California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional [Archive]

SteelCityMan786

08-04-2010, 10:24 PM

Yeah, I don't understand how these people can say with a straight face (pun intended) that straight couples raise better kids than gay couples. They're probably the same people who don't understand how divorce rates can be so high and kids have gotten so out of control nowadays.

Divorce rates are higher in gay couples.

However when it comes to morals and for the children to be good productive people in society, it varies. I was fortunate enough to have good parents growing up(and I'm glad they have tried to allow me to be my own person while delivering their two cents on how to become a better man if need be).

And it was only brought before a judge because some activists didn't agree with the will of the people and found it to be unconstitutional (and the judge agreed that fundamental rights, as set by the constitution, should not be voted on by the people). It can still be overturned again by other judges...this isn't a closed book you know. You have to agree though, sometimes the majority of people don't make the right (constitutional) decisions. That's why courts are in place, to uphold the constitution and the letter of the law as they interpret it. Besides...I imagine this judge was voted in by the majority of people.

This won't be closed until it goes in front of the Supreme Court, even if the 9th Circuit Court over rules it. Plus this was a vote of the people and therefore should not be able to be overturned. The Majority of California spoke in favor of it. That might have been the case, but there is always a chance the judge was nominated.

i think gay people should be able to live with whoever they choose, but marriage is ONE man and ONE woman. Gays can have civil unions or some other legal arrangement.
As far as "legislating morality", that's what or whole legal system is based on. "don't steal", "don't kill", "don't hurt others" and so on.

I have no problem with that. It's the title of Marriage that I have an issue with. Although I feel the lifestyle is immoral, I am not going to stop someone else from living it. Especially when Opposites are a part of life. And well, you need a member of the opposite sex to produce offspring. If gays want their own union, that's fine. It must be a Civil Union in my book.

Exactly, nothing says that morality(Whether it is produced by Religion or not) can not be taken into consideration for the creation of certain laws such as the ones mentioned about stealing, killing , hurting, etc. We have the chance to vote on certain laws for a reason and the rights of the people should be respected unless beyond a reasonable doubt this is unconstitutional. I don't have enough of a reason to believe that Prop 8 is not.

SteelCityMom

08-04-2010, 10:50 PM

So marriage is a respected institution now? And should only be held to the holiest of high standards that come between a man and a woman? Let's think about this for a second. Satanists can be married (as long as their straight), you can order a Russian bride online and make them your wife (as long as your a man), you can marry for money alone, you can marry for immigration purposes...heck you can even have someone who vaguely resembles Elvis marry you at a 24 hour drive thru quickie marriage center...as long as your straight. It's THAT sacred of an institution. It's so sacred of an institution that for about $4 I (someone who does not believe in God or the Devil) can go online, right now, and become an ordained minister and marry people.

Look...I'm ordained. All I have to do is take it to the courthouse, pay a few bucks, and make it official!

http://www.themonastery.org/ordination_image_embed/image.php?data=QW15IFNjaHJlY2VuZ29zdF40LzgvMjAxMF5 sYXJnZV5mcmVl&cache=no

Let's quit pretending that allowing gays to marry is some sort of black mark on the "sacred" institution. That's bullshit. If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, cool...they don't have to. They can refuse them the same way a Catholic church would refuse my Pope hating ass. If a gay couple CAN find a church that is willing to marry them though, they should have the legal right to do so. Otherwise, they can go to a courthouse like the rest of us sinners. The government should stay out of the churches business the same way the church should stay out of the governments. That would make this whole debate null and void because there's no reason outside of religious scripture that would deem a ban on gay marriages necessary.

To address gay couples just getting civil unions...that would be great if civil unions carried the same legal status as a marriage. For instance, If one partner of a gay couple is arrested, the other partner (even in a civil union) can be forced to testify against them. Carefully drafted wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude one partner from a funeral or deny them the right to visit a partner's grave or hospital bed. As survivors, they can even sieze a real estate property that the partner's may have been buying together for years, quickly sell it at a huge loss and stick the other with the remaining debt on a property they no longer own. There are more, but these are examples of rights that gay couples are not afforded under civil unions...and that's bullshit.

Again, there is NO GOOD legal reason to not allow gay marriages. NONE. It's unconstitutional to ban it and I'd agree with every judge who voted the majority down on this issue. It's victimless and most people just don't like it because they think its icky and goes against their religious beliefs. That's just not a good enough reason to make a law against it.

/rant

SteelCityMom

08-04-2010, 10:59 PM

Divorce rates are higher in gay couples.

