Ca Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[DavidS]

You guys do realize that this whole religious thing against gay people is just a cover, right?

#1 - The verse in Exodus talking about gay sex being bad, is a mitzvah, i.e. a law of G-d.

#2 - When the "New Testament" was written, and enforced, Christians basically threw away the old Testament and felt they have a NEW covenant with G-d. This is why they don't celebrate Purim, Yom Kippur, Channukah and what not. They have a new contract with G-d that completely eliminates them from following the previous one.

#3 - There are, far worse things to do in Judaism than to have anal sex with another man. In fact, not keeping the Sabbath is pretty high up there on a list of things that G-d would be unhappy about.

What this is REALLY about is homophobia and biggots. How many of you use the word "fag" when describing a gay person?

 

[blu]

the vote in ca was never fair in the first place. it was influenced by religious (christian) groups who once again are on the wrong side of history just like when they were against woman's & African American's rights and called mixed marrying communism. once Christianity leaves the country we will truly be a free society.

 

[blu]

You guys do realize that this whole religious thing against gay people is just a cover, right?

#1 - The verse in Exodus talking about gay sex being bad, is a mitzvah, i.e. a law of G-d.

#2 - When the "New Testament" was written, and enforced, Christians basically threw away the old Testament and felt they have a NEW covenant with G-d. This is why they don't celebrate Purim, Yom Kippur, Channukah and what not. They have a new contract with G-d that completely eliminates them from following the previous one.

#3 - There are, far worse things to do in Judaism than to have anal sex with another man. In fact, not keeping the Sabbath is pretty high up there on a list of things that G-d would be unhappy about.

What this is REALLY about is homophobia and biggots. How many of you use the word "fag" when describing a gay person?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You guys do realize that this whole religious thing against gay people is just a cover, right?

#1 - The verse in Exodus talking about gay sex being bad, is a mitzvah, i.e. a law of G-d.

#2 - When the "New Testament" was written, and enforced, Christians basically threw away the old Testament and felt they have a NEW covenant with G-d. This is why they don't celebrate Purim, Yom Kippur, Channukah and what not. They have a new contract with G-d that completely eliminates them from following the previous one.

#3 - There are, far worse things to do in Judaism than to have anal sex with another man. In fact, not keeping the Sabbath is pretty high up there on a list of things that G-d would be unhappy about.

What this is REALLY about is homophobia and biggots. How many of you use the word "fag" when describing a gay person?

You are wrong in so many ways. But of course you knew someone would say that. So whats your game? If you want talk bible then maybe you should study it before commenting.
'Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,


Rom 1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

 

[ConHog]

the vote in ca was never fair in the first place. it was influenced by religious (christian) groups who once again are on the wrong side of history just like when they were against woman's & African American's rights and called mixed marrying communism. once Christianity leaves the country we will truly be a free society.

So, let me get this straight. Your idea of freedom is to run off the Christians? LOL. Holy shit. I can't believe you actually wrote that. There was once this man, he thought is society would be perfect if he could just get rid of all the damn Jews.

 

[Dr Grump]

the vote in ca was never fair in the first place. it was influenced by religious (christian) groups who once again are on the wrong side of history just like when they were against woman's & African American's rights and called mixed marrying communism. once Christianity leaves the country we will truly be a free society.

So, let me get this straight. Your idea of freedom is to run off the Christians? LOL. Holy shit. I can't believe you actually wrote that. There was once this man, he thought is society would be perfect if he could just get rid of all the damn Jews.

He's not saying that at all...
Christians, or anybody for that matter, should have no say in what is a basic human right, and your Hitler analogy could also fit those who are against gay marriage...

 

[ConHog]

the vote in ca was never fair in the first place. it was influenced by religious (christian) groups who once again are on the wrong side of history just like when they were against woman's & African American's rights and called mixed marrying communism. once Christianity leaves the country we will truly be a free society.

So, let me get this straight. Your idea of freedom is to run off the Christians? LOL. Holy shit. I can't believe you actually wrote that. There was once this man, he thought is society would be perfect if he could just get rid of all the damn Jews.

He's not saying that at all...
Christians, or anybody for that matter, should have no say in what is a basic human right, and your Hitler analogy could also fit those who are against gay marriage...

That is what he meant. and if I see anyone on here write that America would be great if we could just get rid of all the fags, I'd blast them to. What a ridiculous thing to say.

 

[Oscar Wao]

The anti-gay sex verses have to do with pagan prostitution, not homosexuality as known today.

