E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals has ruled that California's Proposition 8 violates the rights of gays and lesbians, and is therefore unconstitutional. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court has declared California's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, paving the way for a likely U.S. Supreme Court showdown on the voter-approved law.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.
"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," said Judge Stephen Reinhardt in the majority opinion. "The Constitution simply does not allow for 'laws of this sort'."
Read the full decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted," the ruling stated.
The passage of the ban followed the most expensive campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.
Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors and for the two couples who successfully sued to overturn the ban have said they would consider appealing to a larger panel of the court and then the U.S. Supreme Court if they did not receive a favorable ruling.
Opponents of Proposition 8 celebrate outside of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday in San Francisco.
About 50 people outside the San Francisco courthouse cheered and some waved flags when the decision was announced.
"The message it sends to young LGBT people, not only here in California but across the country, (is) that you can't strip away a fundamental right," said Chad Griffin, president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. He formed the group with director Rob Reiner to wage the court fight against Proposition 8.
The court agreed to give sponsors of the bitterly contested law time to appeal the ruling before ordering the state to resume allowing gay couples to wed.
About an hour after the ruling was published on the court's website, ProtectMarriage.com vowed to appeal.
"Ever since the beginning of this case, we’ve known that the battle to preserve traditional marriage will ultimately be won or lost not here, but rather in the U.S. Supreme Court," Andy Pugno, general counsel for the ProtectMarriage.com coalition, said in a statement. "We will immediately appeal this misguided decision that disregards the will of more than 7 million Californians who voted to restore marriage as the unique union of only a man and woman."
Gay marriages probably will remain on hold in California until the appeals process ends. The court made clear in Tuesday's ruling that proponents of the ballot measure have the right to appeal a decision regarding that measure in court.
The case was pending for months because the court wanted a ruling from the state Supreme Court on whether proponents of Proposition 8 had legal standing under the state's citizen's initiative process to appeal the ruling.
The timeline of events leading to Tuesday's announcement stretches back to March 2000, when California voters backed Prop. 22. That ballot measure stated that marriages between a man and a woman are valid in California, but the state Supreme Court ruled eight years later that the law was unconstitutional and because it discriminated against gays.
That led opponents of same-sex marriage to place Prop. 8 on the November 2008 ballot. It was approved by a margin of 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent.
Four-month window
An estimated 18,000 couples married during the four-month window after the Supreme Court ruling and before Prop. 8 went into effect, according to the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and the Law. A California Supreme Court ruling upheld those marriages.
The case landed in federal court, and U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in August 2010 that Prop. 8 "both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.''
His ruling prompted an appeal by Prop. 8 supporters, which led to Tuesday's ruling by the three-judge panel that heard arguments in December. Attorneys for ProtectMarriage.com argued that California voters who supported Proposition 8 should not be invalidated "based on just one judge's opinion."
But the appeals court ruled Tuesday that "(Prop. 8) stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right -- the right to obtain and use the designation of 'marriage' to describe their relationship. Nothing more, nothing less."
The court ruled Tuesday that Prop. 8's "only effect was to take away that important and legally significant designation."
Supporters of Prop. 8 also asked that Walker's ruling be thrown out because the judge was in a same-sex relationship that he had not disclosed. A denial of that motion was affirmed by the court's ruling Tuesday.
"With the sponsorship of the Hollywood elite, this lawsuit has been pushed forward as an assault on traditional marriage, with the help of a judge who failed to disclose his own long-term homosexual relationship while presiding over a case seeking the legalization of same-sex marriage," Pugno, the attorney for ProtectMarriage.com, said.
Judge N. Randy Smith wrote in his dissent that he was "not convinced that Proposition 8 is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest" in restricting the definition of marriage to a union bewteen a man and woman.
NBCSanDiego.com's Jonathan Lloyd and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
Leave a Comment:
So glad to hear this! So grateful to the plaintiffs for enduring an enormous amount of stress for EQUALITY! One step closer to equality for all.
Good ruling. Brings to the foreground that we are a republic, a republic where ALL have equality under Law, majorities and minorities are all protected by the Constitution. If the U> Supreme Court finds otherwise, more grounds for impeachment of at least two judges. Now, on to the next issue that divides our country: separation of church and state. Time to move our country away from tea baggers and to Democratics where sanity rules.
Will you now crusade for polygamy? Will you crusade for the right of people to marry as many spouses as they please and have all of them recognized as dependents? Or do your inconsistent morals stop here?
California is a FAR left-wing state, devoid of any "bible-thumpers".
But still over 7 million Liberal citizen voters voted against changing the definition of marriage in the state Constitution.
The real question is; don't citizens have that right? The right to uphold the state's Constitution?
Bill-come back into the light. That is not the issue. Why embellish to meet your own agenda? No one even mentioned marrying multiple people. That's just Republican propaganda which is totally baseless.
That is a good question Bill, but first we have to fight and fight the current one. Then when we are bored with that one then we can move on to yours. Then we can also fight for the liberals rights to let that group that wants grown men to have relations with under age boys have a say too. Dont remember the groups name and dont want to, but it does exist and its pathetic, but I guess we shouldnt interfere with them anymore than anyone else we disagree with.
No. A Constitutional Amendment passed by a STATE that involves STATE laws is declared unconstitutional by FEDERAL courts... The founding fathers are turning over in their graves. Federal Courts should have no say in state laws. That's the intent of the original Constitution.
You want to change something, then you need to put an Amendment to the Constitution that each state must approve.
Before we go busting into the bedrooms, how about an Amendment setting up term limits for Congress?
Ted, sorry, but that IS the issue. There is no rational reason to forbid polygamy based on what was offered today. The very same arguments that were used against Prop 8 are quite useable for polygamy. Consenting adults wanting to form a legal contract that is recognized by the government.
Fortunately for all of us Bill is wrong, both constitutionally and morally. Still, he serves as a public reminder why the right wing lunatic fringe is becoming more and more marginalized.
California also has a very large FAR righ-wing population. No, Citizens do not have the right to uphold a state's Constitution when it violates the U.S. Constitution.
The voters in California voted against gay marriage. The majority voice of the people is trampled by a few liberal judges. The radical sodomy crowd has forced another one down the majorities throat. Whats next the right to marry animals. Why not ??? What does gay marriage accomplish ? Nothing but legitimizing sodomy and trying to make people believe its "normal".
Legalize Gay marriage and abortions. We need to move onto bigger issues like China, nukes in Iran and North Korea, a national debt nearing $20T? What is the limit? $50T? $100 Trillion? Everyone is focused on SEX! Lets move the conversation out of the bedroom and into what affects us ALL!
Hi raddave
While I wish them the best, one thing I've always wondered however, is how long the LGBT community could ride the fallacy and far fetched argument that their struggle is similar to our minority ethnic groups. While skin color is one thing, and whether we accept it or not, we're all a mixture of many different ethnic materials-- but for a group to aligned themselves with such a misunderstood, innocuous movement when they pride themselves on putting together emphatic & strategic arguments to win their rights is shameful.
Identity is one thing, but to deny the concept of who you are inherently born as, and the difference in relationship relative to the norm is something else. If you're proud to be gay, then get married as a union and fight for something difference (which your union is,right? Same sex) don't devalue your identity by accepting cultural norms (the irony). What happened to accepting the differences between us, and more importantly, accepting who we are (or think we are)? The unfortunate thing about equality...As false & idealistic as it is, true equality will never exist in a world were we have a preferred option & quietly judge. Definitely a quixotic subject here!
@sailcat
Sorry, but your "nu-uh" is insufficient to prove your argument. Please offer something solid to refute the clear facts I have presented. Please show me just how, legally, polygamy and homosexual marriage are different.
Bill the Cat: Why so angry? I could careless if anyone want to take on multiple spouses as long as it doesn't involve anyone under age. This was not a problem for religious folks in this country and some still hold on to a pluralistic ideal. It is none of my business, period. My personal thoughts on homosexuality is just that...my thoughts. I would not like for anyone of my children to be in that minority, but I would not turn my back on them or deny them of their rights to live as they wish or to be who they are. I thought we are fighting for smaller government and less control, but yet still people push to use the government do what they think everyone else should do. This ruling doesn't affect anyone it wasn't meant for. You can still get married and have a relationship with God. Now Jim and Jim, Sarah and Sarah, can be secure to know that if one is ill the other can participate in their care without being kicked out of the hospital room, because they are not related or bounded by a government sanction marriage. The world is not coming to an end because of this and if it did only God will be the one to judge, right?
smh
A Federal Court can rule against a State Law that is Constitutionally illegal, that is, unconstitutional. Never has there been so many against a few. That's what happened during the Inquisition, during witch burnings, for heaven's sake. For shame. Even if I were unaware of the base of a repub/tparty, automatically I'd know where this hate and fear stem from, the repub/tparty, where they spout at every turn their 'working in the name of the Lord," and yet they, the repub/tparty, are the very worst offenders. Out, I say, out with those obstructionists. Vote Democratic in every election to give ALL of us a chance at a good, quality life.
I will offer the Supreme Court's ruling as a solid fact. You obviously are out of touch with reality, little man.
Everyone saw this coming. The proposition was blatantly unconstitutional.
Uh Bill, even states can't pass laws that are unconstitutional. Letting same sex couples marry doesn't harm me, I'm heterosexual. How exactly does it harm you?
Now its time for pedophiles to rally for legitimacy and the right to marry children.
Not true at all, Article six of the U.S. Constitution:
honestly I don't care if a person wants to marry multiple partners. What happens between consenting adults is of no concern of mine.
Wizzzzdom, children are not able to give informed consent and can not enter contracts.
Polygamy is against the law Bill.
Don't get too excited out there. It's the ninth district court, what did you expect? If the governor has any cahonies he'll take it to the Supreme Court and there we will see what the Constitution really guarentees.
Bill the Cat you make zero sense. Please illustrate the direct correlation between same sex marriage and polygamy.
I could care less if gays marry. There are many hetero people shying away from marriage and all the laws and lawyers that go with it when the marriage ends over 50% of the time. Someone has to keep the businesses that are in the business of marriage afloat.
Be careful what you wish for you just might get it.
Bill, you are totally wrong. Of course a Federal court can say that a state law is unconstitutional. That is their only function. By your standards a state could pass a law that restricts free speech and free press and the Federal government could do nothing about it.
A State Constitution can add to the Federal Constitution, but it can never take away. You do not understand the implications of what you are saying.
@ Turin
Priests?
This nation is on its way to hell in a handbasket. I'm to old, in 1940, 1950, even 1960, such goings on would never have been heard of. Homosexuals were around in those times as well and seemed to cope very well for the most part. Now they want everyonbe to believe that their sexual habits are normal. Sorry they are not.
Who cares if it is "normal" or not? The governments have too much to worry about than to worry about what two adults do in their own bedroom.
when the vote of the people can be overturned by the courts there is a problem...i live in ca. i voted no on prop 8 (meaning i voted to allow gay marriage). the vote went the other way. so put it to the people again. abide by the vote of the people...
the courts should not be allowed to overturn the vote of the people. just sayin.
Is f*cking your first cousin normal? Because something like 30 states have that perversion legalized.
The decision did not say gay marriage is ok or not ok. It basically says California did it to itself, in that the people went blindly about thier business while their politicians allowed first gay "partnerships" then more and more privalages attached to that status and finally allowed gay marriage. See, if you don't pay attention, the politicians start something out small and hopefully unnoticed and expand, expand, expand and finally put it in the state constitution or at least give it legitimacy that make even a vote by the citizens unable to change it. So, all you who don't vote and don't pay attention to what is going on in Washington wake up and see how many things are sliding in or have already slid in that you may not want. Get you behinds out there, learn what the truth is and vote before we no longer have anything to vote on or the ability to do so.
Going agaisnt Gay marriage is only religion based
much like abortion
when when these people stop >.>
bunch of forceful morons, this is no difference from rape
also this law is passed, are these people really that empty handed?
we have the economy to worry about and these people have religious issue that not everyone is the same as you
whats next? christian only america?
He is stating that there is no more right for a person to stop a same sex marriage, and a multiple spouse marriage. On that I have to agree. Scientifically speaking I would have to say polygamy makes more sense than gay marriage, religiously I cant support either. As this appeal states though there would be no more right for any government to stop either by the basis used for this overturn.
.
Please offer it now. Tell you what... I'LL offer a Supreme Court decision on the matter, little man...
Loving v. Virginia:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Nowhere does it prohibit polygamy, and in fact, it supports it. There is absolutely no reason to forbid polygamy based on anything other than bigotry. And you, sir, are showing your bigotry.
But what if it's unconstitutional Tim? What if a state voted that all blacks are now slaves again? Would you agree with that?
"Bill the Cat you make zero sense. Please illustrate the direct correlation between same sex marriage and polygamy."
The arguments are identical. "I want to marry who I love". Polygamy, in fact, is actually a better arrangement because it increases the number of responsible adults in the family.
It doesn't support polygamy. It says right there in your post 'a person' it doesn't say persons.
Bill, if you're so big on polygamy, perhaps you should start a movement to allow it. But right now, it's against the law.
Our governor supported the opposition to Proposition 8. He will not pursue this to the USSC, but he doesn't have to. He didn't bring the appeal. I like so many of the comments, like Toasty's, where he says it was so blatantly obviously unconstitutional. No facts, no argument, no constitutional clauses to buttress the claim, just an assertion of righteousness. Same with earthgirl and others. And yet they are complaining about religious opposition. Total projection imo.
I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God. Don't go to church. I have read much of the bible. Good book, but not where I hang my philosophical hat. I voted for Proposition 8 for one simple reason--the proponents of homosexual marriage made no attempt to argue in favor of it by saying how society would benefit. Marriage is a contract with the imprimatur of the state on it because society is made, presumably, better by it. If society would be better by allowing for polygamy (and yes, this is exactly the issue) then I would support that as well. But since the argument made by homosexual marriage proponents is that since they love one another we must allow them to marry, if we are to adopt this as the norm like the District and Circuit courts have done, then there is no marriage we can rightly prevent so long as it occurs between consenting adults.
Polygamy must be allowed. And not just heterosexual polygamy, but all forms of it. And who are you, you leftist puritans, to deny a grandmother from marrying her granddaughter? Surely they love one another. Of course we hope it's platonic love, familial love, but who do you think you are to judge them? What? You mean it might mean the granddaughter could inherit without tax consequence grannies estate? Tough. Deal with your OWN logic. Or lack of same.
This is a bad way, a very bad way, to make law. Homosexual marriage advocates should've been compelled to make the political case. They might still, but this ruling is meant to subvert that process and to put at least the gloss of constitutionality on one side in order to affect a political outcome. Shame on these judges. But, more importantly, shame on those of you who support it.
"Polygamy is against the law Bill."
Based on nothing more than the same beliefs that are against homosexual marriage. There has been no logical reason given to keep polygamy outlawed in the US. It is legal in several countries.
The ruling is very senible. I don't think anyone or anything will be going to hell in a handbasket. We have far more important things to tend to and spend our money on than wasting airtime and endless hours in political debate on this issue which should be resolved and put behind us so we can move along. In the 1940s such "goings on" as racial equality, and equal rights and pay for women were unheard of as well. I certainly hope this wont be a major topic in the upcoming presedential election. I think its been more than thirty years since Bob Dylan wrote the lyrics "Come gather round people where ever you roam and admit that the waters around you have grown....for the times they are a changin...." I don't see why any secure and rational person or family would have any trouble at all with this. Religion, one way or the other should not even be considered in this legislation either as in this country the church and the state are separate entities.
Can we please get back to the issue on hand? Gays deserve the same rights as blacks, disabled, and everyone else in this country. People said that slavery was in the Bible as well...
Thanks Rich. Well said.
Hey Darthfrodo,
Homosexual marriage was not legal in California either. And you support its legality. On what legal basis would you oppose polygamy?
Willing.Sniper--no, California is not an "FAR left-wing state." It is a state with a diverse population--and the population by and large votes conservatively on in-state matters. This is why they had a Republican governor in Arnold, and why they had one in Reagan. This is why they passed a law that effectively dismantled affirmative action. This is why they were so easily duped by the Mormans from Salt Lake City (who probably were acting illegally when they plowed money into a California state issue).
There are a whole lot of Catholics in California--and while Catholics tend to be socially liberal on such things as being against the death penalty (so is the Pope) and on helping the poor, they tend to be socially conservative on other things (like gay marriage). There are a highly liberal cities with large populations (San Francisco, Berkeley, LA), but there is also a lot of rural area with farms where the people are conservatives.
Remember that the term "Bible-thumper" refers to conservative fundamentalist evangelical Christians--but they are not the only socially conservative people in the US.
That being said, I'm not sure that Prop 8 could survive a state vote again. People have found out how badly duped they were by the Prop 8 campaigners, and they might just vote it down if it were brought back up. Even if the case is lost in the Supreme Court--it might be, it might not be--Prop 8 isn't actually likely to stand. The chances that a vote would reverse it are pretty darned high--most "prohibition" laws generally don't stand for long. The tendency in the US is towards personal freedom--and that's a good thing. Have a great day.
