The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[Seawytch]

There is a gay agenda...

 

[Silhouette]

There is a gay agenda...

Yes, that and this in front of kids on Mainstreet USA in broad daylight:

 

[Seawytch]

There is a gay agenda...

Yes, that and this in front of kids on Mainstreet USA in broad daylight:

No different than anything I've seen at Mardi Gras.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, it's very different. Mardi Gras is known to be a drunken public bash. And what is done that night, nobody brags about the next day as "something to be proud of". Much less to teach school children that it is "OK, fine, something to aspire to".

The word "pride" is the difference. These gay advocates do mock gay sex acts in broad daylight in front of children down mainstreet USA in the heartland, holding up signs that promote a type of "sexual" behavior that leads to death the quickest type of any. And they do this calling the parade "what we are proud of".

The word "pride" differentiates the two events. Anyone who knowingly brings their children to either of these events should have custody of them removed.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh, it's very different. Mardi Gras is known to be a drunken public bash. And what is done that night, nobody brags about the next day as "something to be proud of". Much less to teach school children that it is "OK, fine, something to aspire to".

The word "pride" is the difference. These gay advocates do mock gay sex acts in broad daylight in front of children down mainstreet USA in the heartland, holding up signs that promote a type of "sexual" behavior that leads to death the quickest type of any. And they do this calling the parade "what we are proud of".

The word "pride" differentiates the two events. Anyone who knowingly brings their children to either of these events should have custody of them removed.

You're right...there's much more debauchery at Mardi Gras. Damn hets can't control themselves!

Hey, how 'bout that New Jersey!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

All divorces are messy and costly, show me one that isn't. Any custody issues usually side with the mom, however what about adopted children of a lesbian couple? There is a first in everything, as legal matters meet new challenges when the "state" of the relationship changes. Believe me, with all the money involved in legal fees.... I'm sure the courts can handle it. That excuse is rather weak, as traditional marriage supporters used the same example of "the effects of the relationship on children" as a means to prove their case against redefining marriage to include same sex couples. Now we have those who desire rights for same sex couples, making excuses against another consenting group from desiring THEIR right to pursue a polygamist lifestyle. I find those excuses to be rather ironic to say the least. Congratulations, you just graduated yourself into the labeled "hate" group.

Bigamy may eventually become accepted when society is ready to accept it as they are now with same-sex Civil Marriage.

I was simply pointing out a compelling government interest as to why it is not viable. One not based on religion, tradition (since bigamy has a long history in both secular and religious realms), on morality, or that it is "icky".



>>>>>

Bigamy concerns criminal, not civil, law – in this case fraud.

Same-sex couples are already eligible to enter into marriage contracts, as the laws exist now, bigamists clearly not; the only issue is states refusing to allow same-sex couples access to that marriage law.

‘Bigamy,’ ‘polygamy,’ ‘sibling “marriage,”’ ‘father/daughter “marriage,”’ ‘child “marriage,”’ etc, are all irrelevant red herrings, examples of the desperate demagoguery used by those hostile to homosexuals and hostile to the equal protection rights of same-sex couples, motivated solely by fear, ignorance, and hate.

In case you are unaware "sodomy" at one time was considered immoral and criminal by state law. Are you trying to now view polygamy by these same standards that our country once believed? You have to do a lot better than that to allow one consensual couple their right to equality and personal preference, while denying another consensual group theirs. You are either expressing hypocrisy or condoning "hatred" (as you say) based upon someone's CHOSEN lifestyle. Which is it? Don't tell me you are trying desperately to interject some form of "morality" into the equation? Really? Criminal on the basis of ..... the history of our society? Society obviously changed over the years, with respect to sodomy and same sex relationships. Try harder ......

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Oh, it's very different. Mardi Gras is known to be a drunken public bash. And what is done that night, nobody brags about the next day as "something to be proud of". Much less to teach school children that it is "OK, fine, something to aspire to".

The word "pride" is the difference. These gay advocates do mock gay sex acts in broad daylight in front of children down mainstreet USA in the heartland, holding up signs that promote a type of "sexual" behavior that leads to death the quickest type of any. And they do this calling the parade "what we are proud of".

The word "pride" differentiates the two events. Anyone who knowingly brings their children to either of these events should have custody of them removed.

Spoken like a true ignorant, authoritarian conservative.

With each of your posts you demonstrate the wisdom of the Framers who wrote the Constitution to protect citizens from the ignorance and hate you exhibit.

