The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[Seawytch]

Have you looked at California polling lately? If CA were to put another gay marriage initiative on the ballot, the gays would win.

I looked at the polling just before Prop 8 was voted on in California. It didn't jibe with the results of the vote at all. Your point is? In other words what you just said was said twice already in California. But oddly, the issue of legalizing specifically gay marriage has never come on the ballot there and twice the liberal state was predicted to not vote-out gay marriage and twice it did. Sorry if reality doesn't line up with your polling "data"...

Here's my polling results on gay marriage:

Seriously? That's your proof that "everybody hates the gays"?

Poor Sill...

Californians Support Gay Marriage, Want Prop. 8 Overturned

 

[Redfish]

Geez, this thread is still alive? hasn't everything possible already been said on this topic?

No one is going to change their positions on this issue no matter how much BS is slung around.

Time to move on to something that really matters.

 

[Silhouette]

Geez, this thread is still alive? hasn't everything possible already been said on this topic?

No one is going to change their positions on this issue no matter how much BS is slung around.

Time to move on to something that really matters.

No, the subject of this thread has not been exhausted, as anxious as you may be to see the topic "go away"...lol..

And I note that you offer this the second the real numbers for the lukewarm support of middle voters on gay marriage comes up. And the picture of chic fil a....

You may recall the seed of this thread is the ripping away of the People's Will through a consensus vote using propaganda and sedition. Part of that recipe is the strange polling results used to justify ripping away the Will of Consensus in California...those polling results don't line up with reality ie: the vote in CA TWICE and the chic fil a crowds that wrapped around the block for hours in support of a business owner vocally opposed to gay marriage. Maybe they are afraid of gay backlash and won't tell the truth but only in the voting booth. And that "telling" must be respected by law.

 

[Redfish]

Geez, this thread is still alive? hasn't everything possible already been said on this topic?

No one is going to change their positions on this issue no matter how much BS is slung around.

Time to move on to something that really matters.

No, the subject of this thread has not been exhausted, as anxious as you may be to see the topic "go away"...lol..

And I note that you offer this the second the real numbers for the lukewarm support of middle voters on gay marriage comes up. And the picture of chic fil a....

You may recall the seed of this thread is the ripping away of the People's Will through a consensus vote using propaganda and sedition. Part of that recipe is the strange polling results used to justify ripping away the Will of Consensus in California...those polling results don't line up with reality ie: the vote in CA TWICE and the chic fil a crowds that wrapped around the block for hours in support of a business owner vocally opposed to gay marriage. Maybe they are afraid of gay backlash and won't tell the truth but only in the voting booth. And that "telling" must be respected by law.

all I am saying is that neither side is going to change the minds of the other side. the voters in CA said no to gay marriage twice, and the will of the people was ignored.

I don't care if gays hook up and want to legally commit to each other, and when they do that they should have the same rights as a married man and woman. But what they have is not a marriage.

and thats the real issue with most gays like seawytch, its not about equality, its about forcing their views on the rest of us. its about government mandated thought control.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Madison never tied "tyranny" to "majority".....and you know it...... it is an idiotic phrase

I think he might have used the phrase "overbearing majority"...hardly a tyranny...and the only "cure" hes seems to have come up with.....(this was all in his weaselly Federalist days)...was separate legislative bodies. .....not elitists in courts..........

And Im pretty sure just a few years after saying that, Madison sided with Jefferson against the court packing of the Federalist Adams.

Now is there any doubt about what Madison's opinion on gay marriage would have been?

It doesn't matter what the FF thought about SSM anymore than what they thought about blacks, non landowners or women voting. They wrote a document that allows for them.

If you are going to rely on the courts it does matter what the FF thought to a certain extent, and what the populace at the time thought. Slavery was abolished with an amendment that represents the will of the people. Women can vote due to an amendment also.

We can see now where you’re confused.

You’re incorrectly perceiving that Supreme Court rulings such as Windsor somehow ‘change’ the Constitution, or ‘change’ the original intent of the Framers, the same way an amendment makes a change to the Constitution.

Again, this is incorrect.

