Breaking. Prop 8.... struck down.

[bodecea]

Hey.........if 2 people want to live together in an arrangement that results in tax breaks, as well as property and privledge to access each other in the hospital, why not?

Yeshua said "Love God above all else, and love one another like you love God".

Gender wasn't specified.

Man shall not lay in bed with another man.

That's nice. Don't do it then.....but you have no right to force your religious tomfoolery onto our secular laws.

 

[bodecea]

I am just shocked over how many people support a court overturning the will of the people through a legitimate vote.

sad

we are so screwed in this country.

I am just shocked that Americans think they should have the right to vote on other peoples rights

Its a state right...

If you have a problem with the state then move to a state you agree with..

Ah...so you are a run-away'r and quitter?

 

[g5000]

Once marriage becomes a civil right we have more to worry about than same sex marriage.

Marriage is at best a qualified privilege.

Marriage isn't even a right..

From the Loving v. Virginia decision:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

That ruling found interracial marriage to be constitutionally protected under the 14th Amendment, just as today's ruling on gay marriage has.

The Loving Decision - (June 12, 1967): Association of MultiEthnic Americans, Inc.

This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

Note the similarity:

In the ruling, the court noted the similarity between Proportion 8 and Amendment 2 of he Colorado constitution, forbidding homosexuals from accessing that state’s anti-discrimination law, and struck down by the Supreme Court in Romer for the same reason: failing to have a legitimate reason to withhold a right or benefit from one group but not from others. Both are clearly a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Awesome.

 

[driveby]

Basically, people who are not homosexual and who squirm at the very idea of homosexual sex got to vote on what rights should be extended to homosexuals

Homosexuals didn't get to vote?

So the 95% who are not homosexual got to vote on what rights could be extended to the 5% who are

So the 95% of us who are non murderers get to say that murderers can't legally commit murder, what an outrage!

 

[bodecea]

Once marriage becomes a civil right we have more to worry about than same sex marriage.

Marriage is at best a qualified privilege.

It is not marriage that is a civil right. It is the equal treatment under the law which is a right. If, BY LAW, you give cash and prizes to some people who get married, you cannot deny, BY LAW, other people who get married from the same cash and prizes, unless (since some slippery slope people need the obvious stated out loud) such a marriage is harmful.

If the government stopped giving out cash and prizes to married people, we would not even be having this discussion.

But THE PEOPLE have been accepting cash and prizes from THE STATE for a very long time now. They have put those cash and prizes into THE LAW.

Therefore, THE STATE cannot "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of THE LAWS."

It's still a qualified privilege. You have just created an entire class of persons not entitled to cash and prizes. Those who are single. Out of those who are single, there are those who want cash and prizes but don't have anyone to marry. They are, through no fault of their own, discriminated against. Then you have someone who is deeply, sincerely and passionately in love, but the object of that affection doesn't return those feelings. Now you have someone denied marriage to the one they love, and denied cash and prizes.

How will you create a civil right to make these people equal?

So...in all those examples you gave, where is the consenting other party?

 

[bodecea]

Hey.........if 2 people want to live together in an arrangement that results in tax breaks, as well as property and privledge to access each other in the hospital, why not?

Yeshua said "Love God above all else, and love one another like you love God".

Gender wasn't specified.

Man shall not lay in bed with another man.

Three verses back from that one: Do not have sexual relations with a woman during her period of menstrual impurity.
A few chapters back: But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you.

(God hates shellfish eaters.)

One chapter ahead: You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.

(God hates people who get haircuts and who shave)

Genesis: Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; so He took his life also.

(God hates birth control.)

OMIGOD! Where's the laws about THAT!!!????

 

[Katzndogz]

It's a bit more than that. Especially when you are looking for someone to defend your secular laws and no one shows up.

You do want to force your secular tomfoolery on everyone don't you? Well, don't be at all suprised if resistance comes from the most surprising and unlikely of places.

 

[g5000]

But the federal government has the right to supersede state rights?

Wrong!!!!

Yes they do.

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution

Then why the fuck do we have a Tenth Amendment??

Why do we have a Bill of Rights???

So you can vote for stuff that does not violate anyone else's rights. Allllll the live long day!

Knock yourself out!

Just remember, you do not have the right to vote away someone else's rights and you will be rock solid.

 

[Stephanie]

So....you object to learning something. Color me surprised.

ooooooooooooo, miss nasties sister..

ooooo nicks retarded cousin

oooooooooo, the nasty twins brother chimes in..

 

[del]

Polygamy invariably means one man, more than one woman. It never means one woman, several men.

And so women end up subordinated to men. So that is harm #1.

Through the basics of math, available women for marriage become more and more scarce, which inevitably leads to female children being forced into marriage. It is also very common for incestous marriages to occur for the same reasons. So that is harm #2 and harm #3.

The slippery slope argument fails.

You appear to assume that all women would be willing to commit to such a "union". Whose business is it, if all adults involved consent? And your observation about forced marriages and incest are a matter of oppositional propaganda.

The Problem of Polygamy (Thom Brooks) - Academia.edu

i read the introduction of the paper. since he can't even define polygamy correctly, i saw no reason to continue reading it.

you may feel free to be influenced by him then.

 

[bodecea]

The nation is becoming too degenerate, across the board, to not be forced to accept one more depravity as normal behavior.

It's not depravity.

That is a matter of opinion. Perhaps not your opinion, but someone else's. Can you respect someone else's opinion?

Then....don't.....marry.....someone.....of.....the.....same......gender......

 

[Mr.Nick]

Apparently progressives want us to mimic the Romans..

 

[bodecea]

Its a state right...

If you have a problem with the state then move to a state you agree with..

First of all. The US Constitution supersedes any states law

States do not have the right to violate civil rights. We kind of established that 50 years ago

But the federal government has the right to supersede state rights?

Wrong!!!!

Not state's rights....but a state law or constitution CANNOT supercede the U.S. Constitution if there is a conflict.

The U.S. Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of the Land.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Yes they do.

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution

Then why the fuck do we have a Tenth Amendment??

Why do we have a Bill of Rights???

So you can vote for stuff that does not violate anyone else's rights. Allllll the live long day!

Knock yourself out!

Marriage IS NOT A FUCKING RIGHT..

 

[EriktheRed]

Once marriage becomes a civil right we have more to worry about than same sex marriage.

Marriage is at best a qualified privilege.

It is not marriage that is a civil right. It is the equal treatment under the law which is a right. If, BY LAW, you give cash and prizes to some people who get married, you cannot deny, BY LAW, other people who get married from the same cash and prizes, unless (since some slippery slope people need the obvious stated out loud) such a marriage is harmful.

If the government stopped giving out cash and prizes to married people, we would not even be having this discussion.

But THE PEOPLE have been accepting cash and prizes from THE STATE for a very long time now. They have put those cash and prizes into THE LAW.

Therefore, THE STATE cannot "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of THE LAWS."

It's still a qualified privilege. You have just created an entire class of persons not entitled to cash and prizes. Those who are single. Out of those who are single, there are those who want cash and prizes but don't have anyone to marry. They are, through no fault of their own, discriminated against. Then you have someone who is deeply, sincerely and passionately in love, but the object of that affection doesn't return those feelings. Now you have someone denied marriage to the one they love, and denied cash and prizes.

How will you create a civil right to make these people equal?

Holy shit, just when you thought you've heard everything...

 

[bodecea]

I"m waiting for some liberal to point out marriage in the Constitution. You do not have a Constitutional right to marry.

It's right next to the Constitutional right to procreate. See?


BTW.....here we have ANOTHER poster who thinks that rights do not exist unless they are actually listed in the U.S. Constitution.

 

[del]

Homosexuals didn't get to vote?

So the 95% who are not homosexual got to vote on what rights could be extended to the 5% who are

So the 95% of us who are non murderers get to say that murderers can't legally commit murder, what an outrage!

you'd have a point if murder was a civil right.

unfortunately, it isn't.

 

[Katzndogz]

Marriage isn't even a right..

From the Loving v. Virginia decision:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

That ruling found interracial marriage to be constitutionally protected under the 14th Amendment, just as today's ruling on gay marriage has.

The Loving Decision - (June 12, 1967): Association of MultiEthnic Americans, Inc.

This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

Note the similarity:

In the ruling, the court noted the similarity between Proportion 8 and Amendment 2 of he Colorado constitution, forbidding homosexuals from accessing that state’s anti-discrimination law, and struck down by the Supreme Court in Romer for the same reason: failing to have a legitimate reason to withhold a right or benefit from one group but not from others. Both are clearly a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Awesome.

Marriage is essential to existence and survival because marriage protects survival of the species. Homosexuality does not. Eliminate all men or all women and the species does not survive. Eliminate homosexuals and everyone gets along just fine.

 

[nitroz]

this is the email i received:

Human Rights Campaign

BREAKING NEWS:

A federal appeals court has declared Prop. 8 unconstitutional!

The two loving couples who were plaintiffs in this case deserve our thanks.

Send them a note right now.

Dear Steven,

My heart is pounding in my chest.

In a monumental decision today, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

Their move upholds a lower court's decision that anti-gay bigotry was behind Prop. 8, the hateful law that denied gay and lesbian Californians the freedom to marry.

This fight is about people like Kristin and Sandy and Jeff and Paul – the two courageous plaintiff couples in this suit who have sacrificed so much to help bring about this victory.

I can't think of anything more fitting at this moment than to show them our gratitude.

Will you take a moment to send Paul, Jeff, Kristin, and Sandy a quick thank-you note? Thank them for their inspiration, and ask them to keep fighting for all of us.

Prop. 8 does nothing to strengthen or protect any marriage. Instead, it singles out thousands of loving California families for different treatment, simply because they are gay and lesbian couples. The Ninth Circuit ruled on the right side of history by recognizing that our Constitution cannot tolerate such egregious discrimination.

Here's what the Court said in its decision: Prop. 8 "served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationship and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples."

The path ahead may still be long, but this case has helped propel the fight for marriage equality forward. And as the struggle continues in courtrooms and statehouses, we'll all know the power behind it is driven by devoted supporters like you.

Send a note to the plaintiff couples now. Tell them how much their courage means to you.

This monumental decision affirms what we all know to be true – our Constitution exists to protect the basic civil rights of all Americans – gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.

The fight goes on, and I can't thank you enough for being a part of this extraordinary movement.

I'm sending my note now,

Joe Solmonese

Joe Solmonese
President

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And marriage in the eyes of government has absolutely nothing to do with religion..

True, this is a secular issue only; no religion can be forced to marry same sex couples per the First Amendment. See: BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE

I"m waiting for some liberal to point out marriage in the Constitution. You do not have a Constitutional right to marry.

I don’t know about ‘liberals’ but you’ll find it here: Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978), where the Court ruled that marriage is a fundamental Constitutional right. That you might disagree with the ruling is of course irrelevant, as the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law. And that the words ‘individual right’ or ‘self-defense’ don’t appear anywhere in the Second Amendment or Constitution doesn’t mean those rights don’t exist as well.