Breaking. Prop 8.... struck down.

[rightwinger]

If California goes back to allowing gay marriage it will mean that 25% of the population will have gay marriage available. A domino affect is already starting as states realize that the world as we know it does not end just because gays are permitted to marry.

It is now between the courts and the states to see how quickly same sex marriage becomes the law of the land. It is only a matter of time

 

[rightwinger]

It does not matter to me who lives with who or what they do as they live in whatever circumstance they believe for themselves is best. That is not any part of my objections. It's being forced to twist what is an abnormality into a normality and change accordingly.

Remove the segretation of gay history from the schools. Restore the individual right to conduct their own business and affairs according to their conscience and judgment of behavior. Restore cohesiveness and honor to the military. Allow individuals to reject being forced to accept depravity as normal behavior and I don't care what gays and lesbians do.

You are not being forced to accept anything. You are still free to hate anyone you wish. The only difference is that you will not be allowed to force the Government to accept your hatred

 

[Dr.Drock]

It does not matter to me who lives with who or what they do as they live in whatever circumstance they believe for themselves is best. That is not any part of my objections. It's being forced to twist what is an abnormality into a normality and change accordingly.

Remove the segretation of gay history from the schools. Restore the individual right to conduct their own business and affairs according to their conscience and judgment of behavior. Restore cohesiveness and honor to the military. Allow individuals to reject being forced to accept depravity as normal behavior and I don't care what gays and lesbians do.

Being bliue-eyed or left-handed or being a minority are abnormal as well, deal with it.

Now this should be fun, please provide me any specific instances of the military showing a drop in honor since DADT was done away with.

It's VERY obvious that you care what gays do. Your god doesn't like lying.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It does not matter to me who lives with who or what they do as they live in whatever circumstance they believe for themselves is best. That is not any part of my objections. It's being forced to twist what is an abnormality into a normality and change accordingly.

Remove the segretation of gay history from the schools. Restore the individual right to conduct their own business and affairs according to their conscience and judgment of behavior. Restore cohesiveness and honor to the military. Allow individuals to reject being forced to accept depravity as normal behavior and I don't care what gays and lesbians do.

Funny thing is that I agree most of what you say (I disagree that allowing homosexuals to serve in the military will case widespread problems with cohesiveness and honor). The fundamental problem is the expansion of government into the functioning of individuals and private businesses through the application of what are collectively known as Public Accommodation laws.

Public Accommodation laws though are not just about sexual orientation, they include amongst the list: race, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, parental status, veteran status, religion, disability, and one legged pirates that go "arrrggg" (OK just kidding on the last one). Private businesses no longer have the right to refuse service based on any criteria they like, which as a private entity they should have that right. Removal of Public Accommodation laws for ALL private entities would go a long way in eliminating the religious conflicts that currently exist because of forced compliance with Public Accommodation laws.

That's not to say all "Public Accommodation" laws should go away, they should remain on the books but ONLY apply to government entities which should not discriminate against any citizen which would include the ability not to contract business (to spend taxpayer dollars) with business that have discriminatory practices.

But the problems with Public Accommodation laws are not justification for government discrimination by gender regarding Civil Marriage as Civil Marriage and Public Accommodation laws are separate issues.


IMHO of course.


>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

Some schools already mandate that non-believers be leaders in faith based groups. That Churches, Synagogues and Mosques have the freedom NOW to reject performing same sex marriages, that won't last long due to these same public accommodation laws. That's the point of having them. To change the belief upon which personal opinion is based into a belief of normalizing degeneracy.

 

[mal]

If California goes back to allowing gay marriage it will mean that 25% of the population will have gay marriage available. A domino affect is already starting as states realize that the world as we know it does not end just because gays are permitted to marry.

It is now between the courts and the states to see how quickly same sex marriage becomes the law of the land. It is only a matter of time

25%?



peace...

 

[Katzndogz]

The first lawsuit has already been filed to allow polygamy, based on the same arguments.

That "right" too will be upheld. I don't see any way to avoid the eventual failure of the whole.

 

[rightwinger]

If California goes back to allowing gay marriage it will mean that 25% of the population will have gay marriage available. A domino affect is already starting as states realize that the world as we know it does not end just because gays are permitted to marry.