 

[Silhouette]

In case you are unaware "sodomy" at one time was considered immoral and criminal by state law. Are you trying to now view polygamy by these same standards that our country once believed? You have to do a lot better than that to allow one consensual couple their right to equality and personal preference, while denying another consensual group theirs. You are either expressing hypocrisy or condoning "hatred" (as you say) based upon someone's CHOSEN lifestyle. Which is it? Don't tell me you are trying desperately to interject some form of "morality" into the equation? Really? Criminal on the basis of ..... the history of our society? Society obviously changed over the years, with respect to sodomy and same sex relationships. Try harder ......

Yes. Precisely. Big round of applause for ShalkesOfBigGov!

 

[Silhouette]

Spoken like a true ignorant, authoritarian conservative.

With each of your posts you demonstrate the wisdom of the Framers who wrote the Constitution to protect citizens from the ignorance and hate you exhibit.

It's easy to hate adults who lewdly parade deviant sex acts in front of kids. I want to belong to a society that finds that behavior repugnant to the point of alarm. When that alarm is lost, children become endangered. That is counter to every instinct in a normal healthy adult to place children in situations where their physical or mental wellbeing is compromised.

Thanks for the compliment!

I also don't want to belong to a country where one state is illegally singled out to not enjoy it's fully constitutionally-protected rights to consensus to say yes or no to gay marriage. Prop 8 is fully binding law. Sedition used to be punished with life in prison or death. And there are good reasons to deter it so harshly... Just as there are good reasons to anti-promote gay sex acts in broad daylight in front of kids on mainstreet as a form of "pride" about that sad and shameful behavior..

 

[WorldWatcher]

I also don't want to belong to a country where one state is illegally singled out to not enjoy it's fully constitutionally-protected rights to consensus to say yes or no to gay marriage.

Not what the DOMA case did. The DOMA case was a federal case in which the SCOTUS said that if the State says "Yes" then the Fed's can't say "No". They did not address whether States could say "no" in the first place.

Prop 8 is fully binding law.

No, it's not. Prop 8 was found unconstitutional, therefore it is not binding law. The SCOTUS did not vacate the District Court's decision on the matter.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

[

It's easy to hate adults who lewdly parade deviant sex acts in front of kids. I want to belong to a society that finds that behavior repugnant to the point of alarm. When that alarm is lost, children become endangered. That is counter to every instinct in a normal healthy adult to place children in situations where their physical or mental wellbeing is compromised.

Nobody is "lewdly parading deviant sex acts in front of kids".

I also don't want to belong to a country where one state is illegally singled out to not enjoy it's fully constitutionally-protected rights to consensus to say yes or no to gay marriage. Prop 8 is fully binding law. Sedition used to be punished with life in prison or death. And there are good reasons to deter it so harshly... Just as there are good reasons to anti-promote gay sex acts in broad daylight in front of kids on mainstreet as a form of "pride" about that sad and shameful behavior..

How do you so badly misread the DOMA and Prop 8 rulings?

 

[Unkotare]

Nobody is "lewdly parading deviant sex acts in front of kids".

I dunno, some of those 'parades' can get a little out of hand. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only the interpretation of law and the Constitution matters, try to stay on topic instead of deflections and tangents. You want to talk about the IRS, start another topic thread.

You are deflecting the point: the IRS has made the ruling. The states have to inventory every state tax return matched against the federal tax return by the filers. The filers have every right to follow federal procedure.

The states are in a pickle. Now I want you guys to stay on topic, hear?

I'm not the one who moved from the law and "legal" argument surrounding Proposition 8, DOMA, and the United States Supreme Court into a discussion about tax law. Do pay attention and try to follow the discussion here, your ADD is getting the best of you.

Your prop 8 arguments have fail above, shakles. There is no constitutional issue, none.

Now, with the IRS ruling, an insurmountable obstacle has been placed in the way of you folks.

It is what is. The issue is over.

 

[Seawytch]

Nobody is "lewdly parading deviant sex acts in front of kids".

I dunno, some of those 'parades' can get a little out of hand. Wouldn't you agree?

There are no sex acts going on. And no, I've been to a number of parades and they've not once gotten "out of hand". We even marched in one once as a family with a gay parents group.

Sure, there were a lot of men in speedos, but you can see that on any beach in Florida...and it's usually not the muscled hot guys like it is at pride parades.

 

[JoeB131]

It is true that gay marriage is inevitable, as inevitable as the fall of the Roman Empire was. Therefore, our fall is inevitable as we eat away at the underpinnings of the nation until, like a two legged table, it falls.