Do you have some statistics to back this up? I've found quite a few sites in a reasonable amount of time that either say otherwise or state that there just isn't enough data yet to get a good figure.

http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43931/13269689/Gay_Divorce_Less_than_Hetero_Divorce
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/08/07/2523
http://gaymarriage.lifetips.com/cat/64319/gay-marriage-facts-statistics/index.html

SteelCityMom

08-04-2010, 11:04 PM

Exactly, nothing says that morality(Whether it is produced by Religion or not) can not be taken into consideration for the creation of certain laws such as the ones mentioned about stealing, killing , hurting, etc. We have the chance to vote on certain laws for a reason and the rights of the people should be respected unless beyond a reasonable doubt this is unconstitutional. I don't have enough of a reason to believe that Prop 8 is not.

Right...but you guys are comparing gay marriage (which harms no one) to killing people or stealing property (harmful crimes). Don't you understand the difference between the two? Wouldn't you think the courts should have to step in and do something if some town or state decided to legalize murder or theft? Or would you just let majority rule there as well? You can't use that as an example of passing a law that bans something that hurts no one.

JonM229

08-04-2010, 11:16 PM

and polygamists should sue to have their marriages too, they should be free to marry who they want, right?

Hell at least their sex can produce offspring - survival of the species, it's natural

Or is it? (http://www.livescience.com/animals/080516-gay-animals.html)

Look...I'm ordained. All I have to do is take it to the courthouse, pay a few bucks, and make it official!

http://www.themonastery.org/ordination_image_embed/image.php?data=QW15IFNjaHJlY2VuZ29zdF40LzgvMjAxMF5 sYXJnZV5mcmVl&cache=no

My dad has one of those and has performed several weddings for friends.

SteelCityMom

08-04-2010, 11:20 PM

Or is it? (http://www.livescience.com/animals/080516-gay-animals.html)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5zOlPsO6U4

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

JonM229

08-04-2010, 11:22 PM

Right...but you guys are comparing gay marriage (which harms no one) to killing people or stealing property (harmful crimes).

I never understood this argument. I especially can't stand those that say "Next thing is they'll allow people to marry horses." Go on www.freerepublic.com (actually, don't go there) and every time gay marriage is brought up, somebody mentions legalized beastiality. First of all, homosexuality and beastiality are two very different things. Secondly, I don't know why they're so obssessed with the idea of marrying horses(wishful thinking maybe.)

SteelCityMom

08-04-2010, 11:26 PM

JonM229

08-04-2010, 11:31 PM

I'm with you on that. Not to mention that in Scandinavian countries (like Denmark) where it's been legalized for over 20 years now...nobody is clamoring for polygamy rights, or beastiality rights, or pedophile's rights. It's just more rhetoric to make people scared.

The real scary thing is that people fall for it

SteelCityMan786

08-04-2010, 11:34 PM

Do you have some statistics to back this up? I've found quite a few sites in a reasonable amount of time that either say otherwise or state that there just isn't enough data yet to get a good figure.

http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43931/13269689/Gay_Divorce_Less_than_Hetero_Divorce
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/08/07/2523
http://gaymarriage.lifetips.com/cat/64319/gay-marriage-facts-statistics/index.html

I might have misunderstood wherever I was reading about it, so you got me on that one.(For now in terms of around the world). However, states info I will back you on stating there is not enough information because it hasn't been legal for that long here stateside.

Right...but you guys are comparing gay marriage (which harms no one) to killing people or stealing property (harmful crimes). Don't you understand the difference between the two? Wouldn't you think the courts should have to step in and do something if some town or state decided to legalize murder or theft? Or would you just let majority rule there as well? You can't use that as an example of passing a law that bans something that hurts no one.

Yes in that occasion I would agree with you. It's morally wrong(and that's not just to those who are of a religious group either).

Gay Marriage hurts the human race in terms of the human population's reproduction or growth. Because if there enough people not giving birth to children, then the human race in turn runs the risk of being extinct. Plus, you have more then enough people who switch in and out of that life style. No gay is gay by default. There is no evidence that suggests it's a natural lifestyle either.

SteelCityMan786

08-04-2010, 11:45 PM

I never understood this argument. I especially can't stand those that say "Next thing is they'll allow people to marry horses." Go on www.freerepublic.com (actually, don't go there) and every time gay marriage is brought up, somebody mentions legalized beastiality. First of all, homosexuality and beastiality are two very different things. Secondly, I don't know why they're so obssessed with the idea of marrying horses(wishful thinking maybe.)

I'm with you on that. Not to mention that in Scandinavian countries (like Denmark) where it's been legalized for over 20 years now...nobody is clamoring for polygamy rights, or beastiality rights, or pedophile's rights. It's just more rhetoric to make people scared.