It is now between the courts and the states to see how quickly same sex marriage becomes the law of the land. It is only a matter of time

25%?



peace...

If you take the populations of California, New York and Massachusetts you have a sizable chunk of the population

 

[Rinata]

What the hell is wrong with that woman's face?!

Newt has his finger up her ass.........

Harry!!! That's awful. I'm surprised at you!!!

 

[Gadawg73]

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

So who stops gays from getting married other than a government law?
You keep side stepping and dodging the fact that is is GOVERNMENT you want to define marriage with a law to ban gays from marrying.
How else do you stop gays from getting married?
I want less government but even if there was none of that involved who wants to get involved in the personal lives of others?
Gay marriage affect you? How?

Ehhhh.. wrong answer.. I do not want government to define marriage... I want individuals with the freedom to accept this couple or that couple as married or whatever all on their own... and only have government recognize family units for the purposes of taxation, legal contracts, legal power of attorney, inheritance, etc...

If a gay wants to go to this church or that institution or whatever else and wants to be deemed as marriage in whatever person's eyes.. so be it... but you do not force others to give up their freedom to see you differently because of your choice....

Again.. this whole movement is about forced recognition and acceptance... plain and simple....

Whether I recognize your union or Joe Schmoe accepts it or Jane Doe hates it or whatever should have nothing to do with law or government

What BS Dave.
"do not want force others to give up their freedom to see you differently because of your choice"
Gay marriage does that? Forces you to see someone differently because of their choice to marry?
That is beyond absurd. How does that force you to do a damn thing Dave.
Allowing gay marriage will force you to see someone else differently? LOL
Even if it did Dave, what harm is that and how was it forced on you and HOW THE HELL WOULD YOU KNOW ANYWAY?
Do you hang out at the Probate Court and record all marriages?
You would not even know that gays were getting married Dave. How is that any of your damn business anyway?

 

[Gadawg73]

The first lawsuit has already been filed to allow polygamy, based on the same arguments.

That "right" too will be upheld. I don't see any way to avoid the eventual failure of the whole.

Where and who are the PLaintiffs?
How does one file a lawsuit in a ploygamy case based on gay marriage argument.
Must be gay polygamists.
Uh, earth to anyone: civil lawsuits can not be brought when there ARE CRIMINAL LAWS IN PLACE.
You have to change the criminal law there bud. Nice try though.

 

[Gadawg73]

We are in 2 shooting wars and have 237 other big time problems we face as a nation and folks claim "they will not let me think the same of folks if they are allowed to marry".
LOL, if it was not so absurd I would laugh my ass off!

 

[Katzndogz]

So who stops gays from getting married other than a government law?
You keep side stepping and dodging the fact that is is GOVERNMENT you want to define marriage with a law to ban gays from marrying.
How else do you stop gays from getting married?
I want less government but even if there was none of that involved who wants to get involved in the personal lives of others?
Gay marriage affect you? How?

Ehhhh.. wrong answer.. I do not want government to define marriage... I want individuals with the freedom to accept this couple or that couple as married or whatever all on their own... and only have government recognize family units for the purposes of taxation, legal contracts, legal power of attorney, inheritance, etc...

If a gay wants to go to this church or that institution or whatever else and wants to be deemed as marriage in whatever person's eyes.. so be it... but you do not force others to give up their freedom to see you differently because of your choice....

Again.. this whole movement is about forced recognition and acceptance... plain and simple....

Whether I recognize your union or Joe Schmoe accepts it or Jane Doe hates it or whatever should have nothing to do with law or government

What BS Dave.
"do not want force others to give up their freedom to see you differently because of your choice"
Gay marriage does that? Forces you to see someone differently because of their choice to marry?
That is beyond absurd. How does that force you to do a damn thing Dave.
Allowing gay marriage will force you to see someone else differently? LOL
Even if it did Dave, what harm is that and how was it forced on you and HOW THE HELL WOULD YOU KNOW ANYWAY?
Do you hang out at the Probate Court and record all marriages?
You would not even know that gays were getting married Dave. How is that any of your damn business anyway?