Nyan, no they don't. There is already Supreme Court precedent on that fact. Baker v. Nelson stipulates the that two homosexuals from Minnesota do not have a 14th Amendment right to marry, and the question was not worthy of a federal court’s time. But who cares about legal precedent?
So bill
same sex marriage is the same as straight marriage
just one quick question
Is there other reasons, OTHER then religon that u hate gays?
not like anyone is intereste din you
Rich, it's unconstitutional because it violates the constitution. This isn't rocket surgery, kiddo.
If bill is so religous shouldnt we kill morons like you?
not feed the disabled
woman should be hung for even going to work
people getting divorced are to be discommunicated
are you EVEN married?!?!?!
7 million in a state of 37+ million is not a majority. Sad to know the modern day equivalent of the KKK still has ignorant people they can rely on for cash flow and voter fills.
40 million spent on promoting and trying to defend prop 8 could have gone a long way to feed and shelter the homeless of California. So much for religious organizations taking care of the people of their community lol.
No it isn't. Do I really need to give you a biology lesson?
Ah, the old ad hominem. A satisfying admission that you have no real argument for me... and it's THAN, not THEN.
Moparfan,
the people who are agaisnt this ARE the KKK
you dont know that the group still existed?
Oh yea the nazi group still exists
and OH YEAHHHH, i 4got, the conservative group still exists
just sayin'!
What part of the Constitution does it violate?
Bill the Cat:
Multiple marriage is simply a different logical question, and under the law, it would require a lot more legislation to work out the particulars. Such as, if one couple are already married, and one of the partners marries a third person, is the original spouse automatically also married to the new spouse? Presuming a case of multiple consensual spouses, now that inheritance is not deterministic (that is, now that there's a legal fork in the road in determining who automatically gets inheritance rights over a deceased spouse's belongings), how does the law decide this? Same with custody of any children. Even more relevant, how do the tax liabilities break down? Adding more spouses with automatic spousal rights opens the door to more ways to game the system, which is where the contract's effects may actually affect other taxpayers. With two-person marriages of any kind, this can't happen.
To sum it up, for the law to handle multiple marriages, it would have to add a lot more rules. Even though Loving vs. Virginia doesn't explicitly rule it out (leaving aside the fact that there are separate laws, not challenged on constitutional grounds, against bigamy), doesn't mean that it falls automatically into the same portmanteau as same-sex marriage. You're trying to incite Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt based on the same tired old fallacious slippery slope argument.
There is no official scientific genetic evidence of homosexuality.
The point is there is no "class" of personhood called "gay". Not in any legal scientifically genetic proven way.
Therefore they should receive no special rights than anyone else. No special considerations or laws should apply.
They do have the SAME right to marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else. No different.
I'm sorry, but why shouldn't they be given the same rights? They aren't hurting anybody. Oh, except for the Evangelical Church. My bad.
All are created equal. No one is better or worse due to skin color, religion, and now whom they love. Make gay marriage legal in all states.
thanks bill, didn't know you respected grammar so much
i know you're an internet troll
and that you ended up NOT answering my question.
I hope you dont have kids, you need to be burned with fire before you breed ;] thanks
while MR cat has so much free time to post from beginning to end of this thread, ill be happy to announce you have recieved a "too much time on my hand so im going to go on MSN to hate award"!
-clap clap-
Wait moparfan are you now stating that those you dont believe even have the right to believe in something and then stand up for it should be the ones to support the hungry, and that the money spent by the gay rights groups shouldnt have been just as well. A perfect example of bias if I have ever seen it. Thats the problem too often. So many of the gay rights groups and supporters are unwilling to admit that anyone other than them even have rights. And if you do have rights it should be less than their rights. And anyone that supports your rights, is wrong and anyone that supports theirs is right. I remember the messages when the vote was agaisnt gay marriage, and how they said that those that were for that vote were wrong, evil, stupid, and especially worst of all religious. Now its the opposite for those that voted the opposite way, and still your stupid if your religious, but you should be the nice ones and feed the hungry??? wow.
btw anyone else notice bill is the only one here defending his position to hate O.o? LMFAO
gays have been recorded way back then in athen, maybe even earliar
and guess what it was OK
no one had an issue
then somthing happened!!!
no, it wasnt you~!!!!
IT WAS RELIGION WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! LOLS
n turin, you signed up for your religion, whats wrong, cant finish your whole rice patty?
So, more work determining who got what is a sufficient reason to outlaw it? You do realize that most inheritance issues are difficult as it is, so that's not a ligitimate reason to deny someone's rights. It's not fear, uncertainty, or doubt. It's logic. It is denying a particular subset of Americans the right to establish contractual agreements with whom they darned well please.
For people claiming that government is too intrusive, Conservatives really make an effort to make it even more intrusive on everybody else! Hypocrites
For all those idiots out there like Wizzzzzdom... Perhaps you should read this for all your arguements about the right to marry children or toasters or what ever else your bigoted mind can come up with.
Sucko, my personal life is none of your darned business. And in case YOU hadn't noticed, polygamy is found in the ancient world as well, and in far more abundance than homosexuality. But, I don't expect imbeciles like you to have anything factual to offer.
@Bill,
Why not let the polygamists take up this issue? Just because gays want to be able to marry, does not mean that they must by necessity care about other forms of marriage -- that's for people who wish to marry in that fashion to rally for. Do you see any organized groups seeking polygamy? I don't. And I don't particularly care either. Consenting adults should marry who they care to marry.
Aversion to polygamy stems from indoctrination to believe that it is intrinsically wrong. Personally, I couldn't care less if it polygamy were legal, since I am a monogamous type of person. Polygamists wouldn't be hurting anybody, anyway, since only people who wish to be polygamists would be polygamists.
Why do you care so much about polygamy, anyway? If you want it legalized, you'll need to have a massive campaign, since that's how anything gets done.
hey bill dont bother replying, they are collapsing the statements of anyone that disagrees with them anyway. Guess only liberals are allowed to speak here. Didnt realize this was a left only forum, sry. Guess I'll be going now since its been made clear how prejudice and biased people who say they are against prejudice and bias really are. Guess we need a supreme court hearing to see if only liberals have rights and just get it over with. I didnt call names in my ones they collapsed, or anything wrong i reread them to make sure. guess I dont have the right to have a opinion after all. Tks everyone. Goodluck in winning your right to be ruled by judges. I'm sure you will get just what you asked for in the near future.
thats SOME logic, who tuaght you, your parents?
Please try to read the constitution, and tell me if there was a word 'gay' or 'homosexual'
or 'heterosexual'. it said freedom freedom freedom, not religion, fear, and the middle finger
i know you still are avoid the question where i ask you, what other reason do you hate gays other then religion, but thats ok, just skip through it
n your last entry, LOLS, are you defending the gays?
I love the logic that if the majority of people voted on it, then it should be the law of the land. Really? How would you feel if Muslims were the majority in this country and they could vote to impose their religious customs on all Americans? You'd be thinking differently. The majority cannot restrict the rights of a minority without a damn good reason. Stop being so narrow minded. This country may have been founded on Judeo-Christian values, but to be fair, that's all there was, that's all people had. The Constitution is an amazing document that should protect all of us, now and in the future, as it has in the past. Trying to upend it to meet your own religious world view is a horribly short-sighted mistake.
The Supreme Court already decided on the Constitutionality of polygamy. In Reynolds v. United States (1878). stating:
Boom,
It is fun to show proponents of homosexual marriage their hypocrisy. And it is rampant on this board.
@ Bill the cat
The government should not be allowed to stipulate who adults choose to marry. I say yay for homosexual marriage. Polygamy should be legal too. Why the @!$%# do people care so much what other people do?
Oh by the way it is not as if every straight couple marries to procreate. So technically it is the same. Biologically a straight couple that can not have children, or chooses not to, is the same as a gay couple. Not really arguing, just qualifying.
turin, im a right wing as well LOLS
you are getting collasped not cuase of me, its because your arguement is going no where
people just dont like nuts, they like fruits
your arguement is that you are being overshadowed by the majority
then you blame it on the lefty, because you are god, you can tell whos a lefty, and whos not,
you can tell if they are poor, or white, christians or muslims, gay or straight
quick question: would you repeat the same statement you just said to somone whos a homosexual?
beyong the confines of your room and the protection of your keyboard
anyone who is agaisnt gays, need to stand up and tell it to the gay! and FIGHT, like you have more BALLS
@satanick, they are religious zeolots, what else O.o
apparently right wing nut find pleasure hating on others...i know its sad, but i do remember that i am still living in America, which btw isnt as free as it use to be.
Rich
Why should any subset of people need to prove that society should benefit for a law to be passed? While a benefit to society is a good reason for passing a law it is not the only reason.
In this case, the rights of a specific subset of people guarenteed under the Constitution was being denied. This is no different than the civil rights movement, the movement that gave women the vote, and a myriad of other rights instances. Our Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens. The main one is equal treatment under the law. The CA law stripped some people of their right to equal treatment under the law.
Nobody has to prove any benefit to society. The simple fact that it violates the Constitutation is sufficient.
It did for homosexual marriage too. Baker v. Nelson stipulates the that two homosexuals from Minnesota do not have a 14th Amendment right to marry, and the question was not worthy of a federal court’s time.
What part of the Constitution does it violate?
Bill the Cat,
Have you read all 39 pages of the Opinion from The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit?
It certainly doesn’t seem it. It seems like you are just talking out of your __— !
Here it is, I suggest you read --> http://media.nbclosangeles.com/documents/1016696com.pdf
bill keeps yapping on about baker v nelson
its in minnesota, its as right wing and religious as it gets
and its in the SOUTH LOLS
lets not forget, if you are so into the law, lets remember that the government was created BY the people FOR the people
its simple history .... try the basics, you are getting way ahead of yourself, and WAYYY too excited.
and BTW did you ignore ALL my posts? are my questions that HARD to asnwer LOLS!!!
Bill I dare you to go out of your house right now and tell a gay man and a lesbian woman that you believe that same sex marriage is wrong.
Please come back an hour later, alive.
You type alot, but imma go after this, i dont have my life to spend on a spiteful person like you
just PLEASE, leave your keyboard's protection, and do as i dared you to.
Cathy, yes I read it. And it did not address Baker at all! The SCOTUS legal precedent on federal recognition of homosexual marriage was ignored en toto.
Pussy.
Actually it was, for a while.
Of course I support it's legality. Marriage is just a legal commitment, between two people, recognized by the government and other institutions. When this gets to the Supreme court, and it will, they will determine same. There is no legal justification for limiting the definition of marriage to a man and woman. All of the shouting, and wringing of hands, is for naught. While a majority of our laws are based on moral values, the determination by a religion what is immoral is irrelevant, and will not be used to determine the law. The Supreme court will inevitably rule that there is no justification to ban same sex marriage. It's unconstitutional. As loudly as some want to oppose it, they will lose.
Sucko0,
You aren't worth my time or effort. I deal in facts. You deal in crap.
Let's also remember that Sir Elton John is openly gay. Yes, boys and girls, the genius who brought us Rocket Man and Crocodile Rock likes men. So, Bill, if you're writing this while listening to Goodbye Yellow Brick Road... You just made my week.
"We will immediately appeal this misguided decision that disregards the will of more than 7 million Californians who voted to restore marriage as the unique union of only a man and woman."
Um, they realize don't they, that the 'will of more than 7 million voters' does not trump the myriad laws against discrimination on the basis of age/sex/religion/creed, right?
But to Cat of Nyan. . .you realize don't you that it's possible to like music put out by someone whose beliefs or lifestyle you don't agree with, right?
No bill
you're the coward here
if you so willinly deal in facts, go show it to other people
this just shows you dont have the guts to openly show your idea, which are so precious to you
"you aren't worth my time or effort" is the defence of a coward
Yashmak
Bill believes hes the majority, that alone makes me giggle inside...
-Bill has left to prepare for his Doomsday shelter-
@sockurmouth, while we are on the subject of inequality;
Bill is the 1%, and yet he thinks he is the 99%...
And that is the first and only time I will reference OWS on this Vine.
Wrong. Marriage is given an imprimatur of the state in order to regulate it contractually. It has little or nothing to do with whether society benefits from the marriage. Your position is nothing but a rationale for your bias. What possible reason would you have for actively barring gays from marriage because you hadn't seen proof of its benefit to society. It would make more sense for you to simply not cast a vote either way, unless of course your intuition is that gay marriage would be harmful...and you haven't offered any rationale for that viewpoint.
Gays need to prove nothing more than any other individuals in order to marry. The state would have prove an interest in preventing harm to society if it wants to bar gays from marriage.
You're wrong about this. And you admit that you don't know what you are talking about.
"Going against" murder is only religion based. "Going against" robbery is only religion based. "Going against" discrimination based on skin color is only religion based. "Going against" slander is only religion based. One could go on, but the point has been made well enough.
No, sadly, a Christian America is in the past, it is not "next."
Next is the destruction of this country by an angry God Almighty who will not allow any nation to institute homosexual marriage for very long before he removes that nation from the face of the Earth.
"Your kingdom has been weighed in the balances and found wanting. The days of your kingdom have been numbered and have been brought to an end. Your kingdom is divided and [given to your enemies, who will rule over you with an iron fist]."
You don't need to take my word for it. You'll see it happen with your own eyes.
The God you don't believe in will put a stop to the lying tongues and the plans they have made, which will never come to fruition.
He said so. What does it matter to me if you don't believe it when it's only your disappointment that is at stake?
When you don't get your way, you will be angry. He said that He created the wicked man to be a container for the Wrath of God so that others could see what it looked like.
From all that I have seen thus far, it makes a great deal of sense. In all the world there is no one angrier than a disappointed homosexual who can't get the world to bow at his feet and call him "normal" just because he demands it.
Bill the Cat Comment collapsed by the community
Here's where everyone needs to stop and listen for a second. You see, the Constitution has a problem when you grant certain segments of the population freedoms and privileges that you then specifically deny to other segments of the population. Heterosexual people currently enjoy the privileges of marriage at the exclusion of gays and lesbians... THAT is unconstitutional.
We allow no one the privilege of polygamy, so it is being administered fairly and evenly across the whole population... it is therefor constitutional to disallow polygamy.
See the difference? This is not an argument for polygamy or bestiality or any other act you can think of... for they are denied to EVERYONE. This is an argument that by excluding gays and lesbians the privilege of marriage, you are not affording them the same rights you grant others.
Take the passion out of it... forget whether you like gays or not... forget whether you think they can be "cured" or not... it's pure logic and it's in our Constitution.
And the notion that, by allowing this segment of the population these same rights, you are somehow headed toward the slippery slope of polygamy, is just wrong headed.
I don't know why nobody has bothered to explain this on the forums (probably because they don't know or care about it), but under dual federalism, the States have the right to pass laws to expand the rights of the Federal Constitution. However, they do not have the right to pass laws that can potentially undermine the federal constitution.
Darth ... I've scrolled to the end of a very long discussion thread, and not one person has answered that question. Not that it surprises me. After years of following these discussions on Newsvine, NO ONE has answered that question, at least not without claiming that some one else's gay marriage is somehow a violation of their own religious rights.
i like how you singled out " going agaisnt"
you have the idea that being called "normal" is what people wants, which i believe you agree with that.
thats is the idea, but lets stay on topic. this i about rights.
not to mention, dont pull fairytales into this...
its not that im agaisnt your stories, believe w.e you want. but if you cant win and arguement and then turn to call me ignorant for no accepting your idea is just pure bull.
like it or no, your body will stay in this world, it will rot and decay
if you only believe in god only to go to heaven then that this another matter i will luagh at, and if god exists, im pretty sure hes luaghing right now.
i agree, just you wait
and btw im not gay
i just dont like morons who thinks hating other because of religion is right.
you think its fun to kill others because of religion?
to force your beliefs into laws
to credit yourself as a good man for going to church
to rape a woman and claim the baby when she cant have an abortion
to create a barrier to put those who are the same as you into a box?
the KINGDOM i live in is earth.
your worries about heaven is an old man's worriers.
maybe you will go to heaven , maybe you wont, but your dissapointment isnt mine, and you dont not need to repeat that i will not be going, because i dont have fear of death, not the fear of gays, only the fear that future generations have the need to expose themselves to hate to survive
Like you said, one does not need to
now replace homosexual with religious
i hope one day, your rights will be taken away
for i live in america, the government is created by the people for the people
not for one group, when somthing religiously conflicting has appear infront of you, that does not mean you will do 'god's' will
you will watch and wait, for you too will be judged
Bill, I'm quite certain I have to keep this as simple as possible for you, so here goes: In marriage, one party offers to commit 100 per cent to the other party. If that party trys to commit 100 per cent to more than one party, he will instantly fail, and thus would be in material breach and therein and hence forth become liable to damages of typically half of everything. Unfortunately, as there are in bigamy, typically 4 0r more parties, or per what ever fantasies you may harbor, say one man, five woman, a sheep, a duck, and a Dyson ball vac, it becomes impossible for the aggrieved parties, particularly the duck, to be made whole. As contract law is formulated to promote the ideal of an agreement offering consideration in exchange for something of value, and a court system to see that outside of that happening there is a reasonable means of remunerating a damaged party, the law can not tolerate a marriage between more than 2 parties, it can and must however, permit any two like minded adults to elect to make such a contract. Failing that, the laws promote sexual discrimination, and are therefore illegal.
