question: aren't you somewhat guilty of the same thing? Disliking and labeling Mormons in a derogatory manner for their position instead of disliking their position?

I've got to agree a little with 88GT here...

For the record - and I have this on good authority - I'd like to clarify something regarding the "Mormons" and their "pouring of millions of dollars" into this. The Mormon Church itself did nothing of the kind. What WAS done was this (again I have this on good authority - I obviously wasn't there). They simply asked their members to give of their "time and means" to support this cause. Period. The millions came from individuals based upon that request. Period. No coercion - just a request. That is functionally no different than the NRA asking us all as gun owners to support any particular legislation with our time and money. They simply acted on it.

This is true whether one agrees with their position or one does not. Their point of view was that the nuclear family is being degraded on all sides and needed to be defended. I totally understand the constitutional disagreement. So why get after the Mormons as a group, and ignore the many other groups of all types who shared their opinion and worked with them on this? Is it just that they are an easily demonized target? Again - I'm deliberately ignoring the question of which side of the debate one is on - there are good people with strong opinion on both sides of this debate even here, right? Why get after the Mormons just because they were asked to - and responded, in large measure - with one voice? Imagine the force that they could be on the side of the 2A - or [insert your favorite issue here] - simply by working in a unified manner - as they clearly did.

I guess the point that I wish to clarify is this: Unlike (for example) the unions - where the collective money is extracted from the members, and a small body of people in a smoke filled back room decide where it is going to go (i.e. the DNC) - the Mormon Church did NOT do that. They simply asked their members to support a cause. And those members chose to do it - OR DID NOT... I'm sure that there are some Mormons who chose not to. As I understand it - there was no "United Way" type campaign set up at Mormon churches. Simply a request - "please give of your time and means". And therein lies a BIG difference between the "union" approach and the "Mormon" approach.

As a rule, I think you would find the composition of the Mormon Church to be similar to the composition of INGO - politically speaking. Leaning pretty hard to the right with a strong current of libertarian in it. INGO as a group is more to the libertarian side, I would wager. That said - you will find Mormons to generally be pro-2A and generally on the same side of many of the issues with many of the people here...

Whether one agrees or disagrees with any group's viewpoint on any one issue - demonizing them is seldom a smart practice. You will often find that they would be your friend on many other issues. I have many friends that have points of view (religious, sexual orientation, political) that I may disagree with, sometimes vehemently. Yet we all hang out together, laugh together - and likely vote similarly (most of the time). If I rejected their friendship out of hand - because I don't agree with one of their opinions or points of view... I would be a lonely %*&#%#*% in a very isolated and screwed up world.

 

[Duncan]

What is next--lowering the age of consent or poligomy??? Some things are actually black or white in the eyes of narrow minded people like me. I have loosened up enough to accept civil unions with property rights and legal rights, but just do not call it a marriage, please.

Plural marriages are not forbidden by the Bible .
And before you say ....


"Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14).

This is not about sex .. it was about culture ... and heritage .. also if you get married to more than one spouse ... it' not sex outside of marriage ,
Thanks
Duncan

Oh PS .. before you accuse me ... no I 'm not a Mormon .. we have a couple Mormon friends in AZ ... and not I don't want an x-tra wife ... one is sometimes to damn many ...