Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

reply to post by Annee


Gimme a break....everyone wants equal rights, no matter what they are. It's simply not possible in a civilized world for everyone to be accepted legally, you keep dreaming but it doesn't make sense. Let me ask you this, whose rights and practices are you willing not to agree with or legalize? Surely there must be one group out there, as soon as you realize the folly of this adventure, let me know.

reply to post by Annee


That's absurd.

If we all just accept things as "IT IS" we'd still be whipping negroes in the town square.

Government sanctioned marriage should not exist.

I take offense at a parent wanting to approve or disapprove of my personal relationships. The government wanting to play parent is an abject insult.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by Annee

 

Gimme a break....everyone wants equal rights, no matter what they are. It's simply not possible in a civilized world for everyone to be accepted legally, you keep dreaming but it doesn't make sense. Let me ask you this, whose rights and practices are you willing not to agree with or legalize? Surely there must be one group out there, as soon as you realize the folly of this adventure, let me know.

Marriage involves 2 people joining together as one household/family/unit.

LEGAL Government Marriage is what this thread is about. There is ZERO reason to deny a couple because they are of same gender.

I am not taking it beyond that in this thread.

If you want to expand/embellish in other areas beyond that - - start your own thread.

reply to post by Homedawg


I see you got the point of her post.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by Annee

 

Let me ask you this, whose rights and practices are you willing not to agree with or legalize?

Rights are not legalized! Human beings HAVE rights. The government is playing the parent by saying that only SOME people can participate in this government-sanctioned arrangement and that is inequality.

Support of human rights does not imply agreement. I support the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to speak their message, but that doesn't mean I agree with it.

And to answer your question, there is NO human being whose rights I'm willing to legalize or make illegal.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
If we all just accept things as "IT IS" we'd still be whipping negroes in the town square.

Or gay people.

Government sanctioned marriage should not exist.

Agreed. But this is not the subject of the thread. Government sanctioned marriage DOES exist. And under the current structure, people should have equal access to marriage and its federal benefits.

I take offense at a parent wanting to approve or disapprove of my personal relationships. The government wanting to play parent is an abject insult.

I agree. Right now they are interfering as I stated above. It needs to stop.

Originally posted by Homedawg
reply to post by Annee

 

And you DONT 'stereotype"?..."redneck"??...Seems something doesnt apply if you dont want it to?

Here's your mirror.

reply to post by Annee


Answer the question, you said equal rights for all. Or can't you since the hypocrasy factor would come into play? Seems legit enough, you spout off about equal rights for all......do you really mean it, or just for a select few?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Annee

 

That's absurd.

If we all just accept things as "IT IS" we'd still be whipping negroes in the town square.

Government sanctioned marriage should not exist.

I take offense at a parent wanting to approve or disapprove of my personal relationships. The government wanting to play parent is an abject insult.

Stop trying to derail the subject of this thread.

This thread is about Legal Government marriage.

Our government created the legal government marriage license. Its original intent was less then honorable.

But - - this is 2011.

Anyone can cohabitate - get married in church - perform their own ceremony - - etc etc.

However - - the LEGAL government marriage license affords certain privileges. It is not about anyone's personal belief.

Every citizen must have the same right to these LEGAL government rights.

Attraction to same gender is no different then attraction to opposite gender - - - as a birthright.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by Annee

 

Answer the question, you said equal rights for all. Or can't you since the hypocrasy factor would come into play? Seems legit enough, you spout off about equal rights for all......do you really mean it, or just for a select few?

Subject: Equal Right of LEGAL Government marriage license and privileges that it affords.

At this time between 2 persons. Gender is irrelevant.

Having followed this with interest, the first time this was mentioned on ATS, the question remained as to who all had read the judges ruling and opinion in the matter of this case. Not many people had, or cared to, rather looking at the fact that the judge had over turned a law that was the will of the people. But sometimes governing the people wisely means that you have to go against them to uphold the very principles that govern the entire land. He had to weigh the arguments and the evidence of the case, along with giving justifications for his decision. All while keeping his own personal life separate from the trial for which he did. Ultimately those who were charged with defending and fighting for this law dropped the ball, the majority of their witnesses and experts failed to show up in court.
Put yourself in that judges shoes, keep in mind you have to be fair, partial and blind to everything, including the will of the people and judge the case on the merits of the arguments and evidence presented. What would you think if one side did not present any evidence or witnesses to support its claim? Even the Judge was disturbed and thought that it was odd that the witnesses presented to support this law did not show up in court and that the evidence was weak at best. He stated such in his opinion to explain his decision. Questions were asked, but no answers, so he could only rule as any would in favor of those who wanted this law removed. But he put a hold on the law itself, to give the other side time to regroup and fight it out at a higher court, even ignoring all pressure to remove that hold. Funny how that was failed to be mentioned, and if he was to benefit from this law, would he not have foregone putting the hold on the removal of the law, to allow for such to happen? No, he looked to the wise choice of conferring to a higher court to make the final decision. And in this case, another court has confirmed with his original decision and findings in his opinion and thus his ruling will stand.
Now some would say the judge should remove himself from this case cause he is gay, but would that be like telling a Judge of Hispanic descent to remove himself for any immigration case, a female judge to remove herself for sexual harassment cases, and so on. It is not right as long as the judge gives rulings based on the evidence and merits of the arguments, and with the precedent of prior rulings, then it is a fair and balanced ruling.
Many people fail to understand how the court system works, as many judges will go off of similar cases where the issues are either the same or have been ruled on by a higher court to determine what the verdict is. They use precedence to justify their ruling, and then have to record it down for all to read. In short the Justice branch of the federal government can not just do what the other branches do, they have to record and justify the way they rule. No other branch is required to do such.