Marriage came before religion
Christianity isnt the only religion
People are different and unique
Respect will bring the world together
if these words are understood by you, you are part of peace
So for all those for state rights should be angry about the Federal government stepping in with the Emancipation Proclamation. The Federal government should have never intervened freeing the slaves, it's up to the states right? It's amazing how easily you damn others and their rights, but roar loudly when it comes to your own. Maybe we need another Civil war? But just remember it's those who are oppressed and struggling for freedom that fight that hardest.
Baker v. Nelson did not address the issue of homosexual marriage. The Supreme Court set guidelines on what their dismissal covers, and are as follows:
Hi dsb,
An interesting reply. Let's dig into it a bit, okay? Suffrage was rejected by the courts and became the law of the land when the Constitution itself was altered to allow for it. Slavery ended because a war was fought to keep the union together, and then the Constitution was amended in order to prohibit slavery, and to provide for the equal protection of the laws (13th and 14th, respectively). So your claim is that homosexual marriage is in the federal Constitution. I'll bite. Where?
The 9th Amendment surely makes plain that the listed rights are not all the rights that people possess, but if we are to say that any right we want is inside the 9th Amendment then you would have no argument against, like I wrote above, a grandmother and her granddaughter marrying because they have the right to do so? I mean, after all, their marriage would affect your marriage in exactly zero ways, yes?
I didn't like DOMA because marriage is NOT anywhere in the US Constitution, yet because you claim it is there then I suspect you fully support DOMA, yes? Never before has anyone needed a federal marriage license, nor was there any law which directed states, or encouraged them, to license those people wanting to be married. So I'm at a bit of a loss as to where you and Toasty and Darth and so many other people find any aspect of civil marriage in the federal Constitution. Perhaps you can help me understand where you read it. I hope so.
I hope so because if you can't, and I suspect that is the case, then it becomes true that you really don't care what the law IS, just that you want it to be more like how you feel. Like I wrote, this is a very bad way to make law. We end up with little more than despotic rule, in this case rule by a despotic USSC. I write despotic for a reason. If the USSC can determine for itself what is, and is not, in the constitution, then you have no control over your own destiny, and this experiment in political self-governance, has failed. What a shame, really, that the way you feel could so easily kill the country you claim to love, but that is where your "logic" takes us.
So please, if you don't mind, give me any clause in the US Constitution that you think means that grants marriage rights to homosexual couples now, along with heterosexual couples, but excludes groups of people, or direct relatives, and the like. It must be there. You say it is. Right?
ps--Every law we pass to alter our culture/society should come because it advances the society in which we live. That is the whole point of having laws. So if we are to allow homosexual marriage it should advance the society in which we live. The libertarian streak for individualism might be a good reason, but for the fact that you are making this a federal, rather than a state, matter. And for my money, I would go with the 10th Amendment on that one.
I can't tell if Bill the Cat is a troll...
...or just stupid.
Go away Bill - PLEASE!!! Hardly anyone agrees with you. I am getting so tired of people thinking that we will die out because of homosexual marriage. Obviously there are plenty of people who procreate and don't want their kids and other people (including homosexuals) raise them. That is the weakest argument ever!
Also, I *can understand* where you get the argument that, "if we allow gay marriage, when will it end? A guy can marry his snake..." or whatever - um, no, if you can't tell the difference between people marrying people as opposed to people marrying animals, please don't vote!
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
14TH AMENDMENT
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
anyone who thinks PROP 8 was constitutional might benefit by reading the above. it is the basis of our entire society and CANNOT be reversed. the constitution says we all have the same rights and the constitution says no law may be enacted to abridge our rights. i think it is amazing how well our founding fathers protected our rights. our constitution protects us all and it protects itself. BRAVO to the courts for finally seeing the truth!
While I generally disagree with the courts overriding the will of the people....
Let them have it. Let them have divorce, custody battles, alimony, all of it.
Not sure why they want it, but who really cares?
If you don't like gay marriage, just don't have one.
The decision is fair and just. Its beyond time now for federal recognition to take place. I don't really comprehend any sane and secure family's issue with this sort of equal recognition and dignity. It should just be a done deal. Equality is a given, period. We have other enormous issues at hand and I truely hope this doesn't take front and center in the upcoming presidential election. Relgious issues one way or the other have nothing to do with this. Our government and relgions are distinct and separate entities. If anyone needs to froth at the mouth about this I honestly think they might have rabies as I don't comprehend the fear factor.
That's actually a complete misconception, since 71% of US Catholics support marriage equality - which is 18 points higher than the general public.
There's a reason for that: Catholic teachings on divorce and remarriage force Catholics to understand the difference between the legal contract of marriage and the irrelevant religious ritual of "holy matrimony". There are lots of divorced and remarried Catholics in the pews who can't get their second marriages blessed by the church, or even their first divorces recognized.
Hi Dawn,
I don't know why you italicized part of the text of the 14th amendment since that clause isn't relevant to the matter. Marriage isn't a priviledge or an immunity. For instance, any state could, if it wanted to, pass a law which allows for anyone to be married, or even no one to be married. Priviledges and immunities refer to things like voting rights, but has nothing to do with state regulation of marriage.
The far better argument for you would be the equal protection clause, imo. This fails I think because as you can read above by those who agree with you, you all do not actually want to extend marriages to all citizens equally despite supporting the claim by homosexuals that love alone is reason enough to allow them to marry. There are lots of people your "side" would prohibit from marrying, such is the extent of your fidelity to equality.
What we have, and have had since the people decided to farm out their own constitutional duties to a majority on the USSC, has been a steady distancing of ourselves from constitutionalism and towards judicial despotism. And this just doesn't apply to you leftists, it also hits at conservatives too. What we need are more people who care more about process and less about cheering for their favored outcome.
@ CapNChronic
The only ones flying and smoking are msnbc writers!
I say we sell Caly to China to get out of debt and put up a fence, sh!t I forgot it didn’t work with Mexamericans coming to Ameridca!
Bill the Cat is exactly right.
Just because you have numbers of people wishing to engage in the same behavior - it doesn't make it right.
Through protests and lobbying the gay community has made it less popular to voice disagreement with their way of life,...but it does nothing to change the truth that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the way of nature,...the way of family, and no amount ranting and raving will change that by one iota.
It is really not much different for a group of people to protest and lobby on behalf of polygamy,...or NAMBLA,....beastiality. This is what I want,....this is what I love,....give it to me or you will lose the votes represented by my group, The politicians can and will rationalize a change in viewpoint or morality as they see fit when enough of the public is badgered and or guilted into seeing it NAMBLA's way.
The U.S. morality and conscience can be bought. If it works for the economy and votes for one side of the aisle or the other,....our leaders adjust accordingly.
We all love who we love. We all can try to justify anything based on that premise. Whether it is really morally justifiable is another thing,...something that it has become "unpopular" to talk about. I think that was Bill's point.
I don't really care who loves who, but I know what I think about certain concepts.
NEWSFLASH : A common way to refute anyone who just plain disagrees with you or any concept is to say that they are AFRAID of it or "phobic". It can be very effective for mindless dullards who fall in line when challenged in this way. It's like when we were in the schoolyard as children,..."You won't do this because you are "ascared" (or phobic). Phobia has nothing to do with this disagreement of principles.
It's right here, Rich:
Federal law allows the states to allow or not allow same sex marriage. The federal law also allows states to accept or not accept same sex marriages performed in other states. It is called the Defense of Marriage Act and it is a federal law. The Ninth Circuit Court's jurisdiction only pertains to the states comprising the Ninth District.
I don't believe the federal law was litigated in this law suit, only the State of California's Constitution. I would have figured that the federal law would have to be repealed or thrown out by the Supreme Court prior to the Ninth making a decision.
Hey Toasty,
Thanks for posting portions of the 14th Amendment. Again. So let me explain to you how you are wrong so that you can continue to pretend you have any idea what you are talking about and ignore this fact. Previously in this thread someone mentioned polygamy, and the leftist response, predictably, was that polygamy has already been decided by the USSC as a marriage that states can prohibit. And the USSC did this AFTER the 14th Amendment had been added to the Constitution, and in full light of the fact that polygamy was practiced by many people throughout history.
It is clear from that USSC ruling that they believed the Constitution allowed for states to decide which marriages that would be permitted regardless of the language of the 14th Amendment (remember--sorry I have to state this again so soon by my bet is you've already forgotten this fact--that the 14th Amendment came BEFORE the USSC decision to allow the prohibition of polygamy). The USSC could, if it chooses, decide that states cannot decide how to decide for themselves which marriages to legally allow, but the 9th Circuit cannot on its own decide to simply ignore, perhaps because time has passed, previous decisions regarding who can, or cannot, be married just to put into place a new definition of marriage satisfactory to them.
Personally I don't think the 9th Circuit has followed the law, and given their voluminous (that means a lot) history of being overturned my bet is that if the USSC takes this case it will, also, be overturned. But I don't think supporters of traditional marriage, let alone people like me who simply want the law followed by judges, should be satisfied. The 9th will again, and again, and again, usurp the authority of the people. And conservatives imo already blew it by, as Roy Wilson above suggests, presenting civil unions as a seperate but equal arrangement. It doesn't sit well with me to pretend something is equal but then call it a different name--and that is the one area I think the 9th Circuit can claim to follow the law.
In California we have had civil unions--full disclosure, I campaigned against them for the very reason I just stated--for many years. The argument was that these would give homosexuals all the rights and priviledges of marriage, but just not the legal status of being married. What a bad idea. So, in a very odd way, your best friends in your effort to ignore and undermine the constitution have been conservatives who wanted to avoid being labelled a bigot by people who had no idea of what the constitution is all about. Funny, huh?
This story smells worse than the one I just left about the dead whale shark in Pakistan.
So much for States Rights!
So, the judges say that if only heterosexuals may marry, then gays are deprived of their "rights" under the law. Hence, the constitutional "right" to gay marriage. It seems to me, o brilliant judges, that there is serious discrimination against singles, just by the very existence of marriage. Why, if I were single, should I lose out on the great and plentiful legal rights that the married people enjoy? Why should it take two people to be married? Why not several? Or just one? If traditional marriage leaves gays out in the cold, then marriage of any sort deprives singles of their rights, and is discriminatory against them. Marriage, of any sort, then, is clearly unconstitutional, according to the federal court. Haha.
Any fool should be able to read the 14th amendment -- "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law" -- use the parallelism folks! Deprive any person of life = execution; deprive any person of liberty = slavery or imprisonment; deprive any person of property = a fine. Reading the amendment any other way leads to gibberish, which is what the liberal activist court wants -- they want supreme ability to make law in defiance of the will of the American people. They are not content with dragging down the culture slowly, but have to move it along by leaps and bounds.
No state can deprive me of liberty: so, laws against indecent exposure are unconstitutional. Anything goes between consenting adults -- so, dealers in hard drugs are protected by the 14th amendment, as long as they are selling the drugs to consenting adults.
The moment the gay and lesbian societies tricked everyone into thinking they are a 'class' of people, they were on the winning streak for more laws to encourage homosexuality.
Most people don't know of, Narth, for example. A very large group of doctors and psychologists that are out to HELP people from their psychological disorder of homosexuality, knowing quite well that homosexuality isn't a 'race' nor a 'class' or people. It is merely a misclassified psychological illness.
Haha this whole argument amazes me, always has. The meaning (definition) of words change all the time. It's called progress. It's a good thing.
I can hear the screams of the moralizing, hypocritical Bible-Thumpers, demanding that your State Constitution gets amended, so they can send their self-anointed-ones into your bedrooms to judge your behavior in the Name of Their God, right now.
and J in Colorado...what??!?!?!? A "misclassified psychological illness"?!??? The APA might disagree with you.
By the way, have you ever in your life met a gay person? You may want to give it a try before you make another ignorant comment. Don't worry you'll be safe, gay is not contagious.
I wouldn't call it hypocrisy so much as it is just self-interest. People don't have to care about the marriage forms of other people, so it's sort of disingenuous to presume that just because some people feel homosexual marriage should be legal that they must by logical default be in favor of other forms of marriage as well.
Additionally, it would weaken public support for homosexual marriage if proponents rallied for polygamy simultaneously, due to general bias.
Hell, I'll go on the record and say it: I support group marriages. Just like same-sex marriage, it doesn't affect my life one bit, doesn't hurt anyone, and it may make a lot of other peoples' lives just a little bit happier in these trying times. The only thing I take issue with are the tax incentives.
Equal rights for pederasty.
That's one of the next steps.
Pandora's Box.
A Mad Max world. Get ready.
My God, the thought other people's sex lives certainly bring out the crybabies and crazies. I'm straight. Many of my friends and family members are gay. Gosh darn it, that certainly is earth-shaking.
Polygamy sounds like hell on earth, but as long as it involves consenting adults, and they and their inevitable tribe of screaming kids do not live near me, that's fine, too.
Why take so much interest in anyone's sex life, other than your own? And don't you think the legalization of gay marriage will benefit the economy, since it will generate much in the way of goods and services? Jaysus, GTFU.
Hi Toasty,
I noticed you didn't respond to any of the legal issues I raised. No one can say that you aren't predictable. But I do thank you for being honest enough to say what you did. But why be all puritanical?
Doesn't grandma have the right, just because she loves her granddaughter, to marry her too? Sure, given your logic she MUST have that right. It's a private matter, you know? Don't be a hater okay? Let granny have her way too.
Equal Rights for all 8)
California loves to infringe on Rights and I am glad the Judge told them to go pound sand 8)
Same answer, Rich: it doesn't affect my life, doesn't hurt anyone, and can make peoples' lives happier, so I say let it happen. The only thing that should matter is consent. I should note, though, that using the most extreme hypotheticals you can think of to describe a mundane issue is hardly an effective way to argue.
Rich--You're a cowboy and you're married to your horse. Right? Oh yeah' it's all right, you can admit it. Hey, look at it this way...Your kids will look really, really strange but boy will they be able to run and run and run!!!
Good for the court, but we still have a long way to go. Constitutional rights are not open to a public referendum! Remember that at one time the majority felt that it was acceptable to ban interracial marriages, to keep women from voting, to keep African American from voting, and to keep slavery. Just because the majority believes something, doesn't mean it is right. The law obviously violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the right to privacy. In Loving v. Virginia (1967) the Supreme Court ruled that marriage was a right and that right could not be denied based upon the race of those who wanted to marry. This is just an extension of that right from race to gender. The radical right needs to get over themselves and join the 21st century!
California's proposition 8 referendum is not unconstitutional and does not violate the 14th amendment. The court's decision, in effect, gives marriage as a "right". Marriage is not a right granted by the US Constitution or the 14th amendment. If it was a "right" you wouldn't need a license. A court can't grant marriage as a "right" if it's not already in the state or US Constitution.
So, being a Gay Male Adult in Utah (welcome to my world -.-), this is good news (it shows to me that fortunately with the 725 feet separation of church and state here, that the Church doesn't have that much power in other states, and if you don't know what church you really need to rediscover the issue) to me at least, apparently to Bill and a few million others out there, my wanting to be with another male is an intrusion on their constitutional rights. Last time I checked, I didn't ask nobody to come see who I sleep with, I'm not tying you to a chair and making you watch me show love and affection to someone of the same sex (in public, LOOK AWAY, good lord I do it when straight people show public displays of affection it ain't that hard, you do it when you want to see what happened in a car accident for crying out loud).
I don't consider myself of a different 'class' or whatever you want to call it, I'm just another Human Being, going on his way through life, trying to do the right to the others on this planet that we share. I don't steal, I don't cheat, I don't intentionally try to harm (mentally, emotionally, physically, etc) other people. I go to work, go to school, come home, enjoy time with the people I care about. Who I see as a partner plays so little into my life that I sometimes forget that I've even came out to my family.
For those that say it is an 'illness', then I'm sorry I am very ill and so are millions of others, and a few other species as well. It is NOT an illness, and not contagious, it MAY be genetic (I have an Aunt and a close Cousin that are also gay, and others in the family tree, so possibly, but unproven), and it is not a choice, for who would willingly choose to live the life that we live, faced with criticism and the mental, emotional, and sometimes physical beating we go through just because of who we are attracted to.