To some degree if you're going to accept those marriages, you would have to accept polygamy and other related marriages in order for someone to not want to consider your arguement hypocritical. Not to mention Pedophilia would have to be accepted as well. That's what I am thinking is their logic at least.

One thing though people do argue and it really pisses me off is that gays do not have many of the same rights blacks did during the Civil Rights movement(Such as Voting, being able to hold a managerial position, go to a separate public school, etc). That is the biggest pile of crap I have ever heard. Blacks weren't even accepted let alone tolerated. One thing people need to get through their heads much like people want to say acceptance is a necessary component of tolerance need to read the dictonary definition.

SteelCityMom

08-04-2010, 11:49 PM

Gay Marriage hurts the human race in terms of the human population's reproduction or growth. Because if there enough people not giving birth to children, then the human race in turn runs the risk of being extinct. Plus, you have more then enough people who switch in and out of that life style. No gay is gay by default. There is no evidence that suggests it's a natural lifestyle either.

This doesn't make sense. Gay people aren't going to reproduce whether they're married or not....they're gay. Gay people are not both...you're one or the other. You're thinking of people who experiment. I've experimented...I'm not gay. People who say they are Bi are kidding themselves. I have quite a few gay friends...they have never "switched in and out" and are very comfortable with who they are. They could never think of themselves any other way. They are gay by default. It is natural for them. It's as natural as you being with a woman or me being with a man.

As far as world population goes...I don't think gays are going to extinct the human race. For example, there are so many people in China that they have restrictions on how many babies a couple can have and forces abortions on couples who exceed that limit.

SteelCityMom

08-04-2010, 11:53 PM

SteelCityMan786

08-05-2010, 12:13 AM

This doesn't make sense. Gay people aren't going to reproduce whether they're married or not....they're gay. Gay people are not both...you're one or the other. You're thinking of people who experiment. I've experimented...I'm not gay. People who say they are Bi are kidding themselves. I have quite a few gay friends...they have never "switched in and out" and are very comfortable with who they are. They could never think of themselves any other way. They are gay by default. It is natural for them. It's as natural as you being with a woman or me being with a man.

As far as world population goes...I don't think gays are going to extinct the human race. For example, there are so many people in China that they have restrictions on how many babies a couple can have and forces abortions on couples who exceed that limit.

That I will agree with you. They know they can't reproduce. Ehhh, not necessarily considering there hasn't been evidence to show that being gay is genetic. Can you tell just by looking at someone whether or not they're gay? I sure can't. It's acted upon.

That is also one more reason why I am more times then not against abortion (Rape, Incest, and Complications to the mom are about the only times that their is that much of a reason to do so.). People will use it as a reason to not have kids.

I accept polygamy. If a bunch of women (or men) agree to marry one man (or woman) and are happy with it...more power to them. Pedophilia is a crime, a harmful one. It's a disgrace to even mention it in the same argument as gay marriage (a relationship between two consenting ADULTS). It's not right to keep comparing consensual relationships to harmful crimes.

This one I will respond in two

If someone can put up with Polygamy, they must have a shit load of patience.

As for Pedo:

From a Crime Standpoint, absolutely. In terms of it being a disgrace to mention it there, not completely when people want to argue morals if they present their facts right.

SteelCityMom

08-05-2010, 12:14 AM

One thing though people do argue and it really pisses me off is that gays do not have many of the same rights blacks did during the Civil Rights movement(Such as Voting, being able to hold a managerial position, go to a separate public school, etc). That is the biggest pile of crap I have ever heard. Blacks weren't even accepted let alone tolerated. One thing people need to get through their heads much like people want to say acceptance is a necessary component of tolerance need to read the dictonary definition.

Yes, this is true today. Gays are afforded many of the same basic rights as other human beings. BUT, they did not for a long, long time. It was just easier to pretend to be straight and be gay than it was to pretend to not be black, you know what I mean. Even today, you cannot be openly gay and be in the military. You can fight and die for your country if you're gay...you just can't admit it.

SteelCityMom

08-05-2010, 12:35 AM

This one I will respond in two

If someone can put up with Polygamy, they must have a shit load of patience.

I do. I've got patience out the wazoo (normally). It's not something I'd do...but who the hell am I to stop someone else from doing it? Ya know? Nobody seems to want to ban pornos with a dude doing a bunch of women (or vice versa), so why not let a bunch of them get married and do it? Doesn't bother my life any.

As for Pedo:

From a Crime Standpoint, absolutely. In terms of it being a disgrace to mention it there, not completely when people want to argue morals if they present their facts right.

