Breaking. Prop 8.... struck down.

[Mr.Nick]

If California democratically passed civil unions I wouldn't have anything to say on this topic..

Fact was California DID NOT PASS CIVIL UNIONS...

Now live with democracy assholes or shut the fuck up...

Oh yeah - as usual the progressive argument is "no fair."

Truth is progressive fucks - I don't give a RATS ASS WHAT YOU BELIEVE... You're dirt to me - you don't even matter...

 

[DiamondDave]

Surprise, surprise the ultra liberal 9th court of appeals rules against the will of the people again.

The issue is that voters do not have the right to take away someones right to marry

No brainer really

This is not a right.. goddamn it, get government out of it except in governmental matters...

If people don't want to accept 2 guys as a 'married' couple, so be it.. have the government recognize the family for taxation and inheritance.. have the government not interfere in medical matters for that family unit and let it the fuck be... stop trying to use the government for acceptance..

If I don't wish to think of this couple as something acceptable, or I think to think of that couple as traditionally married, it should be no skin off someone else's ass...

Fuck.. let people be with whomever they wish to be with... and let people decide on what choices of other people they wish to accept, deal with, or associate with... and stop all this touchy feely bullshit and government interference

 

[Gadawg73]

Surprise, surprise the ultra liberal 9th court of appeals rules against the will of the people again.

The issue is that voters do not have the right to take away someones right to marry

No brainer really

This is not a right.. goddamn it, get government out of it except in governmental matters...

If people don't want to accept 2 guys as a 'married' couple, so be it.. have the government recognize the family for taxation and inheritance.. have the government not interfere in medical matters for that family unit and let it the fuck be... stop trying to use the government for acceptance..

If I don't wish to think of this couple as something acceptable, or I think to think of that couple as traditionally married, it should be no skin off someone else's ass...

Fuck.. let people be with whomever they wish to be with... and let people decide on what choices of other people they wish to accept, deal with, or associate with... and stop all this touchy feely bullshit and government interference

It was my right to get married under the laws of my state.
All it required was a fee.
Where does it state that some folks can not get married in The Constitution?
One that is conservative and wants less government stands behind the Constitution, a document dedicated to telling what THE GOVERNMENT CAN NOT DO instead of telling a certain group of Americans that happen to be different than you and I, what they can not do.
Limited government means giving gays and lesbians that same marriage license, they pay their fee and government stays out of marriage altogether.
Unless one wants their religous views supported by government but that is not what a conservative stands for.

 

[rightwinger]

Surprise, surprise the ultra liberal 9th court of appeals rules against the will of the people again.

The issue is that voters do not have the right to take away someones right to marry

No brainer really

This is not a right.. goddamn it, get government out of it except in governmental matters...

If people don't want to accept 2 guys as a 'married' couple, so be it.. have the government recognize the family for taxation and inheritance.. have the government not interfere in medical matters for that family unit and let it the fuck be... stop trying to use the government for acceptance..

If I don't wish to think of this couple as something acceptable, or I think to think of that couple as traditionally married, it should be no skin off someone else's ass...

Fuck.. let people be with whomever they wish to be with... and let people decide on what choices of other people they wish to accept, deal with, or associate with... and stop all this touchy feely bullshit and government interference

It was a right that was taken away. There is a long history of legal cases establishing marriage as a right. It was reestablished in Virginia vs Loving that marriage is indeed a right

Voters do not get to vote on what rights other citizens are allowed to have.

 

[Intense]

The issue is that voters do not have the right to take away someones right to marry

No brainer really

This is not a right.. goddamn it, get government out of it except in governmental matters...

If people don't want to accept 2 guys as a 'married' couple, so be it.. have the government recognize the family for taxation and inheritance.. have the government not interfere in medical matters for that family unit and let it the fuck be... stop trying to use the government for acceptance..

If I don't wish to think of this couple as something acceptable, or I think to think of that couple as traditionally married, it should be no skin off someone else's ass...

Fuck.. let people be with whomever they wish to be with... and let people decide on what choices of other people they wish to accept, deal with, or associate with... and stop all this touchy feely bullshit and government interference

It was my right to get married under the laws of my state.
All it required was a fee.
Where does it state that some folks can not get married in The Constitution?
One that is conservative and wants less government stands behind the Constitution, a document dedicated to telling what THE GOVERNMENT CAN NOT DO instead of telling a certain group of Americans that happen to be different than you and I, what they can not do.
Limited government means giving gays and lesbians that same marriage license, they pay their fee and government stays out of marriage altogether.
Unless one wants their religous views supported by government but that is not what a conservative stands for.