I didn't tell my parents for 6 years (I am 20), that I was gay because I feared those things, I heard and saw the devastation of rejection from the family of people that have came out in this State. Freedom from Fear? I'm sorry I don't think so. I volunteer at a local high school and there is a girl that I've seen crying because of the ridicule of her classmates because she is lesbian (there are two 'F' words, and one truly cuts deep here).
I am hopeful that they take this to the supreme court so then the whole country will either have to deal with it, and/or that the issue will just be decided. And lets face it, it deals with the sanctity of marriage, which supposedly relies on a religious purpose, and the government can't declare anything on the subject of religion. I would like a legal marriage, who needs a ceremony in a church, that doesn't even want me as a member? Besides, I've seen nicer outside, inside magnificent hotels, and simple ones at home.
Sorry for my little 'spiel' but this is obviously an important topic for me.
Oh and Bill and anyone else who has a problem or thinks that this is going to snowball into something else, Gay Man right here, I'll let you stay behind the shield that your computer allows you here, say whatever you want, I won't violate your rights to free speech, I might even out match you. And I would just like one partner thank you.
Okay, finally I heard from the Constitutional PhD I know.
In the Past SCOTUS would vacate the 9th circuit because it is really a duly passed state constitutional amendment. Typically the court is only supposed to get involved If our congress was to pass something that was unconstitutional and not amendments.
What this group has done is a new twist in that it is saying a dully elected law violates the US constitution under the equal protection. The argument was used by Bush in Bush vs Gore over the Florida Election. What Gore wanted to do was count only 4 or 5 heavily democratic counties in the belief that he would get enough votes in the under vote to overthrow the 200 vote Bush win. This IS a violation of the equal protection provision in Amendment 14 because recounting only those county under a different standard when all votes in a given state need to be counted under the same standard. That is an appropriate application.
I'm not aware of exactly what was done, but I feature that they are claiming that defining marriage as a man and a woman violates the equal protection of rights under the US Constitution.
The argument sounds very creative, and a bit of a fresh twist, but should by it's merit, FAIL - according to the Expert. (BTW the 9th Circuit is the most over turned circuit of the 9 circuits)
What he says is don't expect the 9th Circuit because SCOTUS has not been very consistent in recent years.
I didn't respond to the multiple requests for legal refutation, because the arguments sound strong, but without a proper founding in law, my arguments would be, I felt inadequate and only ignite a huge baseless brawl.
Should have read "What he says is don't expect the 9th Circuit to outrightly be overturned because SCOTUS has not been very consistent in recent years."
Enough people voted the link down causing the post to collapse, making corrections impossible.
Hey Toasty,
Three quick points and then I will leave this alone unless you'd like to continue. First, I'm non-plussed that when given a second bite at the legal apple I put out there for you as a refutation of your 14th Amendment claim you decided to demur.
Second, my libertarian tendencies are inclined to agree with your last post though I suspect I would profoundly disagree with you about what does, and does not, affect our lives.
Third, about 50 years ago I imagine that were you in a political/legal debate and someone mentioned to you that we should legalize homosexual marriage you'd have replied that it's a pretty ineefective argument to bring up extreme hypotheticals. Because 50 years ago it was an extreme hypothetical. So, gaming (in a legal sense anyhow) what is likely to happen using the logic you employ is hardly mundane. It is in fact pretty revealing.
"Most people don't know of, Narth, for example. A very large group of doctors and psychologists that are out to HELP people from their psychological disorder of homosexuality, knowing quite well that homosexuality isn't a 'race' nor a 'class' or people. It is merely a misclassified psychological illness."
j70141 in Colorado, NARTH is a right wing ex-gay organization with an exaggerated success rate that claims they are secular, but the only ones who goes to them to change are usually religiously motivated and the organization has a connection with other religious ex-gay groups. People aren't negatively affected by their sexual orientation unless they are influenced by their family, religion or society- they struggle because they are told it's wrong and unnatural and go to them out of peer pressure. They claim that homosexuality is caused by such clichés like a distant father, domineering mother, childhood sexual relationship with a same sex adult, bad experiences with the opposite sex, "I've chosen to be gay because it's trendy and accepted," etc. I can safely speak for others when I say these are none of the reasons I'm gay.
For the anti-gay marriage crowd, answer this:
What if two oppositely sexed transgendered people wanted to marry, would that be ok with you?
@Serfdom101
No, and we can easily apply this to many, many situations in history!
You mean the whole "Not-being-killed" thing? You understand that in the western world, the GLBT community is lucky, they can live their lives without (much) fear of persecution.
Where is this truth written? Where was this contract signed? By whom, and for whom?
Homosexuality has been found in many, many species in nature. If this is one of your key arguing points, you are sadly mistaken.
You're clearly trolling at this point, but I'll indulge you on this point. We aren't arguing for bestality, or NAMBLA. YOU are. We just want the definition of love to be between two consenting adults. If you think that's a slippery slope argument, then why do we even have marriage in the first place? That's the logic of your argument.
If you're so obsessed with polygamy, beastiality and the like; I would fight WITH you against that type of thing. But for gay marriage? Heck yes I support it.
Are you equating the GLBT community with NAMBLA? Dude, you are no longer arguing, you're just trolling.
How does this tie in with anything you've juts said...
It's also become unpopular to talk about abortion, gun control, universal healthcare, and reviving trust in our Education system. It goes both ways.
Here's the thing. And this applies to everyone, myself include:
You are entitled to your opinion. But not all opinions are created equal.
I agree, I think it's a fallacy. However, you also resort to comparing the GLBT community to NAMBLA... My God, do you not see how offensive, warped and skewed that perception is? If you do, you're trolling. If you don't, please see my italicized quote.
Ummmmm.......sounds like your "Constitutional PhD" friend is a complete moron.
The precedent the current ruling is based on - Romer v Evans - also concerns a state constitutional amendment which violated equal protection by targeting gays for unequal treatment.
Leaving many comments collapsed. This article is about gay marriage, NOT polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. Stay on-topic.
sockurmouth, Bill the Cat, you are both suspended for a week for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
Rich, the 14th Amendment is very clear. And indeed, the prohibition of polygamy that you cited is also a violation of the constitution. Clearly, it too should be overturned.
I implore you to tell me how gay marriage affects your or my life in any possible way.
We aren't living 50 years ago. That being said, I'm fairly sure that they did use same-sex marriage as the "slippery slope" argument against allowing interracial marriage. They were wrong about both.
And yes, I would love to continue these discussions. It's why I signed up on Newsvine in the first place.
It doesn't matter whether or not the majority of the people voted for it; it's unconstitutional. Besides, more and more of Californian (and American!) voters are changing their minds about it.
Also, I hate to have to explain this, but gay marriage is not at all similar to pedophiles marrying children. Just one glaring difference would be that children can't give consent; adults can. If two consenting adults want to be together, like a man and a woman, a black person and a white person, or a man and another man, what's the point of stopping them?
I had to put that last part in twice so the haters finally get it.
It stupefies me that the protect marriage nutbags failed to understand what the judges statement means.... this law does not serve any purpose and infringes upon the freedom of others.
When do we start defending against enemies from within? I would like to submit the following for consideration: If you push a for a law, and that law is found to be unconstitutional on grounds that it serves no purpose and takes freedom from a group or class, that the person responsible should have to do 30 days in jail. Just so they can experience the loss of their freedom for a bit. Maybe drop them off in Afghanistan for 30 days so they can understand the cost of freedom. Maybe, just maybe, they will stop taking it for granted.
The sad thing if it wasn't for the courts the exact same thing would have happened to blacks and whites wanting the marry. In the south, where racism and bigotry still unfortunately flourishes, the majority of the voters wanted to keep the old Jim Crow laws that kept blacks and white separate and prevented interracial marriage.
The exact same things were said about interracial marriage by the exact same type of people. They said blacks and whites marrying would ruin the sanctity of marriage. They said mixing races was a SIN against god.
But thankfully we have courts that can tell the majority of bigots to go to hell and that everyone is equal in the US. The courts are telling them they can't use their bigotry to make laws that take away rights of people they don't like.
Wow, look at the intolerance and hatred coming from the gays. Rarely do I read hateful speech on the vine coming from the anti-gay crowd. Maybe they have better things to do. What I read instead is the gay crowd taking one objection and maginifying it to be a huge monster and then set about viciously attacking the person.
Words create, people.
If you automatically consider anyone that isnt for it a hater, then i guess you become one too. I have a simple view of the facts personally. If the people of the state vote for gay marriage, then it should be law, if they vote against it, then it shouldnt be. If anything else is the truth, then we are no more a democracy and should start giving everyone guns so we can just shoot each other and the only ones left standing can make whatever laws they want. It should not be a federal law, because then we force everyone who is on the wrong side of the law to have no option at all but to leave the country and no longer be americans. Of course if we take away their vote then we are doing that anyway. If it is at a state level then they can at least switch states and still remain in america, because from what I see now and what history has shown, there are always at least some states that will be apart from the rest on pretty much any issue. And yes I know the automatic reply will be should they have to move, and I say that at least some choice that still leaves us the right to vote is better than none whatsoever.
I dont believe in gay marriage, but I also dont believe in no rights for partners. A partner not being able to be with their loved one in the hospital to me is simply stupid and inhuman. Yet I still should have the right to believe in what I do, and support my beliefs without the discrimination I usually end up with because I have them. I have never seen any group so full of hate as the gay rights group if you dont agree with them. Even the aryans arent as bad towards me when I say i hate racism and argue against them. I used to believe in gay rights, until it seemed to become only gays have rights. Even one of my best friends and her partner wont be a part of gay rights because of the same thing. My best friend who is bi wont either. He also knows I dont believe in gay rights, but at the same time would die in a heart beat to save his life, and that he will always be my best friend. My beliefs you see dont dictate wether or not I like him as a person, and think highly of him. Those are 2 seperate things. I will never vote against my beliefs and he respects me for that because to do anything other would be to compromise my integrity. Yet some would say I shouldnt have that integrity because they disagree with me. I am sorry for them, because I am a good person. I am not perfect, but I care about everyone. I think the whole problem honestly is that it is demanded to be marriage, rather than equal rights for a partnership. Why cant gays have equal rights without the word marriage (which today means a short coupling and a 40+% chance of divorce) being the bone of contention? Anyway I would gladly support a persons rights to live by their own beliefs when I dont see how it hurts anyone else, but at the same time I dont think that it is right for the gay rights groups to try to force it upon me through television, or anything else. I dont want anyone else hurt by my beliefs and dont force my beliefs to be in tv, so I shouldnt be subjected to it by anyone else. Anyway, the best to all, I mean no harm to anyone, and hope well for everyone.
Levi, the only monster in the room are the Bigots who want to be able to legally hate a certain group of people and remove their civil rights. You will see more hate coming from people who want to oppress and marginalize LGBT people.
It's funny how turin-996443 above will not address what I said above about the same bigots using the same justifications to try and prevent interracial marriage in the south before the federal courts moved in and said everyone is equal.
Maybe the protect marriage folks should apply their time and money towards lowering the divorce rates, overall.
All of this could have been avoided if the law simply stated that a partnership recognized by the state is a civil union, no matter who the two people are. It could also state that a partnership with the ceremony of a religion is a marriage. Now both sides are happy, and legally, both words mean the same.
If the state does it - it's civil. If a church does it- it's a marriage. After all, they are words. Rose could be the word to describe manure.
Levi777
Are you serious, right now there are 3 pagesof hatred and bigotry spewing out onto this vine thread.
Read on and stop posting nonsense.
turin-996443
Fighting hatred no more make you a hater than fighting racism makes you black.
You obviously aren't from the south are you?
Overruled. That's what the Supreme Court will say.......
JUST GREAT! What else are the courts going to do? Allow them to adopt children over the traditional partnership. That's all our children need. We are such a SCREWED UP Nation as it is. I think we have enough of the fruitcakes around as it is. Now more can marry. IT'S A MAD MAD MAD WORLD I TELL YOU! Say what you want about me, I'm sure you will, that's one freedom that's not being taken from us, but there will be a judgement day someday and many will pay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The challenge of a democracy is to protect the rights of the minorities from the majority who would deny them.
When the rights of all of the people are protected equally, as this ruling enforces, our democracy is working as it should.
It's hard to understand how people could see judges upholding the Constitution as destroyers of our Democracy. If anything, they are the true patriots for defending it against the wishes of a majority.
Sorry sandy I dont believe in racism to the extreme that I dont believe in races. I personally consider us all humans. If someone is a reptile or something then I guess it could be bad. But as by my beliefs any race of a male and any race of a female can reproduce I have no problem with it. Also my religious beliefs teach me that there was interracial marriage in the bible. I dont disbelieve in gay marriage because of their race either. I wont believe in it more if they are the same race or less if they are a different race. Nationality doesnt matter to me, religion might, but only if it is going to destroy the household anyway. So we are left with it only being sex based and that is what my beliefs are. So your next option is to tell me I dont have the right to believe in what I do and just kill me for it. Guess you will have to because both science, and religion tell me it is wrong. Other than that I dont wish ill on anyone and wish it had never been brought up where it suddenly became my business, and I wouldnt have to vote either way, but I guess someone somewhere either decided they didnt have enough rights because they were gay or someone thought someone had to many for them being gay. Probably a lot of both. I have a hard time not wanting to "drag everyone to heaven by force" because I care about them, but honestly I try very hard not to try to impose my beliefs on them. Ironically for all the stuff I hear, I have people do that to me alot.
"They" are already allowed to adopt.
"Rarely do I read hateful speech on the vine coming from the anti-gay crowd."
Well, Levi777, one can only assume that it is a very rare occasion that you read.
William of Rights,
Being gay is a choice. There is no gene, chromosome, or strand of DNA that proves being gay as a trait. Considering this, why dont "gay" people stop their acting and marry a person of opposite gender. Tell me what physically changes a gay guy from speaking as a normal male, to a high pitched voice and a lisp? Nothing. They have the same vocal cords as the rest and speaking abilities. This furthers my point that it is an act.
Tell me why does a gay womans voice change from a feminine voice to a barratone just because "she likes other women". Rely on science and dont believe all the hocus pocus the Gay community forces upon the general population in order to receive attention.
Levi77 at 2.3 - I do not see any "intolerance and hatred" in any words above as you claim. Maybe you think "nutbags" or "go to hell" is hate-speech? And you should not assume writers are gay. All I see above is people who believe in equal civil rights.
On the other hand, Hauser at #2.1, I do not want to have to pay for people in jail. We already have too many non-violent people in there. What I suggest is that they somehow pay for the costs of a nuisance lawsuit. I would let the first few go by, since we don't make everyone pay for a failed lawsuit. But it sure is expensive to keep defending the same ones over and over and in every jurisdiction. I don't know how precidence works since it seems they change one word and try the same thing again in another state. And I don't know why they think a popular vote means it is anywhere near consitutional.
It will be easy to prove bias in the US Supreme Court against Thomas and Scalia, both pushing a right-wing repub/tparty agenda, as they have been doing the past two-three years, and enriching themselves and Thomas' wife in the process. Then out they go: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_US_Supreme_Court_justice_be_impeached_and_removed_from_office
Corky: I don't know if being gay is a choice or not, but so what if it is? Being Christian is a choice and you wouldn't support discrimination against Christians, would you?
Soooo what you pretty much just said is that we need to have a civil war again this time the liberals against the gays, because you even believe that only the liberal Supreme Court Justices should have a say?? Wow thats pretty sick, I guess in your heart of hearts you would kill anyone who disagrees with you if you had the power. Because from a conservatives point of view I can guarantee that they disagree with the liberals that the democratic presidents have chosen to put on the Supreme Court. Of course simply agreeing with this appeal says that too, since it was overturning THE PEOPLE of a liberal states vote. And the peoples vote should overrule the president, congress, the senate, and the supreme court or any other court. After all supposedly and according to our forefathers, the entire purpose of the government they fought so hard to create was to be for the people and by the people.
dslsca
absolutely not but being a Christian has a purpose other than trying to get attention. Gay people are choosing to be discriminated against by choosing to be gay. I choose to be a Christian and the purpose behind that is to go to heaven.
dslsca I agree with you partially. If there was a vote in CA that was to make christianity I still believe it should hold, and I would have to move to a diffferent state. But I believe it should be the peoples choice and by vote, not by judges ruling over what the people voted for. I believe if it came up in CA and I lived there I would vote against it following my beliefs, but if I lost it should still be the law because that is what the people wanted. According to the bible it wouldnt be the first or 2nd or many other times that it has happened. Thats when it comes down to leaving where your not wanted as a christian, or dying for your beliefs.
Corky, you're kidding, right? Please, please, please tell me that you're not for real.
Question for you, Corky. Did you choose to be straight? Or was there no question at all in your mind that you were? I'm guessing you didn't have to make a choice at all. Know why?
Got any peer-reviewed evidence to support your assertion, Professor Corky?
Someone answered my question about precedence above so thanks. I just prefer national standards for many things instead of state by state.