First off, let me say that me saying "legislating morality" is a wrong phrase to use. Morals are different among different groups of people. Some people think rock music and porn are morally wrong. Some do not. Listening to rock or watching porn are not hurting anyone though...like two men or two women having sex or having a relationship are not hurting anyone, not physically at least. Pedophilia is grown adults hurting children. It's not in the same category as having sex before marriage, being gay, smoking pot, masturbating, listening to KISS or swearing. It just isn't. Anyone who says it is, is just trying to stretch their point to meet their argument. They just aren't the same and should not be argued as such.

Mattsme

08-05-2010, 12:45 AM

smoking pot, masturbating, listening to KISS

Shit, did I leave my webcam on again?

I thought that feeling of being watched was just from the pot...:nervous:

SteelCityMom

08-05-2010, 12:49 AM

Shit, did I leave my webcam on again?

I thought that feeling of being watched was just from the pot...:nervous:

You're so going to hell. I hear they have good wings there though. :nod:

Mattsme

08-05-2010, 12:52 AM

You're so going to hell. I hear they have good wings there though. :nod:

Haha. Truth is I never really liked pot. And only liked KISS when I was stoned. So that wasn't often.

And masturbation, well I've decided to save that for marriage, when I'll actually need it.
My married friends tell me it's a good skill to have.

SteelCityMom

08-05-2010, 01:05 AM

Haha. Truth is I never really liked pot. And only liked KISS when I was stoned. So that wasn't often.

And masturbation, well I've decided to save that for marriage, when I'll actually need it.
My married friends tell me it's a good skill to have.

Blasphemy...KISS is great ALL the time. :rockon:

Craic

08-05-2010, 01:22 AM

Sigh.

As a Christian, and a pastor, I could care less about the actions of those who do not confess the same belief that I do. It is only those who claim to be Christian and that they believe God within the Christian belief condones their actions that I have a problem with... because we have a common foundation. I believe the biblical text on this matter is 1 Cor. 5:12-13. "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside." My only care about those outside the church is that I get the opportunity to share, "Come, and meet the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."

As far as protecting the church, it is simple. I am going to lead the church to state in their bylaws that only members in good standing are to be married in the church. Problem solved.

I do however, shiver at what I consider the activist courts. Everyone person had the same right, to marry a person of the opposite sex. Whether a person wants to use that right or not, is their personal decision. No person had a right to marry the same sex. Whether a person wanted or didn't want to do that, was a personal decision. Thus, it was equal. This is not, in any way, shape, or form, an issue of civil rights. Gay couples are offered all the of the same civil protection in a civil union. The tax code should also be amended for civil unions (though it won't be, because the gov't wants more and more of your tax money). Therefore, there is no denial of civil rights, IMO. Sadly however, White American Christendom (as opposed to actual Christians) have brought this on, and especially the "white christian south". When elected officials, police, etc. were actually violating civil rights (anyone remember blacks sitting at the back of the bus, drinking from small, corroded drinking fountains, get food at the back of a restaurant- those ACTUAL civil rights that were violated), the american public, the American church, and the senate and house, all turned a blind eye until the courts were forced to rule on the issue. Give the courts an inch of authority, and they'll take a mile. After all, just look at how the interstate commerce clause has been completely abused.

My problem however, is as an American citizen. Not as a Christian. It will only become my problem as a Christian if the courts 1. force me to officiate ceremonies of gay couples, 2. Force me to open the doors to the church building for gay weddings, 3. Try to control what I say from the pulpit on the issue, or 4. if my church, my association, or my denomination moves to legitimating homosexual marriage within the church.

Oh yeah, a word of warning to all those who are cheering this decision as a strike against the church-- In the 20th century, the homosexual community and the Christian community were linked quite intimately in one way: Whenever persecution began on one group, it quickly went to the other. Germany, Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran, etc. etc. Be careful what you celebrate, because there is a reason these two communities are linked as such. The very victories you are celebrating today, may be the foundation of the very things you are most fearful of in the future. And if the courts gain more and more of the authority- there is no one to stop it.

SteelCityMom

08-05-2010, 01:59 AM

Sigh.

Gay couples are offered all the of the same civil protection in a civil union. The tax code should also be amended for civil unions (though it won't be, because the gov't wants more and more of your tax money).

