Fed Judge overturns CA ban on gay marriage

[BloodEclipse]

While I see gay marriage as a decay in our social values, I think any step toward marriage with minors would be met with force if necessary. That is a line I doubt anyone would be successful crossing. You wouldn't just have to deal with Angry Dads but you would also have to deal with, let me steal a term here, Mama Grizzlies.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

While I see gay marriage as a decay in our social values, I think any step toward marriage with minors would be met with force if necessary. That is a line I doubt anyone would be successful crossing. You wouldn't just have to deal with Angry Dads but you would also have to deal with, let me steal a term here, Mama Grizzlies.

A point I've made before: 20 years ago we wouldn't have been having this discussion about gay marriage; it was unthinkable. Of course, this is all of a piece with killing unborn babies because they're inconvenient, single-parenthood as a normal thing because mommy & daddy can't be bothered to get married and stay married, government paying mothers to be single, etc. It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate multiple-partner marriages or marriages between adults and children becoming "normalized" under our new national "we-don't-have-a-rational-reason-against" policy.

Of course, as hard as the gay lobby has pushed this; as many people they've genuinely angered by their pushing and court manipulation, it may be time for the social pendulum to swing back toward more conservative values.

 

[shibumiseeker]

A point I've made before: 20 years ago we wouldn't have been having this discussion about gay marriage; it was unthinkable. Of course, this is all of a piece with killing unborn babies because they're inconvenient, single-parenthood as a normal thing because mommy & daddy can't be bothered to get married and stay married, government paying mothers to be single, etc. It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate multiple-partner marriages or marriages between adults and children becoming "normalized" under our new national "we-don't-have-a-rational-reason-against" policy.

I rest my case regarding the slippery slope argument. Weak, sir. So sorry you think marriage between consenting adults who aren't up to your standards icky.

If they get out of it completely then who sets the parameters for marriage?



I ask again, what type of marriages do "YOU" want to see as legal?

I don't want to see the government dictating what marriage is at all, as I have repeatedly said. As far as the government is concerned, marriage is a contract and as such the only role the government should take should be arbiting the contract when the principles have an issue. As far as who sets the parameters, that's a spiritual or religious issue, and one can be an agnostic (as you claim) and still have spiritual or moral values and structure, hard as that is for some to believe.

 

[mrjarrell]

Well, it looks like the appeal of the ruling might not go very far. The proponents of prop. 8 look to have no standing to appeal and the state will not be supporting an appeal of Judge Vaughn's ruling. This thing could be over.

Why California gay marriage ruling may not head to US Supreme Court - CSMonitor.com

 

[BloodEclipse]

Well, it looks like the appeal of the ruling might not go very far. The proponents of prop. 8 look to have no standing to appeal and the state will not be supporting an appeal of Judge Vaughn's ruling. This thing could be over.

Why California gay marriage ruling may not head to US Supreme Court - CSMonitor.com

I see it headed to the SC, where the voters will be heard.
Vaughn showed obvious bias in this case.
It is activist judges like this that has caused many of our problems.

 

[henktermaat]

Judicial Tyranny is not Liberty.

 

[level.eleven]

Judicial Tyranny is not Liberty.

Are propositions on ballots liberty? Or simply mob rule? Should the courts not hold these propositions in check if the mobs vote to violate rights of others? Many people would call the proposition/initiative experiment a giant failure. It relies on the general populous being able to read and understand volumes of legalese.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

A point I've made before: 20 years ago we wouldn't have been having this discussion about gay marriage; it was unthinkable.

Correct.

Of course, this is all of a piece with killing unborn babies because they're inconvenient, single-parenthood as a normal thing because mommy & daddy can't be bothered to get married and stay married, government paying mothers to be single, etc.

Yes, however, this also comes at a time when America is allowing itself to decay in other ways.

Degenerates, dont just seek to undermine one aspect, but multiple angles.

You can fully expect America to defuse into a mirror image of 3rd world culture within your life time, thanks to the screwed up people of mine.

It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate multiple-partner marriages or marriages between adults and children becoming "normalized" under our new national "we-don't-have-a-rational-reason-against" policy.

Or adults and Animals.

Of course, as hard as the gay lobby has pushed this; as many people they've genuinely angered by their pushing and court manipulation, it may be time for the social pendulum to swing back toward more conservative values.

There is a possibility, but it's doubtful.

Many so called Conservatives believe, idiotically neocon agendas, thus they support something so strangely alien to America - Trotskism - Thus making them no more an American patriot as a communist shill.

Again, anything is possible, but looking at the Tea Party, it's highly doubtful.

I think the best we can eve hope for is a balkenization, at certain Nation-States lean hard-Traditional Right, and learn from the mistakes of the prior generatons and how they allowed America to be destroyed.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Are propositions on ballots liberty? Or simply mob rule? Should the courts not hold these propositions in check if the mobs vote to violate rights of others? Many people would call the proposition/initiative experiment a giant failure. It relies on the general populous being able to read and understand volumes of legalese.

Sorry, I don't see this as a case of people being cheated out of their "rights". Some judge has created their "rights" for them, just as some judges created the "right" to kill unborn babies. The "right" wasn't out there for all of us to see; it had to be inferred in a "penumbra" of some other constitutional right. In other words: made up.

 

[dross]

Sorry, I don't see this as a case of people being cheated out of their "rights". Some judge has created their "rights" for them, just as some judges created the "right" to kill unborn babies. The "right" wasn't out there for all of us to see; it had to be inferred in a "penumbra" of some other constitutional right. In other words: made up.