Bill the Cat - I somewhat agree with you and I am not afraid of a slippery slope. The point was "adults" and having a contract. The government's only concern is inheritance, paternity, etc. People can do what they want as far as a contract with their God.
If the government did not give special rights to spouses, such as 1.5 times as much Social Security to a married person versus a single person, healthcare or insurance coverage, etc. then I think a lot of gays would be satisfied with the civil union idea and marriage through the church of their choice. But the government should not say some people have more rights than others.
Levi=Pro-Moron
n corki ur not going to heaven...
this god of your is so spiteful, luv me or ill send u into a pit of fire
wtf is he? some monster who tries to feed offa people's "love"
and you cant choose to be gay,
this isnt the same thing as chooseing a religion
this is why i dont believe in god, people like you make it so unappealing
this almighty person just so happened to prey on other people's fear, that even if HE is perfect, he needs the love of others...
and btw, what moral standard did you u pick a religion JUST TO GO TO HEAVEN?!
GOD is definitly gonna send you there. So i can i rape your mom and go to heaven? i choosed to rape her and i choosed to follow christianity. HEAVEN HERE I COMMMMMEEEEEEEE!!!!
God, so many arrogant and ignorant people thinking they know everything... In my opinion, Marriage should be between 2 individuals, where they came from, who they are, their age, their gender, their RACE... shouldn't matter. As long as 2 people truly love each other they should have those civil rights to take their relationship to the last level. Sandy from Missouri, totally 100% agree with you too, courts going to rule it just like they did for African-Americans; Or the oppression will continue. Sockurmouth, love your ideology, found it pretty hilarious. Oh and TURIN 99, your logic frightens me, don't say race doesn't matter, because it very much does. It's still one of the biggest problems in our country, where have u been? You want the world to be 1 race or something? In that case, all culture would be lost. Your Jewish, Zionist based idealism isn't what this country or world needs either, Try to really think about what your going to say, instead of just acting like a know-it-all. Please go jump off a bridge for the sake of us all.
turin at 2.22 - If a state in the USA decided to vote in a state religion - - that pretty much negates the entire reason for our Constitution to begin with. Having to move across state line for something like better insurance coverage or better school systems is bad enough. But what do you think America stands for? It is NOT "majority rules" ... please check out what our form of government really is.
Way to go Corky, you're a "Christian" because you want to go to heaven. To hell with anything else that could benefit the greater good.
Remember when the Catholic church called on all good Christians to eradicate all Muslims from our planet and, in exchange, anyone who volunteered to fight would be forgiven any sins committed AFTER volunteering? It was called the Crusades and it resulted in pillaging and raping and torture. That, of course, was in the past, but it happened because those volunteering to fight "wanted to go to heaven."
I am basically anti-marriage altogether but if gay people want to f up their lives like straight people , it should be within their rights to do so.
Homosexuals have existed throughout time and history and have lived in every corner of the world. Their numbers are far too great to ignore and say that their way of life is wrong or freakish. There are too many wonderful gay people to condemn. I would not want to live in a world without Elton John for example, nor would I want to try to force him to be something he is not.
I went to school with half a dozen girls who looked like they should have been born boys. They were all nice girls, nothing wrong with them other than they were very masculine. I hate to think of them trying to find a man to love them. They would have a life of rejection and misery. I'm sure that Nina, Kathy, Laurie, Marsha, and Lena are all much happier and better off as lesbians. Who am I to say whom they can marry?
More than half of all hetero marriages fail so you can't really hold that up as a shining example, can you? And for those of you who think this is the gateway to plural marriage and beastiality, you need to take a good hard look at yourself. You may be a redneck.
this is just stupid. Are we really arguing about people leaving states and that the country is comming to an end because people are being recognized as being created equal. I refuse to be forced out of my state simply because people think that they can just say as a majority, its mine now get out. Why we're even arguing in the first place is beyond me. Strip all rights from marriage, its a religious ceremony it should not have any to begin with, and put them all into domestic partnerships. people can get married if they wish, but everyone will be partners according to law no matter who they are and all recieve the same rights and are equal.
Disgusting tex, what is your objection to children being brought up in a gay household? I'd really like to know. I'm sure your concern is not for the children's virtue, as the extreme majority of children molested by family members grow up in very religious households. Ditto the kids who grow up to be drug addicts and alcoholics.
Robin,
I do not believe in God so this is not about defending God or those who are God-fearing. I don't know what you mean by "very religious households" and I'd like to give you a chance to prove you aren't a hater. So, could you please provide any evidence you have, any at all, that the "extreme majority" of children that are molested by family members are raised in such homes?
For my money I think the evidence is pretty clear that molestations occur among heterosexuals and homosexuals at not too dissimilar rates and that religion has little to do with it.
Now is the time to end hate and discrimination. There are no logical reasons for a ban on gay marriage other than hate, intolerance and ignorance. The haters know that they are losing ground fast. All the Super PACs in the world will not restore their white hetero christian male dominated world.
Hey StateAtty,
Kind of a wild claim you make, particularly since it isn't true. The Catholic Church didn't ask for muslims to be exterminated. It asked for muslims to be expelled from the Holy Lands that the muslims had overrun. Seems logical to me, but you elevate it to something that never existed, and for what purpose?
BAH all of this religious talk is pointless, the California courts stated that Marriage Equality can not be argued on the basis of religion as the law is a civil matter not a religious matter. So why continue to base it on religion?
Also those who are trying to state sexuality is a choice and not a complex interaction between genes and biochemistry are somehow simultaneously living in LaLa AND Ignorance land.
Oldman ... I like your advocacy for callling every union a civil union. However, in that case, I don't think that the law should address religious marriage at all. Everything is a civil union period. If you want to also call your union a marriage, a joining or a yurt, that's your business.
So, Corky, by your logic it would be OK to discriminate against Catholics in a predominantly Baptist community because a Catholic is choosing to be discriminated against by not adopting the prevailing faith?
Corky, didn't Jesus love all men? Wasn't "Eve" created, i.e. cloned, from Adam's rib? Wouldn't "she" have XY chromosomes and, in fact, be male? Wouldn't their union in Eden, in fact, be the first gay marriage?
Sounds like your religion is full of homosexuality already.....I think Jesus still got into heaven....
And the real answer is "no." Thanks for playing. Any other stupid, meaningless questions? If 95% of the state's citizens voted to reintroduce slavery, well, you guessed it, it would still not happen because it's unconstitutional. There's simply no legal way to spin this and get a victory for the anti-SSM crowd. None. They're on the wrong side of the law, they're on the wrong side of history, and they're increasingly on the wrong side of social acceptance.
Oh, Corky... "heaven" is completely made up, my friend. It's fictional. Not only is there not a single scrap of evidence to support the claim of its existence, you can't even get a dozen Christians to define it in the exact same way. Heaven is whatever you want it to be because it's imaginary. So your decision to become a Christian simply so you can go to this nonexistent place rings very hollow. Gay people don't choose to become gay.
Discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation is a violation of equal protection under the law.
Barry, I think you bring up a good point. The only reason marriage ended up requiring a license was because of problems with intermarriage and the spread of STD's. Before then, it was a private, family and most often religiously sanctioned event that was also practiced in both public and private.
I think some distinction is in order or the value of procreation gets lost. I think the argument I see here about 50 & 60 year olds not reproducing is weak, because regardless of whether they are producing, most often they step into the role of replacing a person who was lost to death or separation.
I have always seen a problem with people just getting married just to be together and not be a complete family, but the reality is accidents do happen, so ruling them a seperate designation is not practical.
I have read these comments on gay marriage, and the argument of its legality or not, but I am totally blind to the
logic being displayed by most of the writers. Certainly gays are people and should have the same rights as any other human being and not be publicly discriminated just for being gay, Discrimination is terrible regardless to anyones religion, colour or race. However the term "MARRIAGE" was used to refer to the union of one man and one woman. It is this type of union that permits the production of our population, by the ability to reproduce.
Gays on the other hand are incapable of reproduction, so they should not claim that right to be considered married, just because they are people. Not being able to marry does not make them less of a human being,it only identifies them as being incapable of filling the requirements for marriage.
I agree that if gay partnership is based on love and they choose to live together in a harmonious manner they should be allowed to do so, only this union should not be considered a Marriage but rather a partnership or some other description of there relationship. Why people cannot see this or accept this is extraordinary and obviously
blind to reality, is beyond me, but stop eyeing constitutional rights and start eyeing reality and logic.
Bill:
Once upon a time a man with a pet skunk bought a boarding
house. He advertised the rooms for rent but when potential renters came to
inspect the premises they quickly declined noting a skunk lived there.
Unsettled by the lack of business, the man approached his friend the mayor who
issued a proclamation that indeed the skunk was not really a skunk but a bi-colored
cat.
Soon another prospective renter came to examine the rooms
and noticed the skunk, “What’s that skunk doing here” he asked to which the
proprietor exclaimed “That’s no skunk, that my cat; and here’s the paperwork to
prove it!”
After reviewing the document the renter replied “Well, this
paper says that’s a cat but my nose says it’s a skunk!!”
The moral of the story is: You can paint a barn any color
you like, but it’s still a barn!
You are right Bill, one may change the definition of marriage but you can't change what it stands for!
Rich, blindly right wing thinkers seem often to equate homosexuality with child molestation. These are wholly unrelated, by any assertion otherwise, one would believe that homosexuals have a desire to young males, the rest of society is a danger to young females. The statistics don't bear out. Further molestation, like any other for of rape is about control, not sex. So I implore you sir, put down that bible before you hurt somebody.
Gee, why don't we just require gays to require a scarlet letter while we're at it. Of course, by your logic, heterosexuals who are sterile or past child-bearing age shouldn't be permitted to marry either.
Why, oh why, do people persist in using the easily refuted argument that "marriage is for reproduction"?
So, granted, I haven't read every single post here, but from what I have read, nobody has posted a single way that gay marriage negatively affects anyone.
Thumbs up for the federal Appeals Court!
This was unconstitutional. I'm glad they overturned it, although I do still think marriage is a covenant between the couple and God.
Agreed!
'god' is an idiotic idea promoted by immoral people to control and pacify the weak minded.
That is why the civil license should be renamed "civil union" and all 1400+ laws pertaining to "marriage" should likewise be amended to read "civil union."
If you want to do that, then you would have to require all people to have a "civil union" and if they want, a "traditional wedding." And I thought you wing nuts hated anything that Europe does.
I dont plan on marrying god....
why force me ;/ ?
hes a perfect being who feeds offa peoples fear with a need of people "worshipping" him with love....
What's next? Are you going to allow these "people" to vote?
I kid, I kid. This is a long time coming.
I for one would never get married. I've no problem with sharing the rest of my life with a single person, but I don't want the filthy hands of the federal government in my business. I don't want to sign up for their finger in the pie laws. And I really, really don't want to spend 10 grand on a ring that some poor slave kid, probably long dead already was forced to dig up out of the ground, so all that money can further enrich the De beers family, a whole other topic in their own rite. I think today's decision is great, but marriage today is more often a substitute for commitment. That's why it rarely lasts anymore.
Love is wonderful however you may find it, but marriage is a covenant involving a couple, the legal system, and tax codes. With that, I wish all California gay couples very happy lives, with few problems and many swell wedding gifts.
Thank god, now I can marry my Cat, an I dont wanna hear no crap about it......
Paul, Marry all your cats and their kittens. Nobody will give a hoot what you do.
This straight woman says hallelujah! A vote for kindness and basic decency, and also a vote for the couples who renovate their houses and elevate your property values!
Sorry, just wanted to clarify the ruling for you. They were talking about the legal right to marry another human being...not legalizing bestiality.
""I think the voters in California should be respected?"
If we allowed for the tyranny of the bare majority in our past, women would not be allowed to vote, race would be deterred in marriage, and many other tyrannies would prevail until we would not be a Freedom-Based country. What is there about a secular Constitutional mandate not to be understood? Nowhere in the Constitution is the Bible mentioned, God is, but it is NOT necessarily the god of the bible (lowercased). Everyone is privy to their opinion, but opinions are NOT LAWS and should never be put to a VOTE! It was an atrocity to freedom's reign for California to have the colossal chutzpah to TAKE AWAY A GIVEN FREEDOM. That is the road to tyranny and to dictatorship. We too can be Iran Mirrored.
Conditional Slavery opinions are:
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't overflowing yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Ridiculous ain't it?
Mellissa: Yes, I want to say halleluja, but not for your reasons, I want to say that because it makes me realize that Jesus is coming back quicker then we all thought!
So, now your cat can understand the complexities of law that govern marriage and can give informed consent on that basis?
Bravo, nitwit. Way to push the false equivalency. Also, I hope your cat gets the house in the divorce.
With some many bigots talking about f*cking animals, it makes me concerned.
Thank you Jerryball. Very well said. And you list made me giggle. :-)
Get in line for a loooooong looooong (centuries maybe) court trial and you too, can find justice ... maybe. But I think not.
Just as soon as you can get your cat to give legal consent, y'all go right ahead!
You know the freakiest people are those that follow Jesus. They're so repressed that they'd be the first to hop a cat to get off.
Sort of like the tyranny of the majority want the minority ( Rich) to pay more taxes.........
The minority ( Rich) are to be protected by the laws of the Constitution, no matter what the majority want from them.
Jerry for everyone of your little statements there are many just as ridicilous ones that could be the opposite. Im not going to argue against them all because it is pointless. The simple facts are this, it was due to people standing up for others rights besides themselves that gave women and blacks the vote and I am glad for it. I do not EVER want to take away someones right to vote because they are gay, nor is that being discussed here. Yet I think that if it is a vast majority of a state say 3/4 that it should either be legal or illegal disregarding your and mine personal views. If I were the rep voting in CA I would vote based upon what i saw my constituants wanted, not my personal views. Once a single judge can overrule the peoples votes, then we just handed our rights as voters to the judges to rule over us without rights. I dont believe in gay marriage, but I guarantee you that if 3/4 of the people in CA voted for it and a judge (or several, or 3 or whatever) overturned it I would still be ticked off. I don't hate gays, and 2 of my closest friends are gay or bi. My best friend being bi. He is still my best friend knowing how I feel, what my beliefs are, and I would still give my life for him being bi which I dont believe in. I am not as worried about whether CA allows gay marriage or not, as I am as to how it is decided which it will be. I don't know what idiot put it up as a political issue to begin with, and wish they hadnt, but once I am put in a situation to either vote for it or not, then I have to go with what I believe is right. If there had not be a vote on it........(wow imagine if it could have been that simple). anyway take care.
Go ahead. I doubt anyone will care. I hope you are both happy.
Oh my. Jerryball, that was possibly the best explanation of the opposition to gay marriage I have ever encountered. There is no way it could be any more simple and easy to understand. Honestly, I feel like I have to share that list so more can read it.
johnny you lie the second he puts his penis up the cats exit hole all kinds of people will cry stuff from sexual abuse to just being plain sick.... now the kittens lol thats even worse. are you implying he is a pedophile?
There is nothing in the Constitution limiting the amount the "rich" has to pay in taxes, try another argument.
Jerry, I almost lost a perfectly good keyboard to your comment. The soda barely missed the electronics.
You would have though this sacred ceremony with god, that
DIVORCE would be removed by now....
yes lookit the % of americans doing it
divorce is PROHIBITED, yet this is actually allowed in church
but who cares, so long as the people in the church are able to bend the rules !!!
still, the same people woulda have at least be going to hell
Oh yea, people who watch porn, also going to hell
God is a happy man now
WHAT WAT?! you can have sex unless you're married?!?!?!
ok now EVERYONES going to hell....
keep worshipping LOLS
Someone ought to explain "pussy" to Mr. Bearer!
No one should be surprised by this ruling, it is the 9th District ya know. If I decide to marry my goat I'm gonna move to CA, they seem to endorse debauchery.
We do endorse debauchery...oh yeah, and we also endorse not having stupid people like you in our state. Such hatred, such jealousy, we laugh at you idiots!
Paul Bearer-4218306
red-830681
What is it with you guys and bestiality???
Do you have the slightest cognition of "Consenting adults" or "equal protection"???
William, don't ask bigots to justify their bigotry.
They can't.
It is the land of fruits and nuts...you know.
Sounds as if you don't agree with the ruling. So, are you against State's rights? Do you propose that the Federal Government start making overarching laws that affect all citizens, like Obamacare? You big goverment, Obamacare Socialists really drive me nuts. Why don't you move to China if you want Big Brother running your life and leave us in peace!
You can only marry your goat if he or she is a consenting goat, and in your case, I wouldn't bet on it.
hypocrisy1776, you must have FAILED high school Civics. The federal courts have ALWAYS had jurisdiction over things like this. As I said above if it wasn't for the federal courts telling bigoted voters in the south to stuff their votes where the sun don't shine we would still have Jim Crow laws. If you don't know what they are I suggest you look them up. Ignorance is a horrible way to go through life.
I just don't understand why conservatives say they want government out of our lives until it comes to my religious beliefs, the color of my skin, or who I love. If government didn't step you would still be hanging blacks from trees and dragging gays behind trucks. Oh, that's right, some of you are still doing that.