Everything else aside (because I know I cannot change your religious aspects on this), this is a false statement. They are offered very few of the same rights under civil unions. They may dissolve their unions like married couples get divorced...but that's about it. Like I stated before, a couple examples of this (besides the tax code laws) are...If one partner of a gay couple is arrested, the other partner (even in a civil union) can be forced to testify against them. Carefully drafted wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude one partner from a funeral or deny them the right to visit a partner's grave or hospital bed. As survivors, they can even sieze a real estate property that the partner's may have been buying together for years, quickly sell it at a huge loss and stick the other with the remaining debt on a property they no longer own. If this seems equal to you...ok, our arguments are clearly at an impasse. They do not seem equal to me though.

SteelCityMom

08-05-2010, 02:02 AM

Everyone person had the same right, to marry a person of the opposite sex. Whether a person wants to use that right or not, is their personal decision. No person had a right to marry the same sex. Whether a person wanted or didn't want to do that, was a personal decision. Thus, it was equal. This is not, in any way, shape, or form, an issue of civil rights.

This same argument could have been used to justify keeping interracial marriages illegal.

Every one person had the same right to marry a person of the same skin color. Whether a person wants to use that right or not is their personal decision. No person had a right to marry out of their race. Whether a person wanted or didn't want to do that, was a personal decision. Thus, it was equal.

SteelCityMom

08-05-2010, 02:10 AM

Oh yeah, a word of warning to all those who are cheering this decision as a strike against the church-- In the 20th century, the homosexual community and the Christian community were linked quite intimately in one way: Whenever persecution began on one group, it quickly went to the other. Germany, Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran, etc. etc. Be careful what you celebrate, because there is a reason these two communities are linked as such. The very victories you are celebrating today, may be the foundation of the very things you are most fearful of in the future. And if the courts gain more and more of the authority- there is no one to stop it.

You are speaking of persecution though. Nobody here has persecuted the church. I for one just want churches to do what they do and the government to do what it does...separately. Gay marriage has been legal in other countries for some time now, and it hasn't destroyed the church in the slightest. All decisions were made through the courts there as well. Denmark would be the biggest hotbed for persecution if this were true. It's not though...it's just Denmark.

SteelersinCA

08-05-2010, 02:32 AM

Divorce rates are higher in gay couples.

However when it comes to morals and for the children to be good productive people in society, it varies. I was fortunate enough to have good parents growing up(and I'm glad they have tried to allow me to be my own person while delivering their two cents on how to become a better man if need be).

This won't be closed until it goes in front of the Supreme Court, even if the 9th Circuit Court over rules it. Plus this was a vote of the people and therefore should not be able to be overturned. The Majority of California spoke in favor of it. That might have been the case, but there is always a chance the judge was nominated.

I have no problem with that. It's the title of Marriage that I have an issue with. Although I feel the lifestyle is immoral, I am not going to stop someone else from living it. Especially when Opposites are a part of life. And well, you need a member of the opposite sex to produce offspring. If gays want their own union, that's fine. It must be a Civil Union in my book.

Exactly, nothing says that morality(Whether it is produced by Religion or not) can not be taken into consideration for the creation of certain laws such as the ones mentioned about stealing, killing , hurting, etc. We have the chance to vote on certain laws for a reason and the rights of the people should be respected unless beyond a reasonable doubt this is unconstitutional. I don't have enough of a reason to believe that Prop 8 is not.

You should read the decision, link is my 2nd post in this thread. It blows all those anti-gay marriage stats out of the water.

i think gay people should be able to live with whoever they choose, but marriage is ONE man and ONE woman. Gays can have civil unions or some other legal arrangement.
As far as "legislating morality", that's what or whole legal system is based on. "don't steal", "don't kill", "don't hurt others" and so on.

Separate but equal, huh?

I might have misunderstood wherever I was reading about it, so you got me on that one.(For now in terms of around the world). However, states info I will back you on stating there is not enough information because it hasn't been legal for that long here stateside.

Yes in that occasion I would agree with you. It's morally wrong(and that's not just to those who are of a religious group either).

Gay Marriage hurts the human race in terms of the human population's reproduction or growth. Because if there enough people not giving birth to children, then the human race in turn runs the risk of being extinct. Plus, you have more then enough people who switch in and out of that life style. No gay is gay by default. There is no evidence that suggests it's a natural lifestyle either.

Again, read the decision, they tried all the arguments you are making.

Sigh.

As a Christian, and a pastor, I could care less about the actions of those who do not confess the same belief that I do. It is only those who claim to be Christian and that they believe God within the Christian belief condones their actions that I have a problem with... because we have a common foundation. I believe the biblical text on this matter is 1 Cor. 5:12-13. "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside." My only care about those outside the church is that I get the opportunity to share, "Come, and meet the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."

As far as protecting the church, it is simple. I am going to lead the church to state in their bylaws that only members in good standing are to be married in the church. Problem solved.