When the Windsor Court stuck down DOMA, for example, it did so in accordance with the original intent of the framers, and in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

It’s time once again to remind conservatives of the Framers’ original intent, as Justice Kennedy correctly observed in Lawrence:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

The Framers did not presume to possess a finite understanding of what constitutes individual liberty, and it was not their intent to codify such an understanding in the Constitution.

Their intent was to codify the fundamental principles underpinning individual liberty, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of that liberty in all its “manifold possibilities.”

Consequently, that slavery was ended or women allowed the vote as a result of Constitutional Amendments has no bearing whatsoever concerning the right of same-sex couples to access marriage law. As to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Liberty Clause of the 5th Amendment, and since such a prohibition violates the fundamental principles of liberty codified by the Framers in the Constitution, so too does it violate the Framers’ original intent as to the very nature of the expression of that individual liberty.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Geez, this thread is still alive? hasn't everything possible already been said on this topic?

No one is going to change their positions on this issue no matter how much BS is slung around.

Time to move on to something that really matters.

No, the subject of this thread has not been exhausted, as anxious as you may be to see the topic "go away"...lol..

And I note that you offer this the second the real numbers for the lukewarm support of middle voters on gay marriage comes up. And the picture of chic fil a....

You may recall the seed of this thread is the ripping away of the People's Will through a consensus vote using propaganda and sedition. Part of that recipe is the strange polling results used to justify ripping away the Will of Consensus in California...those polling results don't line up with reality ie: the vote in CA TWICE and the chic fil a crowds that wrapped around the block for hours in support of a business owner vocally opposed to gay marriage. Maybe they are afraid of gay backlash and won't tell the truth but only in the voting booth. And that "telling" must be respected by law.

all I am saying is that neither side is going to change the minds of the other side. the voters in CA said no to gay marriage twice, and the will of the people was ignored.

I don't care if gays hook up and want to legally commit to each other, and when they do that they should have the same rights as a married man and woman. But what they have is not a marriage.

and thats the real issue with most gays like seawytch, its not about equality, its about forcing their views on the rest of us. its about government mandated thought control.

Correct, no minds will be changed.

But neither will the facts be ‘changed,’ and the fact remains that the residents of California did not possess the authority to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights, as our rights are not determined by majority rule.

Since residents of California never possessed the authority to deny same-sex couples their Constitutional rights, there was no ‘will’ to ‘ignore.’

And you and other rightists will retain the liberty to hate homosexuals and be ignorant of, or exhibit contempt for, the Constitution and its case law; but you never had the liberty to attempt to codify that hate and ignorance, just as the voters of California never possessed such a liberty.

 

[OODA_Loop]

My state Constitution defines marriage = between a man and woman.

No gay marriage here.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It get's better:

Pictures are the best polls you can get.

lol

Yes, enter your pictures as ‘evidence’ in a court of law to justify denying same-sex couples their civil liberties.

Priceless.

 

[WorldWatcher]

and thats the real issue with most gays like seawytch, its not about equality, its about forcing their views on the rest of us. its about government mandated thought control.

Well there are two sides to that coin.

Those whose efforts are to deny Marriage Equality to gays is also not about marriage, its about forcing their views on the rest of society. its about government mandated thought control.


>>>>

 

[sfcalifornia]

Geez, this thread is still alive? hasn't everything possible already been said on this topic?

No one is going to change their positions on this issue no matter how much BS is slung around.

Time to move on to something that really matters.

No, the subject of this thread has not been exhausted, as anxious as you may be to see the topic "go away"...lol..

And I note that you offer this the second the real numbers for the lukewarm support of middle voters on gay marriage comes up. And the picture of chic fil a....

You may recall the seed of this thread is the ripping away of the People's Will through a consensus vote using propaganda and sedition. Part of that recipe is the strange polling results used to justify ripping away the Will of Consensus in California...those polling results don't line up with reality ie: the vote in CA TWICE and the chic fil a crowds that wrapped around the block for hours in support of a business owner vocally opposed to gay marriage. Maybe they are afraid of gay backlash and won't tell the truth but only in the voting booth. And that "telling" must be respected by law.

the voters in CA said no to gay marriage twice, and the will of the people was ignored.

The will of the people was hardly ignored. Where have you been for the last five years?

The will of the people was challenged, tried and eventually judged unconsititutional.

Seriously, did you miss all that somehow?

