Fed Judge overturns CA ban on gay marriage

[Indy317]

There was no error involved 88. The mormon church supported, backed and funded prop 8 due to their dislike of gays and lesbians. That's just a plain and simple fact. They poured millions into getting the unConstitutional prop passed. Are they bigoted? Perhaps not EVERY mormon, but the stance of their church certainly is.

I can understand why the mormon church would be against this. They were attacked years ago when they wanted to engage in plural marriage. If government can't say no to same sex marriage, how is it constitutional that government doesn't allow multiple spouse marriage? Talk about hypocrisy.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Why do homosexuals need to have a legal paper that says they are married?

Marriage is about Family.

The choice of being a homosexual obviously negates the desire to have a family.

Just liberals, dividing up a people. Divide and conquer folks.


Communist loved to destroy Traditional values, too. I think some people need to re-address they're priorities.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I can understand why the mormon church would be against this. They were attacked years ago when they wanted to engage in plural marriage. If government can't say no to same sex marriage, how is it constitutional that government doesn't allow multiple spouse marriage? Talk about hypocrisy.

My point exactly.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

It's not about marriage per se, it's about equal protection under the law and discrimination based on sexual preference.

Read the 14th Amendment.

Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 14A is Unconstitutional; And furthermore not in line with the Founders intentions of what America would be.

 

[Expat]

The 14A is Unconstitutional; And furthermore not in line with the Founders intentions of what America would be.

It is impossible for an Amendment to be unconstitutional. It may be far from the intentions of our Founders though.

 

[Stickfight]

I'm sorry, using the same "rational" reasoning of the judge in this case, your bias has no rational basis and therefore is not valid. Why should your foolish prejudices get in the way of my right to whatever marital status makes me happy? Who has given _you_ or anyone else the right to judge what _I_ and my friends want as being wrong?

So you don't understand the difference.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Before we threw off the British yoke there had never been anything like America, is that a reason we should discount our system?

Are you serious.... Hmmmmm

Friday, June 5, 2009

What America and the West Owe Asatru


Here’s a quick list of twelve American institutions and traditions that have their origin in the tribal societies of pre-Christian Europe:

Trial by jury (dates back at least to the Vikings)

Right to bear arms (carried by all freemen)

Rights of women (declined drastically under Christianity)

Local democracy (local assemblies, or Things)

National representative republics (Iceland)

Anglo-Saxon Common Law (the “rights of Englishmen”)

System of “checks and balances” (structure of Germanic tribes included equivalent of an executive, a judicial, and a legislative branch)

Kings subject to law (common in pre-Christian times, before “divine right”)

Election of rulers (practiced by some tribes)

Resistance to tyrants (required under law in some cases)

Concept of free will (implied by Germanic concepts of time and causality)

Specific limits on the powers of kings and chiefs (by law)


Unfortunately, it can be argued that the pre-Christian Germanic heritage has been increasingly undermined with the passage of time as the power of government has grown at the expense of our rights.

Freedom, balanced with responsibility...It's a Teutonic thing!

Asatru Update: What America and the West Owe Asatru

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.

The lifestyle choice has ALWAYS BEEN SHUNNED AND SHAMED.

Some Native American societies recognised same sex marriages.

Could you cite this?

The Spartans were often pair bonded with male partners, and women were only used for procreation.

Dont bring up the Spartans when you attempt to promote such degenerate lifestyle choices; Greeks as did Romans had laws against homosexuality, furthermore thought the act was quite shameful.

Learning and reading is often harder than being told what to think.
I've already proven how quite Un-homosexual the ancients were and viewed the subject.
And those laws existed today, they might be considered 'hateful'.

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.

And our society has degenerated considerably, too where we've casted off Traditional Values for sick and wacked out agendas.


My question is..... If something works, why fix it?

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

It is impossible for an Amendment to be unconstitutional. It may be far from the intentions of our Founders though.

THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 14th AMENDMENT

David Lawrence: There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!



Read those

 

[Blackhawk2001]

So you don't understand the difference.

I understand there _is_ no difference. Once you overturn "community standards" for any reason, you can't use "community standards" any longer as an excuse to say something shouldn't be done. Thirty years ago, we wouldn't have been having this argument because homosexuality was not an approved activity by general society. The relentless drive of homosexuals to have their view of morality "mainstreamed" has resulted in a judge being able to overturn many hundreds of years of common law useage as "irrationally biased and homophobic". Thirty years ago, "homophobic" (had such a term existed) would have been considered a normal reaction to homosexuality.

Having crossed the fence of homosexuality is wrong/ homosexuality is OK, what's to stop _any_ other group from claiming they're being discriminated against, conducting the same sort of campaign to "mainstream" and getting _their_concept of marriage legalized? Can't use the Statutory Rape statutes; they discriminate against people who like sex with underage children. Certainly can't object to multiple marriages ala the classic Mormons; you've already overturned the basis under which plural marriage was banned, e.g. "marriage equals one man, one woman". Can't say marriage is between one adult and another adult; that's just another moral judgement and you've already disqualified moral judgment.

 

[groovatron]

Why do homosexuals need to have a legal paper that says they are married?

Marriage is about Family.

The choice of being a homosexual obviously negates the desire to have a family.

Just liberals, dividing up a people. Divide and conquer folks.


Communist loved to destroy Traditional values, too. I think some people need to re-address they're priorities.