I do however, shiver at what I consider the activist courts. Everyone person had the same right, to marry a person of the opposite sex. Whether a person wants to use that right or not, is their personal decision. No person had a right to marry the same sex. Whether a person wanted or didn't want to do that, was a personal decision. Thus, it was equal. This is not, in any way, shape, or form, an issue of civil rights. Gay couples are offered all the of the same civil protection in a civil union. The tax code should also be amended for civil unions (though it won't be, because the gov't wants more and more of your tax money). Therefore, there is no denial of civil rights, IMO. Sadly however, White American Christendom (as opposed to actual Christians) have brought this on, and especially the "white christian south". When elected officials, police, etc. were actually violating civil rights (anyone remember blacks sitting at the back of the bus, drinking from small, corroded drinking fountains, get food at the back of a restaurant- those ACTUAL civil rights that were violated), the american public, the American church, and the senate and house, all turned a blind eye until the courts were forced to rule on the issue. Give the courts an inch of authority, and they'll take a mile. After all, just look at how the interstate commerce clause has been completely abused.

My problem however, is as an American citizen. Not as a Christian. It will only become my problem as a Christian if the courts 1. force me to officiate ceremonies of gay couples, 2. Force me to open the doors to the church building for gay weddings, 3. Try to control what I say from the pulpit on the issue, or 4. if my church, my association, or my denomination moves to legitimating homosexual marriage within the church.

Oh yeah, a word of warning to all those who are cheering this decision as a strike against the church-- In the 20th century, the homosexual community and the Christian community were linked quite intimately in one way: Whenever persecution began on one group, it quickly went to the other. Germany, Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran, etc. etc. Be careful what you celebrate, because there is a reason these two communities are linked as such. The very victories you are celebrating today, may be the foundation of the very things you are most fearful of in the future. And if the courts gain more and more of the authority- there is no one to stop it.

You're right it has nothing to do with civil rights. It has everything to do with the due process clause of the United States Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the same. Marriage is a fundamental right. The litany of court cases are unwavering on this. When the government restricts a fundamental right from ANYONE they absolutely must pass a strict scrutiny standard. This can't even pass a rational basis standard. This is basic due process. There is a denial of a fundamental right and denial of equal protection. Marriage and civil unions are not the same thing not matter how much one wishes them to be. If they are so equal, would you be comfortable granting only civil unions to your congregation?

This is not in direct response to Preacher from here on:

Loving v. Virginia & Griswold v. Connecticut soundly states that the right to marry is protected by the Due Process Clause. Here this is a non issue since the proponents of Prop 8 did not dispute marriage is a fundamental right.

Under the Equal protection clause the decision dovetails the DPC nicely; it analyzes the historical foundation for marriage in our society, noting the state has never once inquired into the potential for procreation before granting a marriage license. The overriding themes in the historical evidence about marriage were liberty and choice. Again, see Loving which, anecdotally, was the case to remove race restrictions on marriage because they stood in contrast to choice and liberty.

When race restrictions were lifted, marriage didn't change.

The states also eased their gender biases on marriage and removed laws like coverture, etc. Marriage was changed from a male dominated institution to a gender equal one.

When gender restrictions were lifted, marriage didn't change.

What is it about the historical meaning of marriage that heterosexuals perform that cannot be performed by homosexuals? The procreation argument is null and void unless you want to limit marriage only to couples who can procreate.

I am with Preacher on one thing and I've said this before and I'll say it again: I believe gay marriage is wrong, but I base that on my faith. My country does not follow the same religious doctrine I follow nor should it. Personally, I am against gay marriage, but from a legal perspective, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Craic

08-05-2010, 02:57 AM

I am with Preacher on one thing and I've said this before and I'll say it again: I believe gay marriage is wrong, but I base that on my faith. My country does not follow the same religious doctrine I follow nor should it. Personally, I am against gay marriage, but from a legal perspective, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
I am somewhat in line with you here. I think that legally, there is neither anything right OR wrong about it. I agree with you that it is a fundamental right... and each and everyone person has the same right to marry the opposite sex. There is no right taking away from them, as there was with race restrictions. That is where I am completely hung up. Neither they, nor I, have the same right to marry the same sex. It is of no consequence whether one wants to or does not want to, we both have the same right. That is equality. When rights begin to be weighed based on individual desire, we enter a period of anarchy. Who is to tell me that MY right to act on THIS desire is wrong?