Actually it doesn't. None of this would have been consented to in the Founding days. Your premise is flawed. However, the construct does have a remedy through popular consent. You should better plead your cause and seek to influence and sway the majority, rather than seek a corrupt means through the back door via a corrupt Judicial Oligarchy.

 

[Intense]

The issue is that voters do not have the right to take away someones right to marry

No brainer really

This is not a right.. goddamn it, get government out of it except in governmental matters...

If people don't want to accept 2 guys as a 'married' couple, so be it.. have the government recognize the family for taxation and inheritance.. have the government not interfere in medical matters for that family unit and let it the fuck be... stop trying to use the government for acceptance..

If I don't wish to think of this couple as something acceptable, or I think to think of that couple as traditionally married, it should be no skin off someone else's ass...

Fuck.. let people be with whomever they wish to be with... and let people decide on what choices of other people they wish to accept, deal with, or associate with... and stop all this touchy feely bullshit and government interference

It was a right that was taken away. There is a long history of legal cases establishing marriage as a right. It was reestablished in Virginia vs Loving that marriage is indeed a right

Voters do not get to vote on what rights other citizens are allowed to have.

Marriage is not a Right in the sense that it is not an Entitlement. You need two willing Volunteer Participants, and there are requirements and standards. We are a Society governed by the consent of the Governed, who recognize Unalienable Rights, at least most of them, and most of us, if you exclude Leftist Statist's anyway. They are too Totalitarian to recognize anything outside the focus of the collective. You know what I mean. See.

 

[Gadawg73]

This is not a right.. goddamn it, get government out of it except in governmental matters...

If people don't want to accept 2 guys as a 'married' couple, so be it.. have the government recognize the family for taxation and inheritance.. have the government not interfere in medical matters for that family unit and let it the fuck be... stop trying to use the government for acceptance..

If I don't wish to think of this couple as something acceptable, or I think to think of that couple as traditionally married, it should be no skin off someone else's ass...

Fuck.. let people be with whomever they wish to be with... and let people decide on what choices of other people they wish to accept, deal with, or associate with... and stop all this touchy feely bullshit and government interference

It was my right to get married under the laws of my state.
All it required was a fee.
Where does it state that some folks can not get married in The Constitution?
One that is conservative and wants less government stands behind the Constitution, a document dedicated to telling what THE GOVERNMENT CAN NOT DO instead of telling a certain group of Americans that happen to be different than you and I, what they can not do.
Limited government means giving gays and lesbians that same marriage license, they pay their fee and government stays out of marriage altogether.
Unless one wants their religous views supported by government but that is not what a conservative stands for.

Actually it doesn't. None of this would have been consented to in the Founding days. Your premise is flawed. However, the construct does have a remedy through popular consent. You should better plead your cause and seek to influence and sway the majority, rather than seek a corrupt means through the back door via a corrupt Judicial Oligarchy.

The Founders were about as bad a group you could find as your support for traditional marriage. Mistresses, ladies of the night, arranged marriages, having kids with slaves; that is your idea of "family values"? Franklin had an illegitimate son and stranded his wife the last 10 years of her life.

You may want big government to ban gay marriage but conservatism stands behind The Constitution, a document dedicated to LIMITED GOVERNMENT, where the citizens behind the written law of The Constitution tell the government WHAT IT CAN NOT DO rather than give big government the ability to tell a minority what they can not do.
Religous beliefs have no place in issuing a marriage license.

 

[bodecea]

It's astounding how stupid people are.

Wave your freak flag proudly, Nickie.

 

[bodecea]

If an individual referred to a Roman as an "Italian" in a paper they would be intellectually slaughtered.

Cause we all know Romans aren't really from Italy......they're from Shangra-la.

 

[Gadawg73]

This is not a right.. goddamn it, get government out of it except in governmental matters...

If people don't want to accept 2 guys as a 'married' couple, so be it.. have the government recognize the family for taxation and inheritance.. have the government not interfere in medical matters for that family unit and let it the fuck be... stop trying to use the government for acceptance..

If I don't wish to think of this couple as something acceptable, or I think to think of that couple as traditionally married, it should be no skin off someone else's ass...

Fuck.. let people be with whomever they wish to be with... and let people decide on what choices of other people they wish to accept, deal with, or associate with... and stop all this touchy feely bullshit and government interference

It was a right that was taken away. There is a long history of legal cases establishing marriage as a right. It was reestablished in Virginia vs Loving that marriage is indeed a right

Voters do not get to vote on what rights other citizens are allowed to have.

Marriage is not a Right in the sense that it is not an Entitlement. You need two willing Volunteer Participants, and there are requirements and standards. We are a Society governed by the consent of the Governed, who recognize Unalienable Rights, at least most of them, and most of us, if you exclude Leftist Statist's anyway. They are too Totalitarian to recognize anything outside the focus of the collective. You know what I mean. See.