Religion breeds the freaky, closeted weirdos... If you have anything negative to say about this, take a close look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself why...
red-830681: Please don't move to California. Keep your redneck A$$ where it is.
Marriage is a social contract, nothing more. It is not constitutionally rooted in religious dogma or personal prejudices. This Supreme Court ruling establishes and defines that principle. Get over it, haters.
This isn't a States' Rights issue, this is a constitutional one.
-adds religion to the list of ingredients-
KAAA BOOOOOMMMM
Speak for yourself Pam, As I recall we (in California) voted against Gay marriage. So you can keep your liberal agenda on the losing side. We don't want debauchery here. However if the courts rule that it is acceptable, I will support it.
Bman, is debauchery OK if it involves straight people? Because "debauchery" is an across-the-board term.
@earthgirl. You should not call our great Empire a Republic as we have done away with such old ideas. But you are right to say we are now all equal.
The majority cannot vote to limit the rights of the minority...Welcome to America
I love how anti-SSM people make it sound like every single person in California voted for Prop 8. The truth is, it won by a rather narrow margin with 7 million votes to 6.4 million votes against it -- out of a population of over 37 million. So let's at least frame the debate in a modicum of reality.
And I'm sorry, but "we don't want debauchery here"? Really? You DO realize that like 90% of the United States' entire output of pornographic movies comes out of California, right? (See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fernando_Valley#Adult_entertainment)
What a blithering hypocrite.
When "they" voted here in California, they choose to not mention the fact that they were financially supported by non-State entities, like LDS in Utah and others....
The church feels strongly about this, for why I can't comprehend. I don't care what they do in their lives and churches...why should they care what I do in my life? I'm all for polygamy...if you can even afford it. Have you calculated the cost a woman causes??? lol
Imperial Supporter555
"I pledge allegience to the Flag
Of the United States of America,
and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands,
one nation, under God, indivisible
with Liberty and Justice for all."
I may have forgotten a line or two, but that's the gist of it. I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic (as sarcasm doesn't travel well by the tubes and wires that Al Gore used when he created the Internet) but I figured you might be serious...
Boom!
+1 for equality.
Equal is as equal does..
Funny...I did not know that Gay Marriage was in the constitution. Now that I know that it is, of course the ban on Gay Marriage is unconstitutional.
However, if Gay Marriage is not in the US constitution (which it isn't), how in the world can you say a ban of it is unconstitutional? For that matter...marriage isn't even in the constitution.
Mike-463711 - Gay marriage is never specifically addressed in the constitution. However, here's a quote from the 14th Amendment that frames the issue (thanks, Wikipedia!)
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In other words, every law must apply to everyone equally. A state can't pass laws that provide benefits to one group or class of citizens, but deny those benefits to others. Prop. 8 is unconstitutions for this reason alone.
The internet isn't mentioned in the constitution, but your right to free speech online is still protected.
Not surprising that a nutty court in California would overturn the will of the people to back their far left agenda. This is going to the Supreme Court anyhow so might as well cut out the middleman and get right to the final decision.
The "will of the people" can always try and get a US Constitutional Amendment passed.
Good luck getting it ratified, however.
Looks like you'll have to move to the third world to live in your discrimination and intolerance.
The "will of the people" also supported segregation in places like Montgomery, Alabama in the 1960's.
I agree that majority rule should be overturned only in rare--and extraordinary--circumstances. But our laws must pass constitutional muster. This is a matter for the court, and at least for now, the court has spoken.
I don't see how allowing homosexual marriage backs a "far left agenda". I'm a Republican...but before that I'm an American. To deny some the basic institution of marriage always seemed wrong to me.
Unconstitutional? That remained to be seen...and apparently we're seeing it.
I heard south africa is filled with epople like you jeff
maybe move away from chicago, i mean isnt that a liberal state?
somwhere over there you will find people of your kind
AND MOST DEFINITLY YOUR religion
of course i support your movement
dumb people should always be supported, but no matter, i will be by your side, to slowly let you down throughout life
btw, ur lower then dirt ;]
Really, the court has spoken. A gay judge rules on the side of the gay cause. Whatever happened to conflict of interest?
far left agenda? last check 53% of americans supported gay marraige.
Saravabob at #8.4 Let's see if I understand what you said, "A
gaymale judge rules on the side of agaymale cause." So men should not judge in divorce cases because they might favor the male in the settlement? Never mind if he was also a never-married judge? And a male judge should not rule on women's issues since he certainly doesn't understand the law pertaining to women? Was that what you meant?I hope the law is the law, within some sort of interpretive bounds.
ROFLMAO!!!!! and a heterosexual judge would be any less conflicted??
Thats right ! And what are all the anti-gay people going to do then when it does make it to the SC and they declare it unconstitutional also, paving the way for gay marraige in America ? You did us a HUGE favoe by passing prop8....THANK YOU !
Jeff at #8 - You say it was "the will of the people" who voted. I'll say again, majority does not rule if it is unconstitutional.
But perhaps the in-state people were also very much influenced and confused, or bought off, by the flood of OUT OF STATE money and advertising. Whether it is CA or Wisconsin or any other state, national groups and money-people are very much trying to BUY the votes they want. Though I guess that may be more apparent in states with smaller populations when the millions of dollars start rolling in and the ad machines start up.
Well, according to the anti-gay crowd, same-sex marriage will destroy heterosexual marriage in some (never defined) manner. So, wouldn't a heterosexual judge have a conflict of interest, too?
Yes, those wacky, nutty extreme leftists, wanting to uphold the Constitution, states' rights, and real equality under the law. Zealots, the lot of them!
Oh, and by the way, most legal analysts agree that, because of the very specific language used in this affirmation, it pertains solely to California, and will almost certainly NOT be entertained by the US Supreme Court. So... game over. Same-sex marriage will prevail in California. Sorry to disappoint you.
What I want so-called Christians and people of conscience to brood on is the staggering sum of money that was wasted to barely pass (52 - 48%) Prop 8 in California. Unaware of the amount? So glad you asked. $39.9 million spent to promote and pass an unconstitutional and ultimately doomed measure. That's nearly forty MILLION dollars that was utterly wasted. Think of all the actual GOOD that sum of cash could have done in this world. Think of the starving children it could have fed. Think of all the malaria it could have cured and prevented. Women's shelters, charities, education, you name it. $40 million is a lot of money any way you slice it. And instead of doing as Christ commanded and giving to the poor, people chose to spend this staggering sum of money simply to propagate their own fear, intolerance, and bigotry. Shameful.
"A gay judge rules on the side of the gay cause. Whatever happened to conflict of interest?"
And male judges should recuse themselves from trials involving men and men's issues, too, right? You need to think things through a bit more before posting.
This is a good decision, I fully approve. Unfortunately the courts have further to go in giving everyone equality. What is truly sad, is how much people need to fight for these things, when it should be an automatic given, based on the constitution. Regardless, I commend the courts for this decision.
I think any new law should have to be taken to court first, approved first, and only then after its approved is it actual law.
Freedom4Everyone -
A nice sentiment, but that would add significantly to the load of the courts. Not only that, but the independence of the judiciary from the other 2 branches of government is essential, and should be maintained strictly. In accordance with that, only people with standing who have a grievance should be able to sue in court over a law that has affected them unjustly. That also allows the justices that oversee rulings to maintain a greater impartiality in the case, rather than just levying vetoes left and right.
It would be nice if the legislatures had to spell out in each law exactly what Constitutional authority they are exercising and using to justify each law, so the thinking would be more clear. It would also allow for a more thorough examination of the law, since we can now digitize documents and use search keys.
Also, we wouldn't get idiots passing "creationism as science" laws in our legislatures so often.
It wouldn't effect the Independence of the court in the least. Law makers would simple have to petition the court for a ruling on any new law they wish to enact. For approval first. Since most laws are challenged automatically anyway, it wouldn't be any more work, or not much more. All that would change is the law is fought over first, before it becomes law. Horse before the cart, instead of the other way around.
Actually, most laws don't get challenged on constitutionality grounds. Many that do get thrown out of court for lack of standing, lack of relevance, or lack of general intelligence. Fewer make it to an appeal.
Most laws are merely applied by judges to cases. It's pretty rare that a judge actually hears a case to dismiss a law on constitutional grounds.
I think prior review would erode the independence of the courts. It's more of a public target. Already, there are calls to impeach judges or redistrict courts based on unpopular rulings. The Newt talks about that frequently. Imagine, though, if the judges were forced into prior review. Would that affect state laws as well as federal? Would state laws be sent to state judges and federal judges to ensure it violates neither constitution? What would the procedure be: does it go up the chain like all other laws, giving the lower courts the first say and then deciding to allow appeals or not, or does it go straight to the SC?
See, the thing is, many of the laws that are found unconstitutional can be seen only in their secondary effects. For instance, Brown v. Board of Education overturned a previous SCOTUS ruling because of the idea that "separate is inherently unequal."
I think the best way to maintain independence of the judiciary is to keep things as they are. Otherwise, they could also infringe upon the legislatures' and chief executives' right to pass legislation. True, it might save in SOME cases in the long run, but the majority would be dross, and SCOTUS, for instance, would be too busy reviewing new laws and running simulations of all possible occurences this could be applied in, and even then they may not be able to find the instance in which the law violates the constitution until it has already happened.
I just dont like how people must suffer an unconstitutional law, until it goes through years of court cases, only to be finally overturned years later. Often where everyone knew what the outcome would eventually be. Like this law.
At the very least, any law that is challenged should be set aside until a ruling is made. To prevent this kind of injustice.
Janstince 9.3 - thanks for the explanation. I agree with Freedom4Everyone, but I understand your explanation. So much state legislative time involves the same people bringing up the same thing every year with no hope of it actually getting out of committee or passing, but the paperwork must be dealt with.
FINALLY. I was waiting for this to happen for a long time! My second cousin had to get married in New York because of this stupid Proposition 8!
Its a shame your cousin was able to get "married" with anyone of the same sex in the united states. I hope a federal law is passed banning the marriage so they will no longer be considered wed.
And I hope Americans finally see all conservatives for the bigots they are, and NEVER elect another one of you ever again. I think its time to put the Bigot Brigade out on the porch, permanently.
Ya know, you're kinda hypocritical, Freedom4All. Where's that freedom for Catholics? Under Obama they are going to be required by law to provide condoms and birth control. That kind of freedom has a very odd ring to it.
You have all the freedom you ever had before. You only made one mistake, you never did have the freedom or rights to persecute and discriminate against other people. Your religion applies to YOU, and only to YOU. No one else.
You can sit home and be a catholic all you like. But dont you dare bring it near me, or my family, or you will have my foot in your ass. Kapeesh
Actually, the REAL shame is that people such as yourself are allowed to breed. I mean hey, if we're going to pass laws based on ideology or even really good ideas, how about this? I propose that anyone who wants to vote in this country has to have an IQ of at least 120. YOU are obviously going to be disqualified but so what? I mean shouldn't the most intelligent of of, the ones who actually have something worthwhile to contribute be the ones who benefit from the rights and privileges of our system? It seems to be EXACTLY what you advocate.
@ConservativeNotRepublican
You made me laugh. Why? Because you appear to be non-American. You do believe in our core beliefs right?
You have the right not to take birth control or use condoms.
Just like you have the right to not f*ck another man if you so choose.
Is that logic really that complicated?
@ surfdom4All THE CATHOLICS AREN'T INFRINGING ON ANYBODY ELSES RIGHTS. They're just trying to advance humanity by helping the poor and all the sudden they are told they HAVE to provide condoms!? Give me a fricking break! I'm not a catholic by the way. But if every hospital was required to say a prayer for their patients you'd have a problem with that. Since you're a hypocritical libby.
A condom is a medical device. A prayer is religious gobledegook
No gay marriages will be preformed in California for a long....long...time; If ever.
I bet they start having them sooner than you think.
No a condom is not a medical device, its a personal choice!!! And regardless a private institution should never be FORCED to provide something. Wait... actually i wouldn't mind the gov't telling McDonalds they have to have less grease on their food since their burgers are fattening the public.
Agreed! No one in this world has the right to tell ANYONE who they can and can not love. You have no right to say two people who are in love can not show that by getting married. The world is full of people who are different in all kinds of ways that is what makes it beautiful, its the @!$%#s like you that have to judge people that you don't even KNOW! and try to dictate and tell them what they can do with their OWN lives. What in the world makes you believe you are justified in doing this? And you can use your bible all you want, I believe in god and the god I know accepts people for who they are and loves them no matter what. I have many gay friends and they are just the same as everyone else, except you, they would never judge anyone not even you not even after you bashed them with your harsh words. Its people like you that cause kids to get picked on, teaching young generations its ok to pick on kids because they are gay this is the message you really want to send to your children? that discrimination is ok? you should be ashamed of yourself.
Providing condoms and birth control are public health issues. The state has a legitimate interest in protecting the public welfare by providing these things to a) allow families the choice to plan their families and b) prevention of the spread of communicable diseases. As Catholics, they can choose not to run hospitals, and stay in their churches all day and pray for a cure for that horrible rash down there.
Forcing prayer onto doctors and nurses is a violation of privacy and the right to believe or not believe in any form of religion. Since the efficacy of prayer has proven to be non-existent, it is not an evidence-based belief and has shown no medical beneficience. On the contrary, people who were told they were being prayed for have shown negative reactions in clinical study. Therefore, we should probably recommend a ban on praying for others in the hospital. Oh, wait, that would infringe on freedom of speech.
Do you get the picture now? We are a secular society. You want your religion, keep it in private. You want to enter the public sphere? You'd better have some evidence to back up your claims. How you would go about claiming that abstinence-only education is more effective than full sex education, or how the increase of condom use education and availability has not really affected STD rates, or how family planning has actually harmed society and those benefits we've seen as a result aren't really there and the numbers are always lying, those damn crazy numbers...
Oh, wait, you weren't arguing any point in particular. You were just hoping for a continuation of the idiocy and "holier-than-thou" attitude that allows you to discriminate. Well, I wish you well on Planet Wingnuttia. Say hello to Joe McCarthy for me.
I suggest you look up condom, its listed as a medical contraceptive device.
Its not your place to decide the birth-control methods of others. Because the day that becomes okay, im going to demand they neuter you.
Yeah and abortion is listed as women's health :) But anyway the real issue is whether you think the gov't can come into a charity organization and tell it what services or products to provide. If you do I suggest moving to Europe, they agree with you. But people who value and respect personal liberty and the constitution don't.
And @Janstince if it is a public health concern then the states should spend money on the condoms and publicly distribute them but don't FORCE Catholics too. And if catholics want to run a hospital its their own damn business and should run it how they want as long as its a private enterprise.
part of the problem with this issue, and how everyone keeps bringing up voting rights, interracial marriage, etc., is that it COULD be argued as a different issue - when black women could not marry white men, this meant that white women could do something that black woumen couldn't. When women couldn't vote, that meant men were legally allowed to do something that women couldn't.
EVERYONE is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. That's where the (perhaps unfortunate) issue is different in my mind. Keep in mind I am NOT advocating one way or the other, I just think that it could be regarded as a different type of issue than interracial marriage or women's voting rights.
When are you going to get it through your thick skulls. You never had the liberty to discriminate. Have you ever read the whole constitution, or did you just look at the freedom of religion clause?
You cant run a health org, charity of otherwise, and decide who can and cant have certain treatments. You do have the right to quit if you cant deal with that. Dont let the door hit you. You WONT be missed.
Everyone is allowed to marry the person they love, except gay people.
ConservativeNotRepublican -
Look, you don't get it. We have laws that govern public institutions as well as private corporations that do business in the public realm. If this Catholic Hospital was run as a completely private organization (i.e. did not accept public health insurances, did not serve the public, only parishioners, did not operate on public assistance, and basically a whole lot of other things about them not relying on or serving the public), then they could choose not to provide birth control.
As they choose to operate in the public sphere, they must abide by the public rules. They want the money from operating the hospital? They want the name recognition? They just want to do good in the public world? Then they need to follow the rules. And the rules say that condoms and birth control are available to all who wish it, and to be provided for by institutions that deal with the public health.
Freedomforeveryone you need to change your name to freedomforthosethatagreewithmeonly because freedom for everyone includes those your hating. And if your the example, then I want to be the opposite please under any conditions. Your being so hateful and biased that we dont need any other hate or bias here, you have enough for everyone.
I dont support this, but I dont because of my beliefs. So either I dont have the right to my beliefs in which case your new name is accurate, or I do. If I dont, then you dont believe in freedom at all. I do believe in freedom, but when the freedom of 2 different groups oppose each other then I believe we vote to see what it should be, but I believe that it should be at a state level so that there will always be choices for the minority group whether its them or me. My religion prophecies that it will one day be me, and so far it has been exactly right. I accept this, but hope it is a state by state approach, and the peoples vote, thats the only way to keep america as america.
