California Supreme Court strikes down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional., page 5

privacy

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 06:39 PM by TKainZero

Originally posted by WickedStar
reply to post by TKainZero

Can you give one healthy aspect of heterosexuality?

Promation of the speices thru both genetic sharing and diveristy.

Passing on of both Genes, and more NEW members of a spices is vitale to the long-term succses of the Species.

A speices that does not repriduce, WILL not survive.

[edit on 5/15/2008 by TKainZero]

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 06:49 PM by TKainZero

I am going to keep stating the MAIN point of what happen today, until people realise it.

Today, 4 Judges overturned the Vote of the People of California.

This is fact. This is what happen.

There is precident in history of incideneces where rather then going to the people on an issue, the issue is given to Judges, Judges put in place by the people in power.

Getting Judges to alter law has happen MANY times in HISTORY. This is what has happen today.

Today is a definite step into a direction. The force behind that, is that of the Powers that be. Make no mistake, this is how we, as a nation, are dying.

When Judges overrule the people.

This is not a Gay issue, this is the Court Overruling the peopl.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 06:59 PM by Annee

Originally posted by TKainZero

In this issue, the court has overruled the People of California. Thats the more important issue here.

Christians have launched a valiant effort to make this countries government a theocracy.

As to date - and by Constitution - that has not happened and is never going to happen.

So when people vote their "beliefs" rather then Equality by Law - - they MUST be over ruled.

The People's Vote was deemed unconstitutional - - as it should be.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 07:02 PM by Annee

Originally posted by TKainZero

Originally posted by WickedStar
reply to post by TKainZero

Can you give one healthy aspect of heterosexuality?

Promation of the speices thru both genetic sharing and diveristy.

Passing on of both Genes, and more NEW members of a spices is vitale to the long-term succses of the Species.

A speices that does not repriduce, WILL not survive.

[edit on 5/15/2008 by TKainZero]

I hope this doesn't come as a shock to you - - but homosexual can reproduce. There "reproductive organs" are no different then heterosexuals.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 07:40 PM by All-Natural

I'm happy for the homosexual couples. For the people who say it's not natural... let me ask you this... what is so unnatural about love?

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 08:20 PM by WickedStar

reply to post by TKainZero

I will be back before the night is over to answer you in a more detailed way. For now, I have to do some family stuff. However, if propagation of the species is the best you can come up with concerning the healthy attributes of heterosexuality then you need to do far better.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 08:23 PM by 44soulslayer

reply to post by TKainZero

Which is why this was a good ruling.

The imposition of the will of the majority on the minority in any scenario is an abhorrent relic of proselytic zeal.

It is the major failing of democracy that 51% can impose themselves upon 49% of the population.

Sometimes it takes the wisdom of legal experts to overturn the populist agenda. That is the precise reason why America has a legal branch of power.

Democracy must be kept in check by the executive and legal branches. Glad to see that the supreme court of California has done a fine job in battling a pointless and unconstitutional bit of legislation. Hopefully the supreme court in washington will not interfere in this issue (as it is States rights in my opinion).

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 08:46 PM by Bunch

reply to post by 44soulslayer

Becareful what you wish for because today you might be on the happy side of one of these decisions but tomorrow you might find on the other side.

People, it is a fine line when you have judges legislating from the bench, California is a pretty liberal state to say the least, but what do you think the vote is going to be when this reaches the Supreme Court and sits on the lap of all the conservative and moderate judges that sit on that bench?

Now, for all the liberals here how do you guys felt when the Supreme Court stop the recount in Florida? virtually giving George W. Bush the presidency in a silver platter. Now many of you are glad that see the Court once again step out of their boundaries and overule the people?!!

I dont want the courts deciding what the people should want or not, is up to the people and lets democracy do their work. Slavery whats not abolish on the courts, women rights or african american rights were not obtain on the courts although they play a big part it was finally up to our elected representative to move on the issue.

I think this decision has zero chance of being upheld if its presented in the Supreme Court and then people that support this are going to be whining about how President Bush and his judges dont respect the States Courts, and my counter arguement to that will be that the California Court didnt respect the wishes of their citizens.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 09:05 PM by Bhadhidar

In a civil society, the Purpose of Law is Not to promote the will of the majority but To Protect the Rights of the Minority!

To claim that "the will of the people has been usurped by a handful of Judges" is to harbor the belief that the Might of sheer numbers makes their plebicite somehow more Right than the Fundemental Rights granted to All Humans by Virtue of their Birth.

These Judeges did not contradict "the will of the people"; on the contrary, they vouchsafed the most basic will of the the very people now condemning them:

The Right to be Treated Equally under the Law.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 09:16 PM by Bunch

reply to post by Bhadhidar

Great post!! View from that perspective I believe then that you are right. Still worries me the fact that we DO have many activist judges sitting on benches around the country. Like you said they supposed to adhere to law no to whatever personal views they have on issues, I think that was the point that I was trying to make.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 10:02 PM by nataylor

How is upholding the State Constituion "legislating from the bench?" If the people of California want to impose a ban on same-sex marriage, they should not have passed an unconstitutional proposition. All they need to do is amend the State Constitution if they really want their ban. That can also be passed by a state-wide referendum. They just went about this in the wrong way, and the judges rightly determined that.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 10:13 PM by nataylor

Oh, I should also add that I doubt this will ever make it to the SCOTUS. This is entirely a state issue. I don't see any federal issue involved here.

Edit: Here's a quote from the original article. This isn't ever going to be heard by the SCOTUS:

A constitutional amendment initiative specifying that marriage is only between a man and a woman is awaiting verification by the secretary of state's office after its sponsors said they had gathered enough signatures to place it on the statewide ballot. The parties cannot appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Herrera said, as federal courts do not have jurisdiction over the state laws. "This is the final say," he said.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by nataylor]

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 10:22 PM by Annee

Originally posted by nataylor
How is upholding the State Constituion "legislating from the bench?" If the people of California want to impose a ban on same-sex marriage, they should not have passed an unconstitutional proposition. All they need to do is amend the State Constitution if they really want their ban. That can also be passed by a state-wide referendum. They just went about this in the wrong way, and the judges rightly determined that.

Oh Trust Me - - that is exactly what the "anti's" are talking about doing now.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 10:44 PM by WickedStar

reply to post by TKainZero

Ok, lets roll. First off, I hardly think that the human race will cease to exist because 10% (a generous Kinsey Institute estimate) does not reproduce. 10% of 6.6 billion people leaves PLENTY to reproduce. Secondly, there are increasingly more and more heterosexual people who choose not to reproduce. So, if you really have a bone to pick - confront the non-breeding heterosexuals.

As for the advantages of being homosexual:
Physiologically speaking, recent developments in neuroscience suggest that the average homosexual male probably has a more efficient brain in terms of hemispheric communication, and has either left and right brain strengths or attributes. The average male heterosexual has the more specialized attributes of a right brain, but is less efficient.

This suggests that having a brain that is organized in a way that allows for greater facility with words and language and overall efficiency in terms of transfer of information from one hemisphere to the other. It likely means being more intuitive, being more sensitive, and being more aware of others feelings. It likely means being less aggressive in terms of territory, less dominating, but more protective of family and kin (or significant others). It likely means being more nurturing and caring, being more adept at looking after children and being more concerned about the sick, weak and elderly. All of these traits or characteristics, of course, are strengths. It means that homosexual males may have the best of both worlds with well defined visuospatial abilities characteristic of most heterosexual males, but also have well defined verbal/language skills, intuition, sensitivity, creativity and nurturing abilities.- Lorne Warneke, M.D.

Sociologically speaking, because homosexuals endure near constant attack from their social environment, those who survive adolescence are much more likely to be fully realized and independent. To survive, one must develop a strong inner strength. It means developing strong bonds and loyalties to others who are the same. This experience also allows for a greater empathy and sensitivity to others who belong to other minority groups. It also allows for a greater sense of tolerance and acceptance of everyone in society regardless of their differences.

Finally:
[size=1]The role of the homosexual in so-called primitive societies reinforces some of these concepts. In traditional Navajo culture (untarnished by Christian attitudes) there is the 'Nadle', a word meaning 'one who is transformed'. These were androgynous males of that society that is they had male and female qualities. Navajo families who had a child who behaved androgynously (have some female attributes) were considered to be very fortunate and felt that their success and fortune was assured. Most if not all of these androgynous children were homosexual. As adults, they became 'Nadle', were regarded as being sacred and holy and were given great respect. In other primitive societies, androgynous men were referred to as Berdache by early explorers. They were often regarded as shamans or sacred people. The Winktes (meaning half woman half man in the Dakota language), of an Indian tribe in South Dakota were healers, spending their time helping others, visiting and comforting the ill and the elderly. The Cheyenne berdache were regarded as noted and valued matchmakers. In Hawaii and Tahiti, androgynous males were and still are called Mahu, and in Samoa, they are called fa' afafine. In these cultures, such individuals take care of the elderly and the sick. The Nadle of the Navajo tribe were also regarded as being great with children, being very adept at parenting and nurturing. The berdache of most primitive societies often became parents through adoption of orphans, or aided other parents in the care of their children. Berdache were highly productive at both women's and men's work and became renowned at being cooks, producing handicrafts as well as having a good business or management sense. The berdache (read homosexual males) were also well known for being hard workers, productive, intelligent and sensitive. Likewise, the mythical Amazons (read female homosexuals) of Greek legend were admired for their skills in hunting and fighting as well as being leaders. Most of these societies recognized that the berdache and the Amazons (a term applied to very masculine females that were seen in these societies) were homosexual. However, this was not an issue. Sexuality was seen as a gift from the spirit world, whereas the social behaviours of the berdache were regarded as an asset. This is in sharp contrast to the Western 'civilized' world where homosexuality is condemned by the Church and by society in general! The Navajo's joy of having an androgynous child (homosexual) is in sharp contrast to the pain, anguish and rejection of most Western families when they learn that one of their offspring is homosexual![/size] - Lorne Warneke, M.D.

So, ask you can see, there are plenty of healthy and positive attributes to being homosexual. I'd be glad to discuss these further if you wish.

[edit on 15/5/08 by WickedStar]

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 11:05 PM by Rubyteacup

I believe that in a society there has to be separation between church and state. I realize it isn't totally that way because each person has their own religious beliefs. However, equal rights for all must be foremost in everyone's mind or we cannot claim to be a democratic society.

This is a copy of an email I received from the ACLU:

Dear ACLU Supporter,Dear ACLU Supporter,

We just got some exciting news that I wanted to share with you right away.

As you know, the ACLU has long worked to promote equality and to eliminate all forms of discrimination including laws that try to tell people how to live their lives and who to love. And today, in a strong and well-reasoned decision, the California Supreme Court made one of the most significant decisions ever in the struggle for gay equality.

Below is a message from Matt Coles, Director of the ACLU’s LGBT Project, outlining the significance of this important victory. I hope you’ll pass it on and help us share this great news far and wide. As Matt makes clear, the fight is far from over and there is much work left to be done. To find out how you can help, visit the ACLU’s new online activist toolkit, Get Busy, Get Equal, at: www.aclu.org/getequal

Thanks for standing with us.

Sincerely,

Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director, ACLU

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 11:50 PM by paperplanes

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not natural distinctions, but rather societal distinctions peculiar to the human species. Elsewhere in nature, there is an "anything goes" attitude, where sex is used for bartering, conflict resolution, group bonding, dominance and other purposes. This is not an aberrant occurrence but rather very common, having been observed in more than 1500 species and well described in several hundred species (www.news-medical.net...). To argue that homosexual behaviors are in defiance of
nature is to ignore a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Thankfully, humans are advanced enough to be able to identify which naturally-occurring sexual behaviors are detrimental to human society, and thereby prohibit them. Homosexuality remains in the “benign” category of human sexual behavior, alongside heterosexuality. But nonetheless, there are other arguments in the opposition’s arsenal, which I will address further on.

One oft-cited reason to discourage homosexual behavior is that it is in violation of a putative god-given rule that limits marriage to a man and a woman. The trouble is, to which god (and religion) do we look to when writing our laws? Outside of a theocracy, laws are not to be dictated by any religious book, no matter how many individuals hold it to be true. To do so would be to violate the will of the great number of individuals who do not adhere to the particular religion's rules. Religously-guided laws are tantamount to "mob rule"--a terrifying prospect in any matter, but particularly when it influences the harmless private liberties of citizens.

It is likewise futile to argue that marriage exists for the cause of procreation. Marriage is not a biologically-based institution; it is a system based upon the emotional and intellectual processes of human beings--it needs no biological justification. Arguing that successful reproduction is necessary for marriage would, by default, argue against the marriage of infertile couples. Many infertile couples find no success with fertility treatments and must opt for adoption. In these very common situations, the couple is unable to add to the human population, but no sensible person would deny them the right to marry on
the simple basis of an inability to procreate. The argument against gay marriage on the basis of procreation is therefore moot.

But above all, I find that the most compelling reason to allow gay marriage is that there is simply no constitutional reason to prevent it. The laws of the United States are in place to protect the liberties of the people. Gay marriage is not in violation of anyone's liberties (can an opponent please cite a personal injury they will incur if homosexual couples marry? "It violates my personal ethics" is not admissable.). In contrast, banning gay marriage is a direct violation of the personal liberty of millions of consenting adults. When anything is rightfully outlawed, it is because its encouragement would be to the detriment of society as a whole. If you wish to crusade against the factors that are ruining society, you really ought to look elsewhere--I can think of a great number that do far more damage than homosexual marriage could ever hope to do.

When Californians voted to ban gay marriage, they did so in violation of a great number of fellow citizens. This is precisely why their motion OUGHT to have been overruled. Americans, of all people, should not be in the business of supporting a violation of personal liberty.

As an aside, I must directly address the rather ill-developed argument floating around this thread: allowing homosexual marriage will not undermine heterosexual marriage or procreation. It is simply an allowance for every American citizen, regardless of their sexuality, to participate in a marriage between two consenting adults. TKainZero's remark that "a species that does not reproduce will not survive" has no effect upon the argument of homosexual marriage. No one is arguing that humans cease to reproduce. Gay marriage is not the end to heterosexuality, by any means—humans will continue to procreate and form heterosexual unions.

Gay marriage is not a gateway for the legalization of incest, polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality or any other deleterious relationship an opponent can think of. The reason? Homosexual marriage in this instance is an emotionally equalized union between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. Things like pedophilia, bestiality, incest and polygamy are by their very nature unequal, as these instances lack the necessary balance of power and/or mental capacity. The relationship between two consenting adults humans is not the same as a relationship between a dog and a human, an underage child and an adult, or the polygamous union between ten women and a man.

[edit on 16-5-2008 by paperplanes]

reply posted on 16-5-2008 @ 12:08 AM by Annee

Thank you WickedStar

I had previously read about the Navajo's belief relating to homosexuals.

That was a great post.

reply posted on 16-5-2008 @ 12:38 AM by WickedStar

My pleasure. You know, the moral question of homosexuality comes up frequently and I have far too often not answered. I felt it time to answer.