 

[Tank]

If you really cared about your friend, you would'nt fuck him in the ass.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The public voted overwhelmingly for no gay marriage. A judge overturned this for activists who aren't content with just working out contractual agreements on the side like rational people. Therefore you have taken away the will of the people and supplanted it with activist special interest. People don't LIKE that when their vote is nullified by an asshole judge looking play social engineer because they feel entitled to.

It will be interesting IF it turns out SCOTUS bans gay marriage nation wide though. Willing to accept THAT decision too? The majority of Americans, particularly minorities would rejoice their will would matter.

if the public voted overwhelmingly against equal rights for Blacks would you be so ready to support it?

Civil rights are not to be voted on.

Really? So you're saying the people have no right to vote directly on the laws that govern their lives by direct referendum? Huh. So I guess we're really ruled by judges who aren't elected then because they decide what the rules mean and who can make them as long as they agree. Interesting. So much for your faith in direct democracy. I guess it only matters when it agrees with you.

oh... and one small fallacy to point out. Gay 'rights' are not Civil Rights, it's a behavior and/or lifestyle choice, not a state of existence like skin color is. (and don't bother trying to advocate otherwise to me, I don't give a fuck what you believe. It's not the point of this thread.)

The issue is one of ignoring the will of the people for an activist minority. BTW, if civil rights is not to be voted on, I guess there's no right to vote on many other 'rights' too, like property rights so zoning is out of line (now I can put my oil derrick in my back yard in the city and dog fighting pit in the garage), or behavior rights, so I can put my porn shop next to your church and sell to your kids, or health rights, welcome back smoking in movie theaters and bye bye drinking age!

You sure on this attitude? All sorts of referendum voted ordinances out there that can be done away with. Please... let's go back to life before the temperance movement existed. That'll be FUN!

You do realize that if we vote on matters of civil rights, that many will be denied the very rights you claim to be entitled to.

We could all vote that no Asians be allowed to live in our neighborhood, or that Blacks had to attend separate schools.

The majority has no right to deny a minority of their civil rights. Period.

Zoning and property rights are not the same a basic civil rights.

 

[Madeline]

Well, darn. Come late to this party and there's scarcely a thing left to say. But here's a few:

Congrats to the people of California, to the gays and lesbians waiting for parity elsewhere, and to all involved in making this historic decision.

Dude...seriously, get help. Repeal "statutory marriage" rather than recognize the rights of homosexuals to marry? And what state can you name that still recognizes "common law" marriage? I don't see any harm to anyone flowing from recognizing the rights of homosexuals to marry. But I can see MAJOR disruption to people's lives from preventing everyone from marrying (and what? dissolving such marriages as now exist?). Seriously....it's one thing to be badly informed. It's quite another to refuse to get educated. You clearly don't have a clue as to how the US constitution works.

No one has a right to compel any religious leader to perform a marriage. In order to accomplish a marriage under state law, you need an officiant the state recognizes (judge, religious leader, etc.), a license, etc. Everyone can be married by any state official (time permitting) but a religious leader can set requirements and refuse couples who do not meet them. Nothing has changed for the haters out there in fundamentalism-ville.

This is a great decision; I look forward to more.

 

[Ravi]

It's correct that sexuality isn't mentioned in Prop 8. While the de facto discrimination against gays is a sexy red herring, the de jure discrimination is against gender and I think that's where the legal argument really is.

I look at it real simple-like:

There are privileges provided by marriage. First things that come to mind: tax benefits, 401K benefits, inheritance, medical decisions. I believe those privileges shouldn't be disallowed to a consensual adult relationship--marriage, civil union, I don't give a fuck what it's called--simply because of the gender of both parties. To me, that reeks of gender discrimination, and as a violation of the Fourteenth.

If SCOTUS strikes Prop 8 down, then DOMA will go, too. We're watching a landmark case unfold.

We're watching our country change from a republic to a tyranny, is what we're watching. Where judges overrule the people to assert their own political views.

Judges are duty bound to strike down unconstitutional laws. The public isn't allowed to vote on the rights of other citizens.

Sorry you hate America!

 

[Ravi]

The issue here definitely is the state-issued license, per se.

You're perfectly free to marry any man -gay or not- you want, under a statutory marriage.

Otherwise, you'll have to go the common or contract law route.

And thus...gender discrimination.

So?

Now I'll ask you: How do we set about to determine and quantify "gayness", to make sure that same-sex hetero couples aren't horning in on the statutory marriage bandwagon?

You don't.

 

[Ravi]

A license isn't a right...It's a privilege...You can look it up.

And don't give me any of that swill about Loving...Gays are still free to make up legally binding private and common law marriage arrangements.