 

[Listening]

and thats the real issue with most gays like seawytch, its not about equality, its about forcing their views on the rest of us. its about government mandated thought control.

Well there are two sides to that coin.

Those whose efforts are to deny Marriage Equality to gays is also not about marriage, its about forcing their views on the rest of society. its about government mandated thought control.


>>>>

You can have gay marriage...the day after you legalize polygamy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Same sex marriage is being legalized across the country, eventually all Americans being subject to an equality law about it.

I think plural marriage being included as legal is only a matter of years now.

 

[Jroc]

Same sex marriage is being legalized across the country, eventually all Americans being subject to an equality law about it.

I think plural marriage being included as legal is only a matter of years now.

If the citizens of the state vote and make it legal so be it, for that state, but it's not up to judges and politicians to force it down people's throats

 

[WillReadmore]

Same sex marriage is being legalized across the country, eventually all Americans being subject to an equality law about it.

I think plural marriage being included as legal is only a matter of years now.

If the citizens of the state vote and make it legal so be it, for that state, but it's not up to judges and politicians to force it down people's throats

False.

The courts have a clearly demonstrated interest in the civil rights equality of citizens of the US.

Also, Article IV section 1 applies to marriages as demonstrated in our (totally embarrassing) history of interracial marriage. States can not "unmarry" those who are married any more than Virginia could "unmarry" the Lovings marriage - as noted in Loving v. Virginia.

Several such cases are working their way through lower court today.


A read of the Loving v Virginia history gives a pretty clear indication of how same sex marriage will progress in the US.

 

[Jroc]

Same sex marriage is being legalized across the country, eventually all Americans being subject to an equality law about it.

I think plural marriage being included as legal is only a matter of years now.

If the citizens of the state vote and make it legal so be it, for that state, but it's not up to judges and politicians to force it down people's throats

False.

The courts have a clearly demonstrated interest in the civil rights equality of citizens of the US.

Also, Article IV section 1 applies to marriages as demonstrated in our (totally embarrassing) history of interracial marriage. States can not "unmarry" those who are married any more than Virginia could "unmarry" the Lovings marriage - as noted in Loving v. Virginia.

Several such cases are working their way through lower court today.


A read of the Loving v Virginia history gives a pretty clear indication of how same sex marriage will progress in the US.

Race and sexual preference isn't the same thing...I might prefer to have 5 obedient wifes but that's not legal is it?

 

[WillReadmore]

Same sex marriage is being legalized across the country, eventually all Americans being subject to an equality law about it.

I think plural marriage being included as legal is only a matter of years now.

Yes, same sex marriage will be the law of the nation in some number of years - reasonably soon. We saw how interracial marriage was accepted by a number of states and then the rest were swept up by court rulings on Article IV, etc.

However, I don't see anyone promoting plural marriage or even promoting the idea that there could be an underlying human bond such as is assumed in marriage, but between more than two.

Not even the Mormons are doing that.

Our history of plural marriage is rife with abuse. We moved away from that for concrete reasons. I don't see anything to indicate we're reversing direction on that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

WillReadMore, the appellation "Mormon" applies to all who claim they follow Joseph Smith and the Restoration, not just the LDS.

Thus, the FLDS, the TLC, Allreds, etc., all claim to be Mormon, fairly, and they disagree with you.

The few Christian and Jewish polygs in our society as well as many Muslims here disagree with you.

What will be interesting is if and when SCOTUS throws out Reynolds.

 

[WillReadmore]

Race and sexual preference isn't the same thing...I might prefer to have 5 obedient wifes but that's not legal is it?

We have laws that don't allow marrying underage children, animals, inanimate objects, the dead, multiples of anything, etc.

None of that makes a logical argument for the state to deny marriage to two adults.

If you want to deny marriage between two consenting adults, you need an argument for that.

To date, the only real weakness in laws denying marriage to two consenting adults of the same gender is that nobody can come up with a valid justification for that particular discrimination.

 

[OODA_Loop]

SCOTUS affirmed its a States' right to honor gay marriage or not in Windsor.

My state says its a man and woman in its Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS affirmed its a States' right to honor gay marriage or not in Windsor.

My state says its a man and woman in its Constitution.

That will change.