It becomes someone else's business when laws demand that everyone recognize that marriage as legal. Take that away, and 95% of all objections disappear also.

 

[DiamondDave]

When gay marriage is legal nationwide, people will still have the freedom to accept or not accept it. Same way people can not accept a marriage for any reason they deem fit.

No... that is where you are COMPLETELY wrong.... with legality and involvement on so many aspects, government FORCES acceptance, recognition, etc.... And that is not the job of government...

Keep government only involved with the parts that government is supposed to be involved with.. legal contract, taxation, etc....

I agree with you that getting gov't out of marriage is what's best.

As a side point, Jesus clearly and directly stated that remarriage was adultery and using your logic those who follow Jesus's teachings are forced to accept and recognize.

You may be against that as well, but how come in a mostly christian nation, and Jesus speaking clearly against remarriage and never a peep against gay marriage, why do we hear people speaking out against gay marriage more than remarriage at roughtly a 1873424782286299715 to 1 clip?

Well.. considering I am getting remarried here in 1 month and 28 days (but who is counting? right) I know I would be in 'violation' of some people's beliefs... and I am fine with that.. and I don't need government to fight my battles for me on that... nor do I need them to back me up if an employer has something against it, or if I receive ridicule from neighbors or the community at large

My fiancee has a huge group of gay friends, and they are now my friends as well... and we have discussed this many times.. and in this group, I respect them because they see how while I am against legislation about gay marriage in government, I am all for being with whomever they want... They kind of cocked their heads when I explained my stance of government out of marriage all together except in true governmental aspects.... and while they were all for the various legislation efforts in MD before, they are now more in line with removing all marriage legislation on this and focusing on the freedom rather than the forcing... I think the strangest look I got is what I said people have just as much of a 'right' to be a bigot or prejudiced against it as they do to be open and accepting... for marriage and marrying someone or being with someone or being that person's life partner or whatever term you wish to use, is a personal choice... and we accept or choose not to accept things with people based on choice EVERY DAY.. I choose not to associate with criminals or dishonorable people.. I choose not to hire unprofessional looking people... I choose not to invite pot heads into my house... I choose not to bring people with foul mouths around my children... I choose to keep my kids away from radicals or activists.. I choose to down those who deem themselves socialists... and the list goes on

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

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.

i know that if i were living in a country and it's name changed or the government changed i would instantly be transformed into a different person. and all my ancestors wouldn't be my ancestors anymore.

 

[Katzndogz]

When Rome was the Roman Empire, there was no Italy so there weren't any Italians. If you want slaughter intellectual or otherwise, call a Sicilian an Italian!

Italians become Italians mostly when they leave Italy. In Europe they are Romans, Milanese, Sicilians, Tuscans, etc. The city-state never quite ended.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

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

So, where is the power of the FCC, the FAA, the FDA, the CIA, the FBI strictly laid out in the Constitution?

or providing a military for other countries.

 

[bodecea]

It does not matter to me who lives with who or what they do as they live in whatever circumstance they believe for themselves is best. That is not any part of my objections. It's being forced to twist what is an abnormality into a normality and change accordingly.

Remove the segretation of gay history from the schools. Restore the individual right to conduct their own business and affairs according to their conscience and judgment of behavior. Restore cohesiveness and honor to the military. Allow individuals to reject being forced to accept depravity as normal behavior and I don't care what gays and lesbians do.

Are you saying the military does not have cohesiveness?

Are you saying the military has no Honor?

Who are you to make such statements?

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

Gays and lesbians have always had the right to marry. That they choose not to marry is not a general concern.

Here are four of the arguments they used:

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."

On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:

The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.

 

[bodecea]

Some schools already mandate that non-believers be leaders in faith based groups.

You, of course, have links to prove that.

That Churches, Synagogues and Mosques have the freedom NOW to reject performing same sex marriages, that won't last long due to these same public accommodation laws.

Just like Churches, Synagogues, and Mosques no longer have the freedom to reject performing inter-racial or inter-faith marriages?

Like that?

That's the point of having them. To change the belief upon which personal opinion is based into a belief of normalizing degeneracy.

You need to prove that churches, etc. are now no longer have the freedom to reject performing inter-racial marriages because of Loving v. Virginia.