Freedom for everyone includes freedom for gay people, equality for ALL. That includes the right to marry who you wish to marry.
I dont support anyones freedom to deny freedom to other people. I support your personal freedom fully. But I will never support your freedom to discriminate and hate. I will never support your freedom to deny people medical treatment they are legally allowed to have. I will never support your freedom to tell people who they can or cannot love or marry.
Freedom for everyone, means EVERYONE. Freedom has limits. Your freedom to throw a punch, ends at the beginning of the next guys nose.
Just to push this further, should I be able to marry my father?
Therefore Freedom, who decides who's rights are really the ones we will follow? Only you all by yourself? Last I heard we still voted in this country for that particular reason, and whether the judge or me, or you like it or not that is where it should stop. I didnt say it should be law or not based upon my beliefs. Your spouting what you think and that your feelings should be the only ones that count. Or rather your feelings and those that agree with you. I say it should be the vote that is the deciding factor. When any part of the government can over rule your or my vote we just lost a massive chunk of "freedom". And once they have to power to overturn our vote on one issue, what on earth makes you think they will not overturn our vote on other issues just as easily???
Why
Its the courts who decide. And they just did.
No you cant marry your biological father, for very sound medical reasons. However, if you are adopted, and not a biological child, and of legal age, then yes you cant marry your father. Ask Woody Allen.
Your voting applies to who gets to be a politician, not what laws are constitutional. That's the courts domain.
nm freedom your obviously biased and will only see your own rights, otherwise you would obviously have stated that you think it would have been horrible if the court voted the other way but you support it and thats how it should be that the courts should overrule everyone else and their wishes and rights. think ill quit wasting my time with you. look for someone less biased and prejudice to talk to.
Lots of rulings have come down I dont agree with. Thats what fighting for change is about. Lots of laws still need to be overturned.
Just because i dont agree with you doesnt make me biased, in fact it makes you biased. According to you, anyone who doesnt agree with you, must be biased. Thats bias in of itself.. Its also a cop-out when you arent winning a debate. Go ahead, take your ball and go home.
Condoms prevent pregnancy (most of the time) Preventing unwanted pregnancy prevents abortion as well as people like Casey Anthony. You can't have it both ways. You help people prevent pregnancy. Pro Choice all the way. Right wants to Not prevent pregnancy, make abortion illegal and make women and men marry only each other. The right is sounding a lot like Nazi Germany.
Turin, it is not your right to deny freedom to an entire class of people. Civil rights matters are not up to a popular vote. This country is not a democracy - it is a constitutional republic, and the majority cannot impose its will upon the minority of people if it violates the minority's rights.
Since marriage was determined to be a basic civil right by the SCOTUS, it's easy to see why this law was overturned.
Catholics institutions are required to provide condoms and birth control to their EMPLOYEES, as is every other employer in the US. Why should religious institutions get a special exemption to a law that applies to everyone else? Render unto Ceasar certainly applies in this instance.
If you aren't going to honor what the people voted for and won, then why waste the money paying for it to begin with? Why waste the time of the voters? Just more of States & Government wasting money over political or religious differences.
People also wanted slavery, and didn't want to give women the right to vote. It is amazing how many rights some will deny others when they aren't personally affected by it. I'm sure if you are a woman or black you would probably be glad of Women's Suffrage and Emancipation, even though they weren't popular at the time.
your wrong hyprocisy. read history first. There were tons of voters supporting both of those groups. It was not done against the will of the majority. That is the reason it took as long as it did. Those supporting both of those had to gain the support needed to change it, the government didnt just say screw the voters like they are now. As a matter of fact, Lincoln being elected was a massive chunk of what caused the cival war. The democrats knew he would be trying to get the support to end slavery and that he had a very good chance of tipping the scales in his favor, and they didnt want to wait to see that happen so they started ceding from the union almost as quickly as he was elected. It didnt happen 60 years earlier because there were times that a majority of congress agreed with it. They knew that enough of the people also had to agree or they had no right to do it (not to mention it would have been suicide). As a matter of fact, Thomas Jefferson it is said wanted to add that into the constitution, but was overruled by his friends and enemies. His friends and those that agreed with him because they knew it wasnt the right time. btw I am glad that both can vote. We would have lost many great thinkers otherwise.
turin at #11.2 - I thought you promised to go away at #10.27.
I believe the Constitution is a living, adapting thing. I hope people like Scalia do not get the chance to say that women are NOT considered as "people" because only men are listed in the original constitution. Many issues are 4-5 or 5-4 due to very detailed interpretations. I just hope, and hope and use my vote as much as I can.
You'd have to ask the people to petitioned for the election. The question should be, if they were going to hold an unconstitutional vote, why have one in the first place.
If you think that a vote should trump the Constitution, you should move someplace without a written Constitution.
Why, indeed? I suggest you pose that question to those who orchestrated Prop 8 and got it on the ballot specifically to overturn the decision of the California Supreme Court. Every court that looks at decisions even remotely like this proclaims them to be unconstitutional, even the US Supreme Court, with the Colorado Amendment 2 case. So don't ask about "honoring" the will of "the people." (In this case, that's only 52% of less than 80% of the electorate, which was considerably less than half the actual population, which mathematically comes out to about 19% of "the people.") Ask instead about why they would spend so much money and waste so much time advocating a position that every court has branded as unconstitutional and almost every legal analyst has said would be overturned anyway.
And further to your point, as I stated in a previous post:
What I want so-called Christians and people of conscience to brood on is the staggering sum of money that was wasted to barely pass (52 - 48%) Prop 8 in California. Unaware of the amount? So glad you asked. $39.9 million spent to promote and pass an unconstitutional and ultimately doomed measure. That's nearly forty MILLION dollars that was utterly wasted. Think of all the actual GOOD that sum of cash could have done in this world. Think of the starving children it could have fed. Think of all the malaria it could have cured and prevented. Women's shelters, charities, education, you name it. $40 million is a lot of money any way you slice it. And instead of doing as Christ commanded and giving to the poor, people chose to spend this staggering sum of money simply to propagate their own fear, intolerance, and bigotry. Shameful.
It really doesn't matter what happens in America now.America is on a rapid decline,collapsing.Come Lord Jesus,come.
Jesus never said sh*t about homosexuality. He let the homophobe Leviticus do that.
And boneheads like you with your fairy tales trying to take freedom away from decent human beings. If we can get rid of you leftovers from medieval times, our world will be much better. Keep praying, but I bet my life is much better and happier than yours and I don't believe in jesus at all! But apparently, he/she doesn't like tebow either! Ignorance!
More to the real point....America just took one step in crawling out of the dim wit ditch that the Republican party has been digging for over 20 years.
Wait haven't Dumbocrats controlled the white house for 11 out of the last 20 years....hahahahahhaha stupid liberal
Just give them up to their reprobate mind......Keep the faith.
Well, thats like that scripture in the bible, the blind leading the blind, they will both fall in the ditch. Jesus is really coming soon.
You don't know the day nor the hour of his return.
I don't go to Church anymore and I still know more Scripture than you.
Actually there are quite a few passages in scripture that say the LORD will return "soon". Its just a relative meaning of soon...dumbass
For the love of Pete, quit stroking Jesus....
@
ConservativeNotRepublican-2806513, seriously, you totally make my last point. WHEN are we going to stop allowing low IQ people control the important conversations in this country? The decline of this era started with Reagan, continued all the way through til now. The politicians don't matter, they are ALL on the same side. They continue to make laws based on the best outcome for a select few no matter WHO is in the White House. Beside that fact, the White House doesn't make the laws, the Congress does. They controlled Congress for all of 2 years until idiots decided it would do us good to have nutbag tea party morons in there. Until you realize that all of this stuff is just talking points to keep the sheeple occupied, you will NEVER have a grasp on what is truly happening in this country. Whether it's same-sex marriage, abortion, guns, God or any other hot button, it's the right hand keeping you busy while the left hand steals your wallet. Unfortunately, it's people like you who think somehow that the politicians, (the one's you like), are actually looking out for you, that they have your views and will make laws based on what's best for you. Get a clue. If you aren't making over $500,000 a year, you don't matter. You have NOTHING they want except an easily swayed opinion and a loud mouth!
Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!
You know the anti-christ will be gay too!
@ christianI was just reponding to someone's ridicule of another...it was one of your like-minded friends that brought up the whole Jesus issue. And actually I'm not a member of any party and have written in a candidates name the last two presidential elections. so don't speak for those of us that actually are free-minded.
If and when He returns, I always wonder what Jesus will think of all the people who have spent so much time judging other people. Seems to me that that's the biggest sin of them all and yet every "Christian" who posts on these threads seems to forget that human being don't possess the power or grace to sufficiently judge other human beings according to God's laws - I thought that is why it's supposed to be left up to God to do the judge when the time comes.
Label me a "hater" I don't care. The people have decided what they wanted and a few elite judges think they know better. Where will the judges draw the line? One partner....two or more? What about Paul Bearer's cat?
You know, there once were laws saying a black couldn't marry a white.
They had a hatred similar to yours.
I can tell you exactly when. If a law is passed by a legislative body or by popular vote it must still be legal under both the federal and state constitution. In this case it did not pass muster, and by the way you may "hate" all want to, it's in the constitution!!!
The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to guarantee and warrant certain rights for all individuals, even if they are in the minority. Many feel that the right to marry the person you truly love should fall under the Bill of Rights and if the courts should find that is the case then NO Majority will have the rights to restrict or with hold the rights to marry from any minority.
Whatcha worried about, Chuck?
Boy Chuck, if you hate Activist judges, you must really have hated the Citizens United ruling. Are you working to overturn that? Are you voting in Congressmen who want to pass laws getting all of this big money out of politics? And what's with all of the beastiality posts on here, as far as I know that is still a crime. But aren't you right wingers all for the free market deciding and getting big brother out of the way? So, why not let the consumers/citizens decide where they want to shop when it comes to a life partner?
Ruken: Black people still don't accept mixed marriages. Didn't you watch jungle fever? You can not legislate acceptance.
Woah, that was racist.
My aunt and uncle are a mixed race marriage FYI, thus you must be talking out of your ass.
Shanta- My husband's family accepts our marriage just fine, thank you (as does mine). Maybe you should stop believing everything you see in fictional movies- especially the ones that are 20 years old.
earthgirl, what a wonderful name for a libretard. If you had a clue about the constitution, or conservatives, you would know that the ban is unconstitutional, because, the constitution says nothing about marriage, nada zip zilch, and the worst part, you fully support gun bans, which, are unconstitutional, and as long as we have guns, you (lgbt) are free to wander the streets in your leather g strings rubbing yourselves on each other, not me and my wife of course, because we are hetero, ergo, we would be arrested for lewd conduct, but, its ok if its a penis in a mans throat in public, but, put that cigarette out that's offensive it makes it hard to swallow my ecstacy tablets and ruins the taste of my weed. Hey quick theres a tree over there crying, I think it needs a hug. Please for the sake of humanity, could you not reproduce?
what rights do gays have were does it say that they have a right to marry the same sex,not only is it not right they should NEVER be able to adopt a child makes me sick just stay in your closets were all sick of you wasting our tax dollars and time shut it and sit down
I bet you're not a big fan of women getting to vote and work outside the home either....
Lou, just gonna change your comment around a bit to show you for the bigot you are:
These are the same types of arguments that were made about inter-racial marriage. The rights of a few should never be left up to the vote of the majority... otherwise, bigots will never allow equality of any kind.
Can you back your reasoning up with a valid and intelligent reason? I would love to hear it.
Your ignorance makes me sick... Get a life and get over it... We're all human and stuck on this same small unimportant speck in the universe. Who gave you or anyone else the right to say what is good or bad for someone else. I'm Gay, I'm Proud, and I'm getting married to my man. Your groups waste of tax dollars and common sence is repulsive.
people like you make me sick. Im a lesbian and my wife and I have a child. People like you are going to burn in hell. SIN holds NO weight with god, therefor your sin is no more or less worse then mine. If you
When NY passed the bill to give the right for Gays to marry the next day we saw pictures of couples who had been together for 30, 40, 50 years finally getting the chance to marry. It was beautiful. No couple of consenting adults should be denied the right to marry regardless of color, religion, or sex.
Totally agree. These people should keep their private lives private. I don't know why homosexual people feel the need to put themselves on display. It's the Roman empire all over again. Check your history before you bash my comments.
Just giving an opinion about something does not make one a hater. I see a lot more hate coming from the left then anywhere. You people dont get on here much or else you close your eyes to all of the hate against Christians, its repulsive the things they say, but that's ok, the bible says that whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. The bible also says that if they hate God, that they will also hate Christians, its not us you hate but what we stand for. And yes, we will all stand before God and give an account to Him for the wrong we have done, but the difference is have we given our hearts to God, or are we just trying to do good works to make it to heaven. You will never get it why Christians tell you it is wrong to be gay, we care about your soul, do you care about ours????
@ Steve N, how are they "putting themselves on display" by wanting to get married? Why should two consenting adults that love each other have to hide it? You sir can take your bigotry elsewhere, it's not wanted here.
@JasmineW,
Aren't the homosexuals on display on TV? Don't the celebrity homosexuals make it a point to 'come out' in the public eye? It's no secret that TV has become more and more homosexual and the programmers have made it a point to display these tendencies.
Lol, what? Homosexuals should keep their private lives private? Homosexuals do all of the same things that straight people do; they kiss, they have sex, they have families, they go out to dinner, etc. By that statement, I think all straight people should keep their private lives private, too. Then we can -all- be the boring, obedient sheep that conservatives would like us to be. :D
I'm a black person because that's the way GOD made me. I had no choice in the matter. But homosexuality is a choice and always will be a choice. So I wish u idiots stop comparing the African American civil rights movements.
^^That guy. :) "ghettos".
Lou- Curious to know how you feel about a child that was born when a man and his wife were happily married. Then the man or wife comes out as homosexual, they divorce, and are now in a homosexual relationship. Do you rip the child out of that persons life? Does that child no longer get to see their mother/father again? How do you decide where to draw the line?
I will never understand your mindset. "Land of the Free!"...unless you love someone of the same sex. THEN NO RIGHTS FOR YOU!
Sad.
Steve- I argue the fact that it is a choice. I know (although I am not gay) that it isn't. I lived with a gay man. He was my best friend. When all my 18 yr. old girlfriends REPEATEDLY tried to sleep with him, he denied them. They begged. Pleaded. Said they wouldn't tell. He refused. When they took off their clothes and smothered him he had a panic attack. It is NOT a choice. Did you choose to be heterosexual? Please tell me when it was that you said, "you know what...I'm going to go with girls on this one."
"You can't turn a gay man straight, girls. Stop trying"-My mom. :)
I DEMAND to have my right to impose my personal beliefs upon complete strangers!
How are gays demanding equal rights imposing their beliefs on you? You DO NOT have to get married to anyone (same sex or not).
I was being sarcastic, but I'm glad you were able to make the statement I was implying; shows some people have functioning and rational minds.
People that care this deeply about what other people, complete strangers, do with their lives should feel ashamed. Homosexuals aren't pushing into these other people lives, they are demanding equality; the opposition wants to keep them as second class citizens and that is disgusting.
I guess the voter's got screwed...not suprising, but I sure feel sorry for moral majority that voted against it.
How is the restriction of personal rights of the minority at the hands of the majority ever moral?
When the minority right to perverse behavior affects the majority right to vote against it....move on pal!
That's what the Klan and White Citizens Councils said about federal laws protecting minorities in the South. You might want to choose an argument that's both moral, and will stand up in court. Thanks for playing!
Color is not perverse, nor does your argument define what moral is and is not...what is your reference? Try again, and thanks for playing!
Perversion is a matter of opinion. And you dont get to decide.
So since perversion is merely a matter of opinion then I guess Peeping Toms and Exhibitionists aren't perverts because it is all a matter of opinion right?
Oh and marriage is not a civil right, if it were then one person could sue another after a divorce on the grounds the person that filed for divorve violated their right to be married to whomever they wanted.
How is what a homosexual couple does in the bedroom any more perverse than what a heterosexual couple does in the bedroom?
You're right marriage isn't a civil right--it's a fundamental right that is guaranteed by the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution. And if you had ever read actually read the Constitution, you might understand that it's an inherently undemocratic document, because in essence it constructs a system to limit the power of the masses. This decision shows that the system the founder's designed is working
Good luck having your cat sign the marriage certificate!
Thank you, Thinkforyourself. It's not the topic of same-sex marriage that concerns me - it's the "mob mentality" of many in this discussion thread and around the country that worries me and how quick (and even scarier, how eager - just think of Smeegle...I think that's how you spell his name...from Lord of the Rings) they are to snatch away someone else's constitutional protections. Most Americans, sadly, have no understanding of our Constitution and just what it was meant to do. It was the craziest and gutsiest thing to do on planet Earth in 1787 and it's just as crazy an idea now - freedom, equal protection, protection of "minorities" from the "majority", female suffrage (no joke - Saudi Arabia never got the memo), etc. Many Americans confuse "majority rules" with "democracy" and "freedom/liberty". Well, ask the folks in CA if they got "freedom/liberty" when "majority rules", which, in the minds of the "defenders of marriage" equals "democracy", represented the "will of the majority" to deprive a minority of equal protection under the law, a small, insignificant detail the same-sex marriage haters conveniently overlook.