Well, you need some facts to back up your claims.
Where is there a standard that one be straight?
Where is that "requirement" in any law?
No where as all you have is nice, fancy rhetoric.
We are not a society governed "by the consent of the Governed"
We are a society governed BY THE LAW, not men and their various and changing like the wind kooky religous beliefs.

 

[JoeB131]

A couple of things.

First, the Court stopped short of ruling on the overall issue of whether there is a constitutional right to marriage, and only went halfway and said Prop 8 was unconstitutional. So they didn't take the bait the Judge Walker laid out for them with Justice Kennedy in mind.

Second- this ruling- like Walker's, is on hold until it fully runs its course in the courts. Prop 8 could be overturned as early as November at the ballot box.

Third- and most important. Again, my biggest problem with the way this has been approached is that courts are overruling legislatures and the voters. This is judicial activism at its worst.

I have no problem with gay marriage. Why should just the straights have to suffer?

I have a real problem with unelected judges saying, "Screw what the people want, this is what the law would say if I were writing it!" And there's some of that on both the right and the left. The Judiciary has too much power.

Oh...how are they "suffering"?

You'd go a lot further in life if you grew a sense of humor...

 

[Stephanie]

swing and a miss...

What the fuck do you want me to say???

My morals mean shit, hence my personal opinion means shit..

What is legal is all that matters..

I don't come here to post my opinion... Oh, and when I do I use "IMO."

saying marriage isnt a federal issue is stating an opinion...

I dont have the words for how stupid you are. You have literally set the bar in this thread as thee dumbest poster on the internets.

Stepthanie isnt this stupid.

You really are just a ugly little man..one of the most hateful people on this board.

 

[DiamondDave]

The issue is that voters do not have the right to take away someones right to marry

No brainer really

This is not a right.. goddamn it, get government out of it except in governmental matters...

If people don't want to accept 2 guys as a 'married' couple, so be it.. have the government recognize the family for taxation and inheritance.. have the government not interfere in medical matters for that family unit and let it the fuck be... stop trying to use the government for acceptance..

If I don't wish to think of this couple as something acceptable, or I think to think of that couple as traditionally married, it should be no skin off someone else's ass...

Fuck.. let people be with whomever they wish to be with... and let people decide on what choices of other people they wish to accept, deal with, or associate with... and stop all this touchy feely bullshit and government interference

It was my right to get married under the laws of my state.
All it required was a fee.
Where does it state that some folks can not get married in The Constitution?
One that is conservative and wants less government stands behind the Constitution, a document dedicated to telling what THE GOVERNMENT CAN NOT DO instead of telling a certain group of Americans that happen to be different than you and I, what they can not do.
Limited government means giving gays and lesbians that same marriage license, they pay their fee and government stays out of marriage altogether.
Unless one wants their religous views supported by government but that is not what a conservative stands for.

No.. limited government means getting government out of marriage and keeps family units under the same terms of legal contracts and power of attorney... Limited government does not mean getting the government involved in a case where a gay couple FEELS it is not being accepted by others

 

[DiamondDave]

The issue is that voters do not have the right to take away someones right to marry

No brainer really

This is not a right.. goddamn it, get government out of it except in governmental matters...

If people don't want to accept 2 guys as a 'married' couple, so be it.. have the government recognize the family for taxation and inheritance.. have the government not interfere in medical matters for that family unit and let it the fuck be... stop trying to use the government for acceptance..

If I don't wish to think of this couple as something acceptable, or I think to think of that couple as traditionally married, it should be no skin off someone else's ass...

Fuck.. let people be with whomever they wish to be with... and let people decide on what choices of other people they wish to accept, deal with, or associate with... and stop all this touchy feely bullshit and government interference

It was a right that was taken away. There is a long history of legal cases establishing marriage as a right. It was reestablished in Virginia vs Loving that marriage is indeed a right

Voters do not get to vote on what rights other citizens are allowed to have.

Constitutionally it is NOT a RIGHT.. case law by power hungry courts deemed that.. well sorry, the court does not grant rights nor deem something to be a right... please show in article 3 where the courts have this power

First you say you are for getting government out of marriage, then you put government right back into it.. like the hypocrite that you are

 

[DiamondDave]

saying marriage isnt a federal issue is stating an opinion...

I dont have the words for how stupid you are. You have literally set the bar in this thread as thee dumbest poster on the internets.
Portuguese



stepthanie isnt this stupid.

marriage isn't a federal issue...

which is an opinion not a fact

Powers of the federal government are STRICTLY laid out in the constitution.. please show where marriage is a federal issue as dictated within the constitution

 

[Valerie]

marriage isn't a federal issue...

which is an opinion not a fact

Powers of the federal government are STRICTLY laid out in the constitution.. please show where marriage is a federal issue as dictated within the constitution

It still stands to be Constitutionally challenged but DOMA made it a federal issue...