Perhaps in a personal sense. But marriage recognized by the government has nothing to do with family. It has to do with taxes and inheritance. If you want to make marriage a morally influenced government institution, then why not make divorce illegal?

IMO, marriage should happen in one's church or home or the like. We should take the word "marriage" out of the governmental contracts we currently sign. That would end this whole debate. When I got married, it had everything to do with insurance......100%. If it had not been for insurance, we probably never would have bothered. This whole arguement is so tiresome. Too many folks trying to steer their moral railcar over those of a different view.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Perhaps in a personal sense. But marriage recognized by the government has nothing to do with family. It has to do with taxes and inheritance. If you want to make marriage a morally influenced government institution, then why not make divorce illegal?

IMO, marriage should happen in one's church or home or the like. We should take the word "marriage" out of the governmental contracts we currently sign. That would end this whole debate. When I got married, it had everything to do with insurance......100%. If it had not been for insurance, we probably never would have bothered. This whole arguement is so tiresome. Too many folks trying to steer their moral railcar over those of a different view.

I suppose I can understand the materalistic side of marriage.

My "Wife" and I, are not married by the Government. However, we both consider ourselves One, united, by marriage.
===================================


Blackhawk, what other Nations have adopted Homosexual "Equality"?

Have those of that agenda or rooted, used or anything connected, ever used the argument in a more perverted manner, such as child marriage, beastality etc?

 

[Stickfight]

I understand there _is_ no difference.

And I'm beginning to understand that you don't grasp how our system of government work.

In a nutshell, as it applies to this gay marriage decision, the government tried to make a law that excluded gays. The people asked for it. I'm right there with you on all that. But it turns out that our government has a Constitution it must follow. That Constitution is a list of things it cannot do.

Again, turns out, one of the things it cannot do is make a law that excludes gays. So the judge found, rightly, that the government does not have the power to do what the people asked it to do.

So no you don't have to overturn community standards in all cases because you did so in one. What you do have to do is overturn them when they conflict with the Constitution.

You don't but I do, like the fact that we have a Constitution.

 

[groovatron]

I suppose I can understand the materalistic side of marriage.

My "Wife" and I, are not married by the Government. However, we both consider ourselves One, united, by marriage.
===================================

Exactly......that's the same way my wife and I view it. We got "married" the day after we found out we were going to be parents. It was soley motivated by her being a student and me having a job with insurance. As far as our commitment to eachother, it was there long before the judge signed the paperwork. Since neither of us practice a traditional religious platform, the courthouse was all we needed. Every other shred of validation is between her and I.

I can see where alot of this emotion and confusion comes from with this issue. I'm fine with legal civil unions that relate to inheritance and insurance. It's when we start talking about adoption and things of that nature where I put my foot down. As far as equality in that regard.....I'm all NOT for it.

 

[mrjarrell]

Too bad Judge Vaughn has ruled against gays in the past, huh? Kinda puts the whole thing in a different light. I wonder if Clarence Thomas should have recused himself from McDonald, since the plaintiff was black? Or Scalia, since he owns guns?

Walker believes in a legal approach known as law and economics.[2]
Walker's original nomination to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987 stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics".[3] Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his perceived "insensitivity" to gays and the poor. Years later, the San Francisco Chronicle noted the irony of their opposition.[4]
Walker is an "unorthodox" and "independent-minded conservative" judge who has called for auctioning lead counsel status in securities class actions and for the legalization of drugs.[3]
A San Francisco Chronicle columnist and reporter wrote in a commentary that Walker has an "aversion to harsh sentences for well-educated, well-heeled criminals and, in particular, perpetrators of securities fraud."[5]
Wired magazine describes Walker as having libertarian leanings.[6]

Guess there's no pleasing everyone.

 

[Eddie]

Dont bring up the Spartans when you attempt to promote such degenerate lifestyle choices; Greeks as did Romans had laws against homosexuality, furthermore thought the act was quite shameful.

Same sex marriage was not outlawed in ancient Rome until 342 A.D. under a christian emperor. Yes, loads of people thought it was disgusting, but it was legal for a man to marry a man in the Roman empire prior to 342 A.D.

The Spartan unions between men and boys, while sexual in nature, were not considered marriage because they were only meant to last until the boy turned 17.

 

[308jake]

This is a question of values. America was founded upon Christian values and our constitution was based upon these same values. Homosexuality is not a Christian value and those who choose that lifestyle should not be allowed to benefit from the sanctity of marriage.

Homosexuals have the right to be whatever they want to be, but they should not be allowed to further destroy the values our nation was founded upon.

 

[groovatron]

This is a question of values. America was founded upon Christian values and our constitution was based upon these same values. Homosexuality is not a Christian value and those who choose that lifestyle should not be allowed to benefit from the sanctity of marriage.

Homosexuals have the right to be whatever they want to be, but they should not be allowed to further destroy the values our nation was founded upon.

..........................

 

[Stickfight]

The whole part got me.

 

[Stickfight]

Yes.

To elaborate, Christians neither did nor do have a monopoly on those values.

Also the unwritten implication that anything that isn't a "Christian" value is in conflict.

 

[308jake]

Feel free to disagree. This is only my opinion based upon knowledge of American history in how it relates to Christianity.

What bothers me is how we are afraid to speak the truth. A spade is a spade. A homosexual is an abomination to God. If we don't speak the truth then eventually the truth will not exist.