And, BTW, it IS quite similar to sex with a minor-- (at least an older minor). How? Because the age of 18 is a random law. It is considered the age of consent simply because enough laws have been passed that identify that age as the age of consent, whereby you are now an adult under the law. However, some laws, put it at 21 (drinking), and others put it at 22 (if you are a military child and in college). Why therefore, must the age of consent be 18 for a sexual encounter? Why not 17? Why not 16? Why not 20? or 21? It is simply a random law which is accepted not based on morality, but on what the majority of society BELIEVES is a good age, for the betterment of all. In the SAME way, homosexuality is limited by law to one man and one woman (for now) because it is considered, by the majority of society, the best way for marriage to be. It is actually less random than the age of consent, as one man, one woman, has been the standard for 7000 years or more. 18 has been the age of consent for what, 30 years? It does stand to reason therefore, that if the definition of marriage is changed in the law by the court system, with 7000 years of standardization, that the age of consent may also be changed just as easily, even against the will of the people.

Once again, THAT is why this scares me, because IMO, the courts are taking way too much authority. IMO, I can't see it falling under Due Process, simply because the right to marry is still available... (back to my argument above).

In truth, the entire reason I voted for Prop 8, was to smack down the courts. Had this issue simply been put before the voters in the very beginning "Should we redefine marriage in the law as two adults, regardless of race," I really don't know how I would have voted. Probably, I would have skipped the question all together. I also believe, that this issue would have passed.

SteelersinCA

08-05-2010, 03:14 AM

Well, I think the court disagrees with your definition of the right of marriage. You say between a man and a woman and they have that right so it's equal. They looked at what marriage has traditionally been defined as; foundation for the household, sharing of assets and debts, lifelong commitment, etc. A same sex couple does not have the right to enjoy those things as you or I have. Even though I'm against it, I certainly get that definition of the right of marriage. If I honestly defined marriage, marrying a woman wouldn't even be in my definition, it would be much more in line with the court's conclusion.

I see what you are saying, I just approach it from what has traditionally defined the institution and to be quite frank, I could care less what someone else does as long as my house is in order.

As an aside, I think the activist judge thing gets over-sensationalized by the media. This is exactly what the courts were designed to do. This is their role in our system. Ours is not a majority rules system.

Craic

08-05-2010, 03:53 AM

You are speaking of persecution though. Nobody here has persecuted the church. I for one just want churches to do what they do and the government to do what it does...separately. Gay marriage has been legal in other countries for some time now, and it hasn't destroyed the church in the slightest. All decisions were made through the courts there as well. Denmark would be the biggest hotbed for persecution if this were true. It's not though...it's just Denmark.

Denmark? Let's see, along with them the UK, The Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden all allow gay marriage... interesting, because those are the same 5 nations that that refused to allow persecuted Christians from Iraq into their country, and repatriated them to Iraq ? Interesting thing. Some others were also refused asylum- gays... and now, 25 gay men and 8 Christians were killed in Iraq for those very reasons (see amnesty international).

My point is... when Christianity is persecuted, so is homosexuality, and when homosexuality is persecuted, so is Christianity. Neither are persecuted in this country... yet. But be careful... because when one IS persecuted, the other is sure to follow quickly.

By the way... would you consider blocking buses from getting to a prayer rally legal? http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IdU9AAAAIBAJ&sjid=hoYDAAAAIBAJ&dq=churches%20blocked%20by%20homosexuals&pg=3545%2C677511

How about Jews, Christians, and Buddhists all having their religions services disrupted in the 1993-4... even to the point that the human rights commission of the fed. govt. was called in to investigate. Also quoted in that article is this example, "in Septebmber Homsexual activists in San Francisco blocked access to Hamilton Square Baptist Church shoved churchgoers and pelted some with eggs and stones... . (Washington Times article, April 2, 1994).

Interrupting meetings of the general conference.. by both blocking access and by entering the meeting and causing disruption. (2000). http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-26490043.html

Blocking entrances to a episcopal meeting in the same year... simply because in that meeting, "former gays" were giving testimony of how they felt God had helped them change. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-63114739.html

Jun 13, 2000, 200 gay activists stormed a Southern Baptist convention in protest. The SBC convention actually voted to allow them to stay for the duration of the discussion. However, when the vote came, gay activists blocked the stage and vowed not to leave until they were arrested (Orlando Sentinel - Orlando, Fla. Jun 13, 2000, Esmond Hilton, author.

I can go on and on about how Christians have been blocked from entering their worship services, meetings, etc. here in the united states, mainly by gays. Does that mean I think all gays are for this, or even a majority? Absolutely not. Do I think there is a vocal minority that has done this? Yep. Is there also a vocal minority of heterosexuals who just LOVE IT when the church is struck down in any way shape or form? Yep.