Originally posted by Annee
I think I'll go back and re-visit the ignorance thread.

All citizens shall be afforded the same equal rights.

Personal belief - - is not relevant in who shall and who shall not be afforded equal rights.

Your personal views on homosexuality - - is not relevant to equal rights.

Equal rights is not special rights.

Same gender attraction is biological - - the same as opposite gender attraction. There is no legitimate precedence to exclude a naturally born minority - because you don't like it.

You brought it up earlier, but I guess the refuesal to answer speaks volumes. Not that I expected anything else, just like those you oppose, you don't actually believe in equal rigjhts, just for the people you know affected by a cause you are behind.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by Annee

 

Answer the question, you said equal rights for all. Or can't you since the hypocrasy factor would come into play? Seems legit enough, you spout off about equal rights for all......do you really mean it, or just for a select few?

Subject: Equal Right of LEGAL Government marriage license and privileges that it affords.

At this time between 2 persons. Gender is irrelevant.

Why do you say"at this time between two persons"?..Does this imply another further agenda in the works of "more than two people"?

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Great post. Thank you.

Although I have not read everything verbatim - - I have followed closely reading synopsis by various interested parties. (on both sides)

The main argument against homosexuals marrying is religious. The proponents of Prop 8 have not presented any legitimate argument - other then religious belief.

And - of course - religious belief can not be used as an argument in a secular government.

reply to post by Homedawg

Why do you say"at this time between two persons"?..Does this imply another further agenda in the works of "more than two people"?

Even if it was, why should polygamists not have the right to declare their undying love to each other in the eyes of their creator and everyone else?

Click here for more information.

reply to post by camaro68ss

I dont understand how a judge can overturn the will of the people

I don't understand how citizens of this country can't grasp the concept that we're not a nation of mob rule. To each their own, I guess.

Just like a king i guess

So an unconstitutional law should be upheld just because a simple majority agreed with it?

reply to post by Adamanteus


If we're speaking of "marriage" in the eyes of our new god government as an opening to all of these alleged rights and benefits then any group in a shared living arrangement whether it's a hetero couple a gay couple a frat house off campus a Davidian cult in a compound or whatever else should be able to incorporate as a single living unit and reap these benefits.

If we're talking "government marriage" then love has nothing whatsoever to do with it. We're looking at a simple business relationship between willing and voluntary parties.

On paper, for benefits, who cares what the circumstances are?

This is why government should have never co-opted "marriage" in the first place.

Originally posted by Homedawg

Originally posted by Adamanteus
reply to post by Homedawg

 

Why do you say"at this time between two persons"?..Does this imply another further agenda in the works of "more than two people"?

Even if it was, why should polygamists not have the right to declare their undying love to each other in the eyes of their creator and everyone else?

Fruit-Loop City...thank you Kelloggs

That was a well thought out and intelligent rebuttal. Thank you for enlightening me. I hereby withdraw my belief that All men are created equal with certain inalienable rights.

Originally posted by Avenginggecko

Originally posted by leo123
reply to post by Annee

 

Apparently the ruling judge is openly gay.

Talk about a conflict of interest!

That's a ridiculous argument. Wouldn't it be the same level of conflict if the ruling judge was straight and married? Does that mean divorced judges can't rule in divorce cases? Women judges can't rule in gender bias cases? Black judges can't rule in crimes involving black people?

Think about this from the legal point of view, rather than whether it favors your own personal beliefs, or not.

It's the question of whether a judge can gain a personal benefit based on their ruling. In this case, it can easily be said that the judge could gain a personal benefit because based on his own ruling he was now free to marry his gay partner. Same would be true in every one of the examples you cited - if the judge could personally gain from the ruling.

Originally posted by Homedawg
Why do you say"at this time between two persons"?..Does this imply another further agenda in the works of "more than two people"?

Simply.

To prevent derailing the thread - - beyond its explicit focus.

reply to post by centurion1211

Ah but that argument fails, as many people tend to forget the other part of that ruling that was made by that judge. He put a hold on the law, preventing it from taking effect, thus he could not benefit from the law, even if he was so inclined. And another judge upheld that judges ruling, agreeing with the opinion. So where is the judge having any benefit from such? He does not get any of such.