DOMA has two sections, one defining “marriage” for purposes of federal law, and the other affirming federalism principles under the authority granted by Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The first section states that for purposes of federal law, marriage means a legal union between a man and a woman:



In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Pub. L. 104-199, sec 1, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 (1997). The second section reaffirmed the power of the states to make their own decisions about marriage:



No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Pub. L. 104-199 sec. 2, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1738C (1997).

Legislative History

DOMA was signed by President Clinton on Sept. 21, 1996, becoming Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, codified at 1 USC 7 and 28 USC 1738C. It passed the Congress as H.R. 3396.

DOMA passed the U.S. House on July 12, 1996 by a vote of 342-67 (vote no. 316). Floor statements on the bill will appear in the Congressional Record of that day. House hearings on DOMA were held on May 15, 1996 in a subcommittee of the Judiciary, Committee on the Constitution. The leading legislative record is the House Report, No. 104-664. The hearing before the subcommittee can be found here.

DOMA passed the U.S. Senate, unamended, on September 10, 1996, by a vote of 85 to 14 (vote no. 280). The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on July 11, 1996 (on the bill S. 1740), and they were printed as Senate Hearings 104-533.


DOMAwatch.org - Federal Defense of Marriage Act

 

[Valerie]

Massachusetts, the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage, has become the first to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, saying Congress intruded into a matter that should be left to individual states.

"Our familes, our communities, and even our economy have seen the many important benefits that have come from recognizing equal marriage rights and, frankly, no downside," Attorney General Martha Coakley said this afternoon at a news conference announcing the lawsuit. "However, we have also seen how many of our married residents and their families are being hurt by a discriminatory, unprecedented, and, we believe, unconstitutional law."

The suit filed in US District Court in Boston claims that Congress, in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, "overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people."


The lawsuit argues that the DOMA, which was enacted in 1996, precludes same-sex spouses in Massachusetts from a wide range of protections, including federal income tax credits, employment and retirement benefits, health insurance coverage, and Social Security payments.

The defendants named in the lawsuit include the US Department of Health and Human Services, the US Department of Veterans Affairs, and the United States itself.

Mass. challenges federal Defense of Marriage Act - Local News Updates - The Boston Globe

 

[G.T.]

Glad they made the right choice.

 

[DiamondDave]

which is an opinion not a fact

Powers of the federal government are STRICTLY laid out in the constitution.. please show where marriage is a federal issue as dictated within the constitution

It still stands to be Constitutionally challenged but DOMA made it a federal issue...

DOMA has two sections, one defining “marriage” for purposes of federal law, and the other affirming federalism principles under the authority granted by Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The first section states that for purposes of federal law, marriage means a legal union between a man and a woman:



In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Pub. L. 104-199, sec 1, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 (1997). The second section reaffirmed the power of the states to make their own decisions about marriage:



No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Pub. L. 104-199 sec. 2, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1738C (1997).

Legislative History

DOMA was signed by President Clinton on Sept. 21, 1996, becoming Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, codified at 1 USC 7 and 28 USC 1738C. It passed the Congress as H.R. 3396.

DOMA passed the U.S. House on July 12, 1996 by a vote of 342-67 (vote no. 316). Floor statements on the bill will appear in the Congressional Record of that day. House hearings on DOMA were held on May 15, 1996 in a subcommittee of the Judiciary, Committee on the Constitution. The leading legislative record is the House Report, No. 104-664. The hearing before the subcommittee can be found here.

DOMA passed the U.S. Senate, unamended, on September 10, 1996, by a vote of 85 to 14 (vote no. 280). The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on July 11, 1996 (on the bill S. 1740), and they were printed as Senate Hearings 104-533.


DOMAwatch.org - Federal Defense of Marriage Act

Again.. the constitution grants it WHERE??? You have to actually have the power granted to truly make it happen... The federal government has overstepped it limited and specifically listed powers

Again.. .the government should only be involved with recognizing the contract for purposed of taxation, power of attorney, inheritance and other things governmental..

This whole battling back and forth is nothing more than petty bullshit about recognition and acceptance...

Get government the fuck out of marriage or marriage the fuck out of government... which ever way you wish to say it

 

[mal]

Surprise, surprise the ultra liberal 9th court of appeals rules against the will of the people again.

I think I'm one of the few that is not shocked.

Most view law as logic..

Emotion is what drove the 9th in this Ruling...

Personal Opinion over Nature's Design and our "very Existence" as the Supreme Court once Concluded...



peace...