It is to those that my OP was directed. Those who see this decision and others like it as a strike against Christianity. Those who truly can't see the forest for the trees. That historically, when Christians become persecuted (which we are not...yet, though there have been isolated cases of actual violation of human rights, that is, freedom of religion)... or are open game for persecution by others, so are gays and lesbians.

Funny thing, when I was a college minister, the two groups that worked the hardest together to make sure both were protected at my school, was the Gay and Lesbian Student Alliance, and the Baptist Student Union... because there, both leaders understood the very point I am making.

Craic

08-05-2010, 04:02 AM

As an aside, I think the activist judge thing gets over-sensationalized by the media. This is exactly what the courts were designed to do. This is their role in our system. Ours is not a majority rules system.
I am not sure that is at all what the courts were designed to do. It IS however, a power which the courts assumed in Marbury vs. Madison. It is a power that was never given to them.. the courts took it, and that power was never checked.

Craic

08-05-2010, 04:07 AM

I see what you are saying, I just approach it from what has traditionally defined the institution and to be quite frank, I could care less what someone else does as long as my house is in order.

Which is exactly in agreement with the verse I posted in my OP. I totally agree with you. As you can see, my issue is not "homosexuality" here, but rather, what I would consider judicial abuse of the system. This could very well be any other issue, and I would feel the same way. If the people of California voted to have a 60 percent tax, and the courts overturned it based on rights found in the "penumbra" of the constitution (yeah, I know, a different issue, I just couldn't find another word to use here!), I would be just as upset, though I would be very much against those taxes (and would probably move out of Cal. if the Lord let me!)

steeldawg

08-05-2010, 05:27 AM

To some degree if you're going to accept those marriages, you would have to accept polygamy and other related marriages in order for someone to not want to consider your arguement hypocritical. Not to mention Pedophilia would have to be accepted as well. That's what I am thinking is their logic at least.

One thing though people do argue and it really pisses me off is that gays do not have many of the same rights blacks did during the Civil Rights movement(Such as Voting, being able to hold a managerial position, go to a separate public school, etc). That is the biggest pile of crap I have ever heard. Blacks weren't even accepted let alone tolerated. One thing people need to get through their heads much like people want to say acceptance is a necessary component of tolerance need to read the dictonary definition.

How would pedophilia have to be excepted both people have to be of legal age to marry. Minors cannot enter into legally binding contracts such as marriage. And by that arguement what would be the difference from marriage now to pedophillia if a man wanted to marry a 12 yr old girl? Gay marriage is following all of the other laws governing marriage except the fact that its two people of the same sex.

JonM229

08-05-2010, 06:07 AM

How would pedophilia have to be excepted both people have to be of legal age to marry. Minors cannot enter into legally binding contracts such as marriage. And by that arguement what would be the difference from marriage now to pedophillia if a man wanted to marry a 12 yr old girl? Gay marriage is following all of the other laws governing marriage except the fact that its two people of the same sex.

That's probably the best response to the whole pedophile/bestiality counter-argument over gay marriage I've read so far.

Killer

08-05-2010, 06:35 AM

Look...I'm ordained. All I have to do is take it to the courthouse, pay a few bucks, and make it official!

http://www.themonastery.org/ordination_image_embed/image.php?data=QW15IFNjaHJlY2VuZ29zdF40LzgvMjAxMF5 sYXJnZV5mcmVl&cache=no

How dare you tarnish our good name.

I'm an ordained minister too and I think it's about time I demand you call me Reverend.

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc283/usagold/rev.jpg

In FL I can legally marry folks.

Killer

08-05-2010, 08:26 AM

Appeal of ruling could delay gay weddings in CA

SAN FRANCISCO – A judge struck down California's same-sex marriage ban as an unconstitutional violation of gay couples' civil rights, but a pending appeal of the landmark ruling could prevent gay weddings from resuming in the state any time soon.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker overturned the voter-approved ban known as Proposition 8 Wednesday, declaring that limiting marriage to a man and a woman serves no legitimate purpose and is an "artifact" rooted in "unfounded stereotypes and prejudices."

"Rather than being different, same-sex and opposite-sex unions are, for all purposes relevant to California law, exactly the same," Walker wrote in an unequivocal and strongly worded 136-page ruling. "The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples."

While the ruling affects only California, the appeal will go to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over nine Western states. The outcome there eventually could force the U.S. Supreme Court to confront the question of whether gays have a constitutional right to wed.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/west/view.bg?articleid=1272510&srvc=rss

-----------

unintended consequences?

Killer

08-05-2010, 08:52 AM

The fun begins

Defenders of marriage in Calