California Prop 8 outlawing gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

Seriously you guys are wasting your time getting angry. I never said I have anything against gay people. I was kidding. In fact I love gay culture, I wish straight people would act more like gay people.

Originally posted by 19872012
Seriously you guys are wasting your time getting angry. I never said I have anything against gay people. I was kidding. In fact I love gay culture, I wish straight people would act more like gay people.

OK. I'm actually straight.

But I can love you anyway

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
The judge upholding the Constitution is now a dictator? By what logic?

By intolerant, hateful logic.

If there is a God, and there is. If judgment comes in the 'End of Days', and it will. Will the wicked curse God when the sun scorches the earth? oh yeah.

God's Wrath Against Mankind
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

just sayin'

Originally posted by itguysrule
I would not be opposed to gay marriage if we could just legalize gay marriage and be done with it. If I don't have to be directly involved then I can live with it. The problem is that many of the gay "activists" who promote gay marriage really want to force their beliefs on other people. If gay marriage is legalized nationwide then there will immediately be law suits filed against churches everywhere for violating laws and being discriminatory. Unlike gay marriage, freedom of religion IS a right defined in the US constitution. The reason many religious people like myself oppose gay marriage is NOT to be discriminatory but rather to defend against the further and increased attacks against religion in general that will follow.

The judge was right!

Fact is there's idiots that run around and protest against gay people. There's idiots that run around and protest that they are gay people. The only thing the point this thread has confirmed for me is ... there are freaking idiots!

And all the little catch phrases and stuff ... Implications that after gay marriage it'll be legal suits and moving on to try and allow marriage between man and dolphin as if life is a moving South Park episode.

Face it persons, if we were allowed to vote on everything chances are we would legalise being hot and lesbian by 2% majority vote win, put an end to gay male sex, and likely ban people who indulge in BDSM from having children and teaching our kids. And some of our 'greatest' historical figures had some pretty random vices. Does this make them less great? No it makes them a human with wants and desires.

The majority of people have opinions which if put in places would put half the planet at war with the other half, or cause a huge disaster. You know that war thing we keep trying to prevent? The majority of Americans wanted to go to Iraq, and now not many support the war. People make dumb decisions based on emotions. (IE based on the view that two men kissing is icky!)

I used to be pro-voting and anti-gate keeper but frankly its true that a much smaller percentage of the planet actually bother to take the time to research before making decisions.

People being gay would be a massive non-event if people just treated it like it was. Instead the entire world mobilises over a couple of people making out like teenagers.

Imagine this ... what if TPTB arranged Iraq around this? Bush got voted in because Americans were worried a couple of gays might show up around their Church. Think about that.

Homosexuality doesn't attack the family unit any more than BDSM or swingers parties. People have always dated, have always lived together, and always will until we grow wings or become made of gas.

Anyway, the judge was right. Sexuality is a foot note on what it means to be human and ultimately nothing to do with anyone else. The majority of gay people as far as I know just want everyone else to stop caring, too.

To be honest I think the majority of 'gay' people who 'harrass' Church goers are probably heterosexual teenagers having a lark. There are some goths near where I get lunch who stand around the Church wearing pentagrams to be ironic for example.

My work was sued once over a gay person who thought we didn't give them a job based on sexuality grounds. One of my brother's colleagues accused an employer of being against him because of the false assumption he was Muslim because he looked arabic. One of the artists I work with believes she doesn't get senior comp positions cos she's 'too pretty' and doesn't have enough trashy tattoos. She's going to quit on these grounds.

Jerks are everywhere. Homosexual jerks. Catholic Jerks. Muslim jerks. Jerks. Just jerks.

Originally posted by camaro68ss
whats the point of voting as a state when one person can over turn it? Unconstitutional or not im speeking in the mannor of the voice of a state vs the voice of one judge.

Oh yes, by all means, let's protect unconstitutional votes from the clutches of a judge, who might just do the legal and constitutional thing.
Or would you prefer that if we take a vote to murder you because we don't like your screenname, that there be no recourse?

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by camaro68ss
whats the point of voting as a state when one person can over turn it? Unconstitutional or not im speeking in the mannor of the voice of a state vs the voice of one judge.

Well this is going to go before the 9 that matter. It's not 1 person, it's the SC ruling on the Constitution. The Constitution trumps all. If I'm not wrong there are more conservatives on the SC right now than liberals. 5-4, I think but they will still make the right decision. Not like they are up for reelection. History is their legacy.

yes its 5-4 conservative to lib ratio right now and i dont belive in gay marriage but i do belive the law is unconstitutional. what im trying to say is when the majority of the people want to change law should they have the power to do so?



[edit on 4-8-2010 by camaro68ss]

They do have the right to do so. They keep it from being unconstitutional by amending the constitution. But the bigots and homophobes wanted to take the quick and cheap way out so they dumped all their time and money into a simple prop vote. They probably realized it would be easier to convince one state to undertake an unconstitutional action than to convince the whole country to do so.

reply to post by SWCCFAN

Financial interest is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge stretch here. Try again.

Are you a gun owner by chance? How would you feel about the Constitution if someone were to want to take your guns away.

Or your freedom of speech?

Can't pick and choose just those parts of the Constitution that agree with your own personal moral values.

Also? Attempting to discredit or smear a judge or imply that there is inherent bias here because he is gay is another huge stretch. A gay person can't uphold the Constitution or remain unbiased while doing a job? Interesting.


[edit on 8/5/2010 by ~Lucidity]

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by dolphinfan
I've always wondered what part of the constitution provides the right to marry at all.

Perhaps it is in that whole "pursuit of happiness" business. When you think about it in that way, banning gay marriage certainly seems unconstitutional.

I think this is the last hurdle from our parents and grandparents society. Did you know that they had to make a law saying interracial marriage was legal? I think that was in '46. I'm not sure without checking. Once we have pure seperation of church and state we'll be better off, socially.

The "sanctity of marriage" rubbish is only one thing and that is a desire to harm, by law, homosexuals

Which has no basis in the Constitution.

Actually, the laws they made were to make interracial marriages illegal. It was the Supreme Court that threw out those laws, and it wasn't until 1967, in the aptly named case of Loving v. Virginia. The Supreme Court based its opinion on the Fourteenth Amendment, the same grounds cited by the California Judge.

reply to post by black cat


Because it's easier to get a Bilderberg/Bankster agenda down the throats of starving shell shocked people in a Democracy than a Republic. Majority rules is not always a good thing. The majority of Americans wanted Slavery at a time in our history, which was not a good thing. I don't think telling someone in shackles "well the majority ruled" on why they are in shackles is a decent explanation. The ideas through out about Democracy is so completely utopian these days, you'd think some idiot like Marx was writing the play book. Get a grip.

reply to post by SWCCFAN


What are you talking about? He's a Federal Court Judge not a Justice of the Peace. BIG DIFFERENCE. I don't think the judge in question has anything to gain financially from this ruling. Also, if we have a case involving a battered woman and the judge happens to be a woman, does that mean we have to have the judge recuse herself based on something that she can't change? I'm not finding much weight in your argument.

reply to post by TheOneElectric

I agree. However, camaro and I worked that little issue out LOL

Did anyone ever think why the Mormans are pissed about this? Do you think it may have nothing to do with a moral argument but more to do with the fact that the Federal system stepped in a denied their right to Polygamy? Why can't Muslims have multiple wives in this country? I'd be super pissed off if gay marriage was legalized but then I was denied to have multiple wives under "moral" grounds. This is one area that should unite Mormans, Muslims, and Homosexuals in alliance here. Sexual and Religious Freedom.

reply to post by justinsweatt


The reason wasn't actually morality that polygamy was outlawed. It was just sanity. No one in their right freaking mind wants more than ONE wife.

Yey! Common sense has prevailed.. Gay people are human beings to with thr same rights as everyone else no matter what your pastor says who probably has secret gay tendencies himself says...

We have had civil unions in the UK for a while now and not a flame did come from heaven... You guys should live and let live..

THis whole thing is a joke and semantics.........and it will never be discussed here in a civil manner without name calling. Funny, if you are against it you must be a bigot, full of hatred and have hidden homosexual thoughts.......Saying that they only want equal rights is a fallalcy, just as saying by not allowing them to marry is denying them their rights is a fallacy as well. If, you allow it, you will have to allow polyamourous relationships as well, after all, it's not illegal, and by denying it, you'd be elevating the rights of others above another group. This is just a way to keep us distracted from the real problems in this country and further the agendas of certain groups.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by adifferentbreed]

reply to post by adifferentbreed

What are you "against." And why? Seriously. Does it affect you personally in ANY way? Live and let live. All people have the same rights to privacy. If it bothers you so much? Stop thinking about it. What could be simpler?

Ever think they have to HAVE agendas because of people just like YOU judging them and trying to impose your values and opinions and judgments on them and even OTHERS on the subject? If you let it go, bet they would do. Just let everybody LIVE.

Geesh.


[edit on 8/5/2010 by ~Lucidity]

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Actually, it does affect me and what my children are taught in school. Everyone has an agenda, however this one is forced upon everyone. It's not a matter of forget it and it'll go away. People forgetting it and hoping it will go away is how this country started it's decline to begin with. As far as my judging people........everyone does it, as proven by how many negative comments about people, on here, if they don't agree with gay marriage. And it doesnt allow anyone not to live either........just more drama.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by adifferentbreed]

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Just out of curiosity, did this happen when Interracial marriage was made legal?

I believe it was shortly after WW2. I could be wrong though.

You are. It was in 1967.Loving v. Virginia.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


See, that may be happening but I have to question 1.) whether it's happening to the level you perceive and 2.) why it's happening.

It's a chicken egg thing. A cause-and-affect thing.

The more it's all thrown "out there" the more invasive it gets.

Gays developed an agenda, as you put it, not to "convert your kids" or "subvert traditional concepts of marriage."

Their rights were being violated and they had to fight for them. The more they did this, the more attention they drew and the more people felt entitled to judge and perceive some sort of threats. Some got it, but more for some reason got fearful or hateful or thought it in some way affected them...just because it was out there. It was in your face, so you had to deal with it. Sometimes fighting for rights is a double-edged sword. You have attract attention to bring awareness but in attracting that attention there is always the risk that some subportion of those whose attention you attract will be negative. And so it propagates the hate as you're trying to make strides in attaining your rights.

Also, these fears and negative perceptions were helped along by those with extremist political agendas on both sides. On one side to divide and on the other side to counter that. I'll let you decide which is which. It became a self-feeding frenzy.

If we simply acknowledge their rights, or had done so to begin with, most of the things you "fear" will probably go away. Calling any kind of attention to it, whether good intentioned or bad, from whichever ;side" is just going to propagate this war. We have enough wars. Let's just let people live. There's no real threat here.

Oh, and this concept also applies to any kind of bigotry or racism, and all sorts of intolerance. Trying to "fight" it makes it worse.

[edit on 8/5/2010 by ~Lucidity]