Fed Judge overturns CA ban on gay marriage

[Blackhawk2001]

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.

Your argument is not responsive to mine. There is no "right to gay marriage" in the Constitution; marriage isn't mentioned nor are homosexuals or heterosexuals. In order to find a "right" to marriage, you have to twist other Amendments, which were added for other purposes, to discover that "right". Having done this, any other behavior which can be claimed under some pretext to be "discriminatory and denying equal protection under the law" is subject to being found a "right". Either respond to that argument or drop it.

The fact that I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I don't "like the fact that we have a Constitution", it just means I don't agree with your interpretation.

 

[308jake]

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.

Q; Why did the pilgrims come to America?
A: Religious freedom

Q: What was the pilgrims religion?
A: Christianity

Q: Which icon is referenced in the pledge of allegiance?
A: God

Q: So I ask you stickfight, whose values were used as the basic for the constitution? Were they Muslim, voodoo, Zen, Buddhist or Daoist?
A: They were Christian. Study history and world religion and then get back to me with an educated response.

 

[mrjarrell]

Q; Why did the pilgrims come to America?
A: To set up a socialist theocracy
Q: What was the pilgrims religion?
A: They were protestant/puritan extremists

Q: Which icon is referenced in the pledge of allegiance?
A: The Flag of the United States

Q: So I ask you stickfight, whose values were used as the basic for the constitution? Were they Muslim, voodoo, Zen, Buddhist or Daoist?
A: They were Christian. Study history and world religion and then get back to me with an educated response.

FTFY
Thankfully we owe vastly more to the non-theocratic residents of Jamestown than to the now extinct puritan marxists.

 

[Stickfight]

They neither were nor are exclusively Christian. I wrote that the first time.

 

[308jake]

Then what set of values did they use?

 

[IndyMonkey]

While we are talking about gays.

Studies show that 3 to 8% of the population is gay, but homosexuality is every where.

More than half the shows on TV have gay actors.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Then what set of values did they use?

I think you're going to find that all their arguments center around the fact that they don't believe the Judeo-Christian ethic has any pre-eminent place in our societal mores. Therefore, any laws based on those mores which conflict with their sense of fairness or morality are not worthy of preservation. We are biased, Constitution-hating, prigs who shouldn't be allowed - at least that's the sense of their arguments that I get.

 

[308jake]

If your argument is that people other than Christians can have those same values, then I agree.
If your argument is that the Constitution is not based upon Christian values as stated in the Bible, then I disagree.

As a whole our fore fathers were not just a group of decent, good people. They believes in God and Christianity. "one nation under God..."

If they did not believe in it, then why reference it?

 

[308jake]

I think you're going to find that all their arguments center around the fact that they don't believe the Judeo-Christian ethic has any pre-eminent place in our societal mores. Therefore, any laws based on those mores which conflict with their sense of fairness or morality are not worthy of preservation. We are biased, Constitution-hating, prigs who shouldn't be allowed - at least that's the sense of their arguments that I get.

True, but getting a straight answer from them/him is impossible.

 

[Stickfight]

No, my argument is based around the fact that what you are calling Christian values existed before Christianity elected to incorporate them.

And I've never once suggested that any Christian not be allowed to do anything he wishes, except when he wishes to have the government discriminate against people he doesn't like.

 

[308jake]

I never said I disliked homosexuals. I never said that the don't have the right to be whatever they want to be. I said that they should not benefit from the sanctity of marriage.

Ps- I also believe that I should not be forced to accept their choice as a correct one.

 

[Stickfight]

You aren't being forced to do anything at all. If you personally don't want to acknowledge that two dudes are married to each other no one is stopping you.

The only thing being forced is the government being forced to not discriminate against gays, because it can't discriminate against gays because the Constitution prohibits it.

 

[308jake]

Where does it prohibit it?

 

[308jake]

I'll chat with you more tomorrow....the gay porn I rented on Dish is starting.

 

[Roadie]

1. The COTUS makes no mention of marriage as being a power of the federal government to otherwise regulate. Therefore such power is, or should, lie with the states.

2. There are a number of states with its own Constitution amendments that define marriage as between one man and one woman. There are still a number states, such as Indiana, which have codified laws to assure such, with California possessing such a valid statute until recently.

Will the Federal judiciary then void the various state Constitutions and state laws, under the guise of 14A?

What is in conflict with the Constitution, is the Federal intervention of this matter.

Ah, another good point, like say, for example, Section 1 Article 32 of the Indiana Constitution?

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

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.

I can see you are not familar with my earlier posts on INGO regarding the Ancient Greeks and homosexuality.

IT WAS A SHAMEFUL ACT, PUNISHABLE BY DEATH. to cut to the chase.

You are essentially suggesting that man/child sex was able to produce great warriors. Modern Psychologist would say a victim of this sort of behavior would not benefit from it - AT ALL.... Who to believe...

This is slander against Greeks & the West.

Please review my posts regarding the subject.

The earliest formal record of legislation is Lex Scantinia, enacted in either 225 or 149 BC which regulated sexual behavior, including pederasty, adultery and passivity, and legislated the death penalty for same-sex behavior among free-born menhttps://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/#cite_note-14 and there is evidence of punishments in earlier times. Above all, pederasty was condemned in the Republican era

 

[PatriotPride]

FTFY
Thankfully we owe vastly more to the non-theocratic residents of Jamestown than to the now extinct puritan marxists.

"Extremists"?!?!? "Puritan Marxists"?!?!? Your ignorance is hanging out. Again. Put it away...no one wants to see that.

1. The COTUS makes no mention of marriage as being a power of the federal government to otherwise regulate. Therefore such power is, or should, lie with the states.

2. There are a number of states with its own Constitution amendments that define marriage as between one man and one woman. There are still a number states, such as Indiana, which have codified laws to assure such, with California possessing such a valid statute until recently.

Will the Federal judiciary then void the various state Constitutions and state laws, under the guise of 14A?

What is in conflict with the Constitution, is the Federal intervention of this matter.

As much as you and I have butted heads, this is an issue that I agree with you on. Good post. You took the thoughts from my head and stated them clearly.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Christian values originated, and were incorporated with Jesus of Nazareth.

Too Funny, Busch.... I think you are quite wrong.

American Culture foundation has more in common with Ancient European society than America ever had in common with Middle Eastern folk cultures.

I cringe to think about which values Christians today selectively choose to endorse, which would have NEVER been acceptable in Jesus's era and proceeding eras.

I think you're going to find that all their arguments center around the fact that they don't believe the Judeo-Christian ethic has any pre-eminent place in our societal mores. .

What is Judeo-Christianity? A new creation of? Is there such thing as Judeo-Islam, too? How about Egypto-Judeism.

Christianity is about Christians, there is no Judeo connection, as both Religions conflict with each other in theological basis. I will continue to fail to see the link, outside the OT/NT.

The Philosophy of America has very little to do with the Religions of Judeism & Christianity, outside of the Religious aspects, of which Christianity is the only one of the two that can suggest any credit; As Christians for the better part of they're history are viciously opposed to Judeism; Which isnt surprising if one reads the Bible.

It was either the ADL or SPLC (Jewish organizations) which stated the Christian Bible was largely Anti-Semitic, therefore making Christians Anti-Semitic.

America adopted with glee European ideals, as it should, being an offshoot of Euro colonies.

 

[PatriotPride]

Too Funny, Busch.... I think you are quite wrong.

American Culture foundation has more in common with Ancient European society than America ever had in common with Middle Eastern folk cultures.

I cringe to think about which values Christians today selectively choose to endorse, which would have NEVER been acceptable in Jesus's era and proceeding eras.

Care to give some examples???




What is Judeo-Christianity? A new creation of? Is there such thing as Judeo-Islam, too? How about Egypto-Judeism.


Christianity is about Christians, there is no Judeo connection, as both Religions conflict with each other in theological basis. I will continue to fail to see the link, outside the OT/NT.

Actually, there is a LARGE Judeo connection. I don't have time to spell everything out here, but the long and short of the matter is that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. The Jews, His "Chosen People", have largely chosen to reject Him as the Savior they have been waiting for. Christians and Jews worship God, but the FUNDAMENTAL difference is that Jews refuse to endorse Jesus' claim as valid. Without Judaism, there could be no Christianity. It's as simple as that. The two are forever linked.

The Philosophy of America has very little to do with the Religions of Judeism & Christianity, outside of the Religious aspects, of which Christianity is the only one of the two that can suggest any credit; As Christians for the better part of they're history are viciously opposed to Judeism; Which isnt surprising if one reads the Bible.

It was either the ADL or SPLC (Jewish organizations) which stated the Christian Bible was largely Anti-Semitic, therefore making Christians Anti-Semitic.

Then they are idiots who need to loosen their yamakas a bit. I find it funny that the Christian Bible, written MOSTLY by Jews, is considered anti-Semitic. They don't want to acknowledge the truth, and when Christians take a stand and tell the Jews that their faith is wrong, they retort that Christianity and therefore Christians must be anti-Semitic.
America adopted with glee European ideals, as it should, being an offshoot of Euro colonies.

.

 

[groovatron]

To which part?

We've been through this. You know how I feel. To a non-Christian, that whole post is garbage. Not everyone was a Christian and not everyone is a Christian. Christianity cannot claim blatantly obvious moral values as its own originative idealology. Well, I guess it CAN, because it DOES, but it SHOULDN'T. When it comes to thou shall not kill or thou shall shall not covet thy neighbors wife, Christian or not, we all know that these are proper values. Some of us don't need Moses or Jesus to figure that out. And there are some of us that feel like the religious sentiment is a form of extremism that wants to be the Lebron James of all moral authority. You ask why I may have a "harsh" outspoken opinion about religion from time to time. Well, from the outside looking in, it's this attitude that boils my water.

I believe that ones religious beliefs are sacred to the individual. Part of freedom is having a choice in the things that you care most about. As soon as a single thought pattern places itself above another, you will have disagreement and dissent. It's really the cockiness that I have a problem with. And then people ask me why I question their beliefs. Perhaps it's the constant imposition of their own agenda that constructs my dismay.