Putting aside the gay marriage thing for a second, are you arguing that the only rights we have are enumerated in the Constitution?

 

[BloodEclipse]

Well, it looks like the appeal of the ruling might not go very far. The proponents of prop. 8 look to have no standing to appeal and the state will not be supporting an appeal of Judge Vaughn's ruling. This thing could be over.

Why California gay marriage ruling may not head to US Supreme Court - CSMonitor.com

I see it headed to the SC, where the voters will be heard.
Vaughn showed obvious bias in this case.
It is activist judges like this that has caused many of our problems.

Court halts Calif. gay marriages pending appeal - Yahoo! News

The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumps a lower court judge's order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday

 

[sawgunner74]

can you prove its natural?and lions do eat there young,people struggle with the mental illness homosexuality,they should get help.its not a trait (can you identify a gay out of ten people in a line up of the same gender and race ?)comparing gays wanting rights, to blacks or women is an insult to them and there real struggles.if a dog humps another male dog in the wild,it makes him gay,from then on he will only prefer male dogs?was that male dog born that way ?because it happend in the wild its natural?this type of behavior is normal?gays have rights now, there disability (mental illness).

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Putting aside the gay marriage thing for a second, are you arguing that the only rights we have are enumerated in the Constitution?

Nope. But that said, my wishes and your wishes don't constitute "rights" either. We're not asking for our particular quirks to be enshrined in law so that others may be forced to acknowledge them (at least _I'm_ not, I won't speak for you ).

"Community standards" used to have some bearing in law, as when the SC Justice said something like "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it". Nowadays, everyone with a kink thinks they have a "right" to display their behavior openly and be accepted with open arms by the rest of the world, while denying the same respect to those who disagree.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Nowadays, everyone with a kink thinks they have a "right" to display their behavior openly and be accepted with open arms by the rest of the world, while denying the same respect to those who disagree.

Yep, you're such a victim here. Good thing the law sanctions you and your spouse's "right" to flaunt your "kink" of being married.

ETA: There is a difference between requiring unwilling participants to become perfectly comfortable with gay marriage, and seeking that the government give equal treatment under the eyes of the law. There's a lot of things that I disagree with that are perfectly legal for heterosexuals to do.

 

[MilitaryArms]

Yep, you're such a victim here. Good thing the law sanctions you and your spouse's "right" to flaunt your "kink" of being married.

ETA: There is a difference between requiring unwilling participants to become perfectly comfortable with gay marriage, and seeking that the government give equal treatment under the eyes of the law. There's a lot of things that I disagree with that are perfectly legal for heterosexuals to do.

That's just it, if two guys in San Francisco get married it will have zero effect on my marriage to my wife here in Indiana. Denying equal protection under the law to a group due to your own prejudices isn't just. I don't care how you try to rationalize it, it's bigotry plain and simple.

Homosexuality is "icky", we get it. Many of you don't want your children exposed to gay people, we get it. The stark reality is that there are gays, they are "natural" unless you think aliens caused gayness, and they'll always be here. Your children are going to encounter gay people at some point. It's your job as a parent to prepare them for what they will encounter in this world and hiding them from reality is irresponsible. Deal with it as an adult by educating your children (if that's the root of your concern), but don't deny others their right to live free and enjoy equal protection under the law because you're a bigot.

As for those who claim homosexuals are "unnatural", prove it. Aliens don't cause it. Chemicals in the water don't cause it. It's observed in the animal kingdom. It's been with us since the beginning of written history. I know homosexuals and I can assure you, it's not a choice for them. They have no control over who they're sexual attracted to any more than you or I do.

 

[dross]

Again, there's a simple fix to this. Let's just get the government out of the marriage business.

Right now a gay couple can get married in a church. They can print stationary that says, Mr. and Mr. Bob Smith. They can be teachers, and they can bring their spouse to school events and introduce him as his husband. They can even sign a contract together and have it enforced by the courts. The only they they can't get right now is the benefit of laws that have been passed to benefit married people. To me, we should either remove those legal benefits for everyone, or allow them for everyone. To do anything different is to me, while not necessarily unconstitutional, is certainly a violation of natural rights.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Yep, you're such a victim here. Good thing the law sanctions you and your spouse's "right" to flaunt your "kink" of being married.

ETA: There is a difference between requiring unwilling participants to become perfectly comfortable with gay marriage, and seeking that the government give equal treatment under the eyes of the law. There's a lot of things that I disagree with that are perfectly legal for heterosexuals to do.

Wrong answer bucko. Our right to "flaunt" being married is a custom thousands of years old and widely held around the world. Seeking to equate homosexual couples with "marriage" and forcing that upon a society which doesn't want to recognize/regularize that behavior is a comparatively new phenomenon

 

[shibumiseeker]

Wrong answer bucko. Our right to "flaunt" being married is a custom thousands of years old and widely held around the world.

Everyone is doing it makes it ok?

Seeking to equate homosexual couples with "marriage" and forcing that upon a society which doesn't want to recognize/regularize that behavior is a comparatively new phenomenon

Curiously enough, the society of which you speak is not uniformly against it. Like I said, just because a few folks find it icky isn't a good reason.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Everyone is doing it makes it ok?

In this case. Yes.

Curiously enough, the society of which you speak is not uniformly against it. Like I said, just because a few folks find it icky isn't a good reason.

Actually the society of which I speak is almost overwhelmingly against homosexual marriage.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Actually the society of which I speak is almost overwhelmingly against homosexual marriage.

Hardly.