It is sad to see. We were once such a great nation and now it's time for someone else's turn.

More than like, nationalities and nation-states themselves are probably coming to an end.

Pretty soon, big corporations will be the real powers of the world, and government will just be taxing and contracting bodies.

But this will have nothing to do with getting to the 20th century and finally putting an end to religious stupidity and homophobia.

 

[Silhouette]

More than like, nationalities and nation-states themselves are probably coming to an end.

Pretty soon, big corporations will be the real powers of the world, and government will just be taxing and contracting bodies.

But this will have nothing to do with getting to the 20th century and finally putting an end to religious stupidity and homophobia.

The rogue situation in California means that at the will of any despot or influential corporation, the consensus laws banning offshore oil drilling there can be simply declared unconstitutional and an infringment of corporation-citizen rights. If the initiative system no longer carries the full thrust of law there under that state's fully protected right to consensus on gay marriage, what's next, legally speaking? You cannot say "oh, we can dissolve the power of the initiative system and trample constitutional rights when it comes to gay marriage, but definitely not when it comes to offshore oil drilling."

Think again. Once the precedent of sedition on the people of CA begins, others will "run with premise", to quote Southpark.

 

[Seawytch]

More than like, nationalities and nation-states themselves are probably coming to an end.

Pretty soon, big corporations will be the real powers of the world, and government will just be taxing and contracting bodies.

But this will have nothing to do with getting to the 20th century and finally putting an end to religious stupidity and homophobia.

The rogue situation in California means that at the will of any despot or influential corporation, the consensus laws banning offshore oil drilling there can be simply declared unconstitutional and an infringment of corporation-citizen rights. If the initiative system no longer carries the full thrust of law there under that state's fully protected right to consensus on gay marriage, what's next, legally speaking? You cannot say "oh, we can dissolve the power of the initiative system and trample constitutional rights when it comes to gay marriage, but definitely not when it comes to offshore oil drilling."

Think again. Once the precedent of sedition on the people of CA begins, others will "run with premise", to quote Southpark.

California has been and still is passing initiatives by petition. The ones that don't violate the Constitution, are just fine. Prop 8 violated the US Constitution.

 

[Silhouette]

California has been and still is passing initiatives by petition. The ones that don't violate the Constitution, are just fine. Prop 8 violated the US Constitution.

Let me describe carefully and methodically, the chain of command on laws in CA:

1. The California Constitution is paramount but even so, subjects itself wholly and completely to the US Constitution:

"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_3

2. The US Supreme Court just interpreted the Constitution to say that each sovereign state, as a right to determine their own social fabric destiny, has the unquestioned authority and right to consensus on the question of gay marriage. That consensus gives them the right to either say yes or no to gay marriage.

3. There has be NO Upholding of constitutional law that defies that choice in consensus, no determination of gays having an inaliable right to marry anywhere in the US. Any state constituitonal statute that defies a state's right on consensus, retroactive to the founding of the country no less, is null and void. California may not arbitrarily deny 7 million people of their constitutionally-protected right to consensus on gay marriage because of what they think their own constitution says something different about that consensus; [refer to item #1 herein].

Here is what the California Constitution website actually lists as valid law current as of this date:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

Might want to take that one to your lawyer also to mull over whether or not you and your gay buddy are legally married there..

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I also don't want to belong to a country where one state is illegally singled out to not enjoy it's fully constitutionally-protected rights to consensus to say yes or no to gay marriage.

Not what the DOMA case did. The DOMA case was a federal case in which the SCOTUS said that if the State says "Yes" then the Fed's can't say "No". They did not address whether States could say "no" in the first place.

Prop 8 is fully binding law.

No, it's not. Prop 8 was found unconstitutional, therefore it is not binding law. The SCOTUS did not vacate the District Court's decision on the matter.


>>>>

Listening to this whole debate puts me to mind concerning state rights to self govern, over a bully Federal Government to force others to comply. Such was the case that led to the division of our country through succession. The south felt that their [state] rights were not being properly represented in Congress, and that the greater representation of the north (in the house) was forcing it's views onto the south. All that being said to raise the question - Have we lost the rights of the states to self govern, and allowed an empowered Federal Government to take over to dictate or impose their views on others. Have we truly lost the limitations and restrictions that our Founders originally placed upon government?

 

[JakeStarkey]

shakles and silhouette continue bound by their prejudices and hatreds.

Prop 8 is dead, a stake through its evil heart.