I can honestly say, by skimming through just this discussion thread, that most of them have no intention of embracing the notion that all of us...not just straight people...not just evangelical Christians...not just far-right Republicans...not just bleeding-heart liberals...or Madonna...or Snooki...deserve the right to equal protection and due process. Being a military veteran, the saying "freedom isn't free" comes to mind here (different situation, but sorta like it.) The CA legislature first passed the bill to allow same-sex marriage, but vigilance was required to keep the "majority" at bay. In the end, it didn't matter, and the evolution of the Constitution took three steps back.
You can pass a law that extends constitutional protections, but keep looking over your shoulder and never let your guard down. One day you may have to throw down to protect something you thought was already yours.
But I don't think the cat-dog marriage thing will ever work out. They go through a bitter divorce, CA is a community-property state, so of course the CAT will get over 50% of the dog's Kibble-'n-Bits-'n-Bits'n-Bits and all of the doghouse...it just won't work out. But, if the dog and cat are both male or female, it could stand a chance in the courts. I think the SPCA should file an amicus curiae brief on behalf of all disenfranchised same-sex dog-cat couples up and down the state of California. But those humans (I think they're human) who don't have the genetic propensity to form basic syntax and make some semblance of sense in a sentence should not only be denied a marriage certificate (for a same-sex OR opposite-sex marriage), they should also be spayed or neutered, right then and there in line at the city clerk's office. You know the SPCA and the Humane Society are down for that kind of law.
Now there is a real surprise! I'm sure the SCOTUS decision will be just as surprising! Why can the courts focus on something really important - like prisoner lawsuits or something.
Still faggots . And marriage is between a man and a woman. period. Humanity. Plain and simple ! This redneck won't budge ! What is at stake is the welfare of our children and future generations.
Come on over here, Brice. One of my kids is a "faggot." Those are fighting words, and there's nothing worse than when Mama gets mad.
What a sad excuse for a human (and I'd bet a good, ole christian) you are. I know asking you bigots to explain yourselves is a wash but what EXACTLY has Gay marriage got to do with the welfare of your or anyone elses children much less 'future generations'? Ya'll need to look at that log in your own eye before checking out the splinter in mine. That said I do wish the best for you and your oh-so lucky children. (Damm I'm glad I didn't grow up in home run by someone like this guy!)
Brice is just plain sick... This poor excuse for a human needs serious help with his issues. Hope a really cute gay couple move in next door, in fact hope his whole neighborhood becomes gay and married real soon.
Now that you have made that strong statement go back to the trailor court and drink a cheap beer and know that you have zero clue how the constitution and the bill of rights function. Brice, seriously, you and your persepctive is the REAL issue in the U.S. Take away rights because YOU lack the compassion of Jesus Christ and the IQ of a burnt piece of toast. This is nolt the way to run a nation. Good luck, you need it.
Thanks Brice, I know that white trash haven't much changed for 200 years. You done good.
Oh, Bryce! Hahaha "This redneck won't budge ! What is at stake is the welfare of our children and future generations". Don't worry, our marriage won't take away your 'welfare' check. LOL Get over yourself and step into the new millenium!
Bruce does look like the poster child for the reason to use a condom.
Brice-3168138, please refrain from using gay slurs in your post. You are suspended for a day for violating rule # 5 of the Code of Honor.
When are they going to let a cat and dog get marry same sex .
Are you that unintelligent that you cannot differentiate the difference between human and animal?
Homosexuals can't seem to differentiate what certain parts of the body are intended for and aren't intended for....
ConservativeNotRepublican-2806513 <--- A leading example of why America is in decline.
oh i thought it was the doubling of the debt that obama has done or the passing of that monstrous healthcare bill or maybe even that 48% of the population doesn't even pay taxes.
No, Conservative, you were wrong. It's actually backwards-thinking, fundamentalist, puritanical, bigoted thinking that's ruining the country. Healthcare for everyone probably won't take down the United States. That's just my guess.
But in all honesty, you've actually done everyone a service here, by laying bare what this is REALLY all about. It's not about the supposed "sanctity of marriage" or "redefining cultural norms" or "a slippery slope that will lead to polygamy" or even conservatives' favorite scare tactic that's never going to happen, "a decision that will lead to people marrying animals."
What it's REALLY all about is certain people finding the notion of anal intercourse "icky." Let's just get it out there. For a lot of people, that's really all it boils down to. Fine, fair enough. There are any number of sexual things people do with each other that I'd find odd, distasteful, or bizarre. But guess what? What consenting adults do in private is none of my damn business! Period. No debate. I don't get a say in what freaky things they do with or to each other.
So, with exhaustive studies and even more anecdotal evidence to prove that gay marriage does NOT harm society, does NOT harm children, and does NOT in any way devalue, erode, or change heterosexual marriage, and with the very clear precedents that a person's religious views cannot be codified into public law, all you're really left with is this: "EEEWWW!"
And that's just not good enough to justify discriminating against an entire group of people.
Once again liberal judges forcing the will of a few, onto the masses.
Why aren't you libtards, crying separation of Church and State? Marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution.
So I guess, miss reading the First Amendment, only works when it's in your FU favor.
You can call it anything you want in your church. No one is stopping you, the trouble is "marriage" also carries benefitsin the secular world, you may not infringe on those.
Actually, Dan Moore, marriage is a contract. You don't go to the church to get your marriage license, you go to your city registrar. If it were a RELIGIOUS institution, no one would be able to get married by a Justice of the Peace or by a Mayor or by a ship Captain...
"Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged."
This whole thread is rife with ignorance...glad to see common sense prevail and that we can now afford all the same opportunity to be miserable.
Dan Moore, what exactly is being "forced" onto the masses? How exactly does this affect anyone other than the men and women who wish to legally marry their partners? Tell me, how has YOUR own life been changed by same-sex marriages?
With 50% of marriages ending in Divorce, I would think that alone ruins the sanctity of marriage. And you cant blame gays for that.........the best thing is that whether you like it or not times are changing and our founding fathers can roll around in their wigs in their graves as much as they want.....deal with it!
Would someone please explain to me how people of the same sex marrying will destroy the sanctity of marriage? Sorry, but I just don't see it. I'm heterosexual, married, and I live in Massachusetts and it sure doesn't bother me that my same sex neighbors are married, too. Their marriage has no affect on my marriage whatsoever. How could it? I'm happy for them and I'm happy about this ruling. Now when will all these other neanderthals get it? Oh, and for what it's worth, I'm an Independent, my husband is a Republican (used to be a Dem. years ago) and we're both Pro-Choice. I truly believe in voting my conscience and it upsets me that the right and the left are so polarized. People automatically assume that if you're a Rep. you're anti-choice and against gay marriage. Not true! I feel that the majority of people on this planet (if they really search their souls) want people to be able to marry who they want.
marriage is not a religious insitution. The only legal marriage is done by the state, you have have a religious ceremony but unless you are married by the state also it is not legal.
No, marriage in the United States is NOT a religious institution - it is a state-level contractual arrangement. Religious bodies have NO say as to the legality of a marriage and cannot and do not give their (legal) imprimatur to such arrangements. Please do not believe that "thinking it makes it so".
Also, do not confuse the "will of the masses" with "constitutional"; just because a "majority" votes on something does not make it "constitutional" nor does it make it "right". The "majority" is NOT always right, and the courts have repeatedly (though not always evenly) struck down laws which do not pass Constitutional muster (i.e., infringes on basic constitutional protections) whether passed in legislatures or by referendum to address that problem. That is what the judicial system is there for - if necessary - to overrule the "masses" to correct a Constitutional violation.
In this case thus far, the 9th Circuit Court panel has ruled that:
1) basic Constitutional protections are not up for "popular" vote;
2) Prop. 8 (EVEN IF seven million Californians voted for it) violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment at state level ("no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws") and the 5th Amendment at the federal level under incorporation of the 14th ("[No] person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"). The fact that the California State Legislature granted the right to marry to same-sex couples (as is the prerogative of the legislature) only to have said right REPEALED goes against the very heart of the Equal Protection Clause and equal protection in both the 5th AND the 14th Amendments;
3) Proponents of the law have not demonstrated what harm to society would be caused by granting the right of marriage to same-sex couples; whatever resultant benefit to society notwithstanding, the 9th Circuit panel DID point out that the only thing such a vote did cause was the harm caused to those involved in same-sex marriages to be considered for equal protection under the law - in this case, gay men and lesbians (and maybe transgendered citizens, too) were categorically excluded from such consideration and denied due process to have their rights considered. The only purpose of the law was to deny gay men, lesbians, bisexual, and transgendered citizens equal protection under the law - pure and simple, so ruled the court.
Let's rededicate ourselves to upholding and defending the Constitution and its protections for ALL Americans and not only for the ones we "like". Don't think that just because a million people vote for or against something - especially if its a question of civil rights and liberties - makes it right. It doesn't. The "tyranny of the majority" is one thing the Founding Fathers kept in mind - the "minority", however defined, is at the mercy of the "mob" and their protection under the law can be, has been, and is currently threatened by the whim of the "majority". Either you support full Constitutional protection and consideration for all Americans under the law or you do not.
Just keep in mind that the "mob" you see yourself as a part of and the "will of the majority" you subscribe to can, tomorrow, turn on you in a heartbeat, and THEN you'd be singing a different tune.
Well said, morfiliwr. Intelligent, succinct yet thorough, and persuasive.
Then you get this sort of debate from the other side:
Not only is it ridiculous, it doesn't even make grammatical sense.
Well, well, well...I guess our voting twice against same sex marriage doesn't mean anything!!! It's really very sad for Americans who believe in traditional marriage between a Man & a Woman. Let me say that again...marriage between a Man & Woman. You liberals and let me say that again...you liberals who support same sex marriage will all be responsible for same sex commercials, more same sex TV shows, more same sex education shoved in our childrens faces. But let be clear our traditional marriage beliefs doesn't make a difference because we all know who controls the media and who controls Hollywood...LIBERALS. God help us all, or LORD God help us all.
Traditional marriage is dead. You can thank horny heterosexuals for it.
So what, it's called "equality".
Lorraine, you are so right. What I don't understand is how a man and a woman can vow to God they will love and cherish their partner and their marriage until death do they part. Then they forget all about that and get a divorce and do it all over again and again and again and again and again and again and again.
@Lorraine
Yes because letting gays get married will make everyone want to see same sex everything, on TV ,Books, Classrooms, please Lord/ or Lord God, give this women some brains. it's 2012 not 1950.
"But let be clear our traditional marriage beliefs doesn't make a difference"
They doesn't, doesn't they? What kind of moonshine are they feeding you there at Westboro Baptist Church? Lorraine, the whole civilized world is watching, smiling, as you sink slowly into your tar pit. Buh-bye.
Marriage is not a religious institution. You do not have to be married by the clergy you just have to file the correct document with the state. And if you are married by the clergy, and the clergy still does not register the legal document with the state - you are not legally married.
Equal rights should never be put up to popular vote.
@ Lorraine your kidding right?...surely you must be..."the people" voted on something that was clearly unconstitutional to begin with...I recall we have addressed the issue of equal rights before. Ive been married for twenty years and same sex marriage takes away nothing from mine..none of my rights are being taken away..they deserve the same rights as everyone else. "Traditional marriage" ...really?.. Who is to say what that is anymore?...and Marriage is a legal contract..not a religious one. Why should your beliefs be more important then anyone Else's? I have raised my children to believe that everyone has a right to there personal beliefs and we are in no place to judge them..if there is something I feel they shouldn't see I change the channel!..simple..Its sad to see religion and judgmental bigotry so intertwined...I fear the true message may have been lost.
This is the deal here, Hollywood has wimped out, there are no real men in Hollywood anymore. In fact a huge percentage of men in this world has wimped out, peer pressure and fear has cause that!!!!
In order to come up with a right to marriage corruption in California the most overturned appellate jurist in U.S. history had to base his finding on heightened scrutiny. The Supreme Court of the United States has well over forty years of precedence that dictates Rational Basis as the correct standard in which to address cases of this type; in addition to well over two hundred years of precedence that clearly state that procreation is a rational basis to limit the benefits of marriage to unions of one man and one woman.
You have to admit; this makes for good theater, but we have seen this play before. The final act will undoubtedly have all the tragedy of a Shakespeare classic with the helpless hero left standing in the void trying to rationalize why his progressive world view went so horribly wrong.
Lorraine, I agree with you on all counts. Liberals are the meanest people I know. They do more name calling and say the most horrible things if you don't agree with them. EVERYONE has a right to their opinion and beliefs. They are all for voicing an opinon but only if you agree with them. Talk about intolerant!!!!
To..Deanna"""
Love how the right squawks like castrated roosters and plucked hens when they get back a little of what they been dishing out for decades...
Deanna-3970933
You are so correct, it is the liberals who failing logical explanations for thier positions resort to grade schoolyard name calling and nasty remarks. Maybe all liberals were bullies in school. Wouldn't it be grand if all the liberals moved to California. Although it would be very sad for the minority of sane people that live there.
I'm not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination and I SUPPORT SAME SEX MARRIAGE. So does my husband and he's a REPUBLICAN, Lorraine!
Dear “Shaking my Head”. Can you properly define the political terms Conservative and Liberal. Was Hitler and the Nazi party liberal or conservative?
The only court that matters is God's. God says homosexuality is an abomination.
Good thing your God doesn't make our laws. Plus, prove he exists anyway.
Jesus said to love your neighbor
I have no issue with homosexuals wanting to be in a long term committed relationship. I think part of the problem is that they insist that their union be legally recognized and they want to call that union a marriage. My thought on this is lets allow a legal union between homosexuals with all the same benefits as a heterosexual marriage but why not call it a civil union or something of that nature since a large number of people have a problem with it being called a marriage. Maybe if we call it something other than a marriage then it would set better with the part of the population that don't want it to be a marriage. Just Sayin'
legal marriage can only be performed by the state. So you want different titled paperwork for the same legal contract?
TJ, the Bible says a good many things are abominations.... like eating shell fish and divorcing your mate. Guess the gays are going to have lots of company on the crazy train to Hell, LOL.
yes good for the court to finaly see prop eight as nothing but a piece of crap that there only purpose is to give bigots and homophobes the right to make gay people second class citizens by denying them their basic right as citizens to marry. and should be fun to hear what argument the supporters of the piece of crap prop eight use to justify it be put back in place to the u.s supreme court. which also means now that maybe the defense of marriage act days could hopefully also be numbered. yay for the judges to strike down another bigoted piece of crap legislation.
Awww...too bad, right-wing nutjobs and bible-thumpers.
That's got to sting a bit.
It does Mr. Rump Ranger...but not as much when you apply vasoline liberally, or was that liberal, I can't remember.
You're just mad Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed.
AmericanSoldier-1929698 Keep suppressing those urges. You don't have to come out of the closet, to stay in the foxhole !
Was glad to of served and would again...mad no, disappointed YES! Having said that, if put to a vote like in Cal, the outcome would have been the same, but then again some judge that has never doned the uniform would have come in and did the same....something you liberals know about.
FYI, there's gays in the military.
And they're watching you shower.
Soldiers. Fighting for the rights of everyone...except if you're gay, then we won't fight for you.
Is that how it is for you "American" Soldier?
Only the religious and uneducated will fight for the tradition of marriage. Hell even the highest ranking clergy practice HOMOSEXUALITY (but with children not consenting ADULTS) everyday. Lets fight and torment all of those that our mother goose story doesn't follow or accept. Lets not allow anyone but the religious be happy and equal.ONLY the clergy can be a Homosexuals not the everyday person,PUT GODS wrath on anyone who would marry the same gender, and the let them burn in purgatory.
I guess your title says it all, slip back into the hole you creeped out of.
So you want me in your foxhole?
Wayne, I've fought for all, to include murder's, audulter's, etc... and yes even your right to disagree. Perhaps you know something about that kind of service, yes?
That would be "crept". Schooling is very important if you're to participate in big conversations.
I do, very well. I was Navy. ;)
I guess same Bible told men and women to multiply. Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
having one state dedicated to same sex / like minded people and visiting them after 50 years to see their progess in the areas of faithfulness, population. May be that can help and inspire fallen world of today.
Wayne, I should have figured you as a Navy guy...what was I thinking.
You just lost all credibility with that statement. When you grow up, come back and play with the big boys.
Don't forget it is the 9th circuit .
Not sure what that has to do with anything. The 9th circuit is, by far, the largest of all the federal appellate courts. They also review substantially more cases every year than any of the others.