So...do you support denying gays any other type of license because they are gay? Driver's license? Medical license? Hunting license?

 

[Ravi]

if the public voted overwhelmingly against equal rights for Blacks would you be so ready to support it?

Civil rights are not to be voted on.

Really? So you're saying the people have no right to vote directly on the laws that govern their lives by direct referendum? Huh. So I guess we're really ruled by judges who aren't elected then because they decide what the rules mean and who can make them as long as they agree. Interesting. So much for your faith in direct democracy. I guess it only matters when it agrees with you.

oh... and one small fallacy to point out. Gay 'rights' are not Civil Rights, it's a behavior and/or lifestyle choice, not a state of existence like skin color is. (and don't bother trying to advocate otherwise to me, I don't give a fuck what you believe. It's not the point of this thread.)

The issue is one of ignoring the will of the people for an activist minority. BTW, if civil rights is not to be voted on, I guess there's no right to vote on many other 'rights' too, like property rights so zoning is out of line (now I can put my oil derrick in my back yard in the city and dog fighting pit in the garage), or behavior rights, so I can put my porn shop next to your church and sell to your kids, or health rights, welcome back smoking in movie theaters and bye bye drinking age!

You sure on this attitude? All sorts of referendum voted ordinances out there that can be done away with. Please... let's go back to life before the temperance movement existed. That'll be FUN!

You do realize that if we vote on matters of civil rights, that many will be denied the very rights you claim to be entitled to.

We could all vote that no Asians be allowed to live in our neighborhood, or that Blacks had to attend separate schools.

The majority has no right to deny a minority of their civil rights. Period.

Zoning and property rights are not the same a basic civil rights.

This is it! And exactly why everyone should be happy that this law was struck down as unconstitutional.

 

[rightwinger]

When I got married I was not concerned with survivor benefits, tax deductions or medical insurance. It was a public declaration that I loved my wife and intended to be with her for the rest of my life. Thats all gays want...to have the right to declare their love and partnership to society and have it acnowledged.

They want the right to say..."This is my wife...this is my husband" just like we can

Society shouldn't determine who you are allowed to love as long as you are consenting adults.

 

[Valerie]

Just to cause trouble.. what happens if Gays have the okay on marriage and request a marriage at their local Mosque?

None of my business. Certainly a Muslim church has the same right to sanctify a marriage as a Christian church, Buddhist shrine, whatever.

Will the Mosque be forced to preform the marriage by the state? I wonder...

No, Lumpy...The State can not force the Mosque or Temple or Church to preform any Marriage.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[AllieBaba]

Marriage equality does not include plural marriage Willow. Move to Utah.

That's a lovely sentiment. Sort of like telling blacks to move to Africa, or gays to move to San Fran

After all, if we're going to let all consenting adults marry each other at will, why not allow plural marriages? Or marriages between parents and (grown) children? Brothers and sisters? Don't they have the right to pursue happiness in their own way as well?

 

[AllieBaba]

None of my business. Certainly a Muslim church has the same right to sanctify a marriage as a Christian church, Buddhist shrine, whatever.

Will the Mosque be forced to preform the marriage by the state? I wonder...

No, Lumpy...The State can not force the Mosque or Temple or Church to preform any Marriage.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That will change. That's what this law is about. It's not about giving gays rights. They already have rights. They are not an oppressed population.

 

[AllieBaba]

Well, darn. Come late to this party and there's scarcely a thing left to say. But here's a few:

Congrats to the people of California, to the gays and lesbians waiting for parity elsewhere, and to all involved in making this historic decision.

Dude...seriously, get help. Repeal "statutory marriage" rather than recognize the rights of homosexuals to marry? And what state can you name that still recognizes "common law" marriage? I don't see any harm to anyone flowing from recognizing the rights of homosexuals to marry. But I can see MAJOR disruption to people's lives from preventing everyone from marrying (and what? dissolving such marriages as now exist?). Seriously....it's one thing to be badly informed. It's quite another to refuse to get educated. You clearly don't have a clue as to how the US constitution works.

No one has a right to compel any religious leader to perform a marriage. In order to accomplish a marriage under state law, you need an officiant the state recognizes (judge, religious leader, etc.), a license, etc. Everyone can be married by any state official (time permitting) but a religious leader can set requirements and refuse couples who do not meet them. Nothing has changed for the haters out there in fundamentalism-ville.

This is a great decision; I look forward to more.

God you're stupid.
The people of California were just vetoed. They don't want gay marriage and a single judge has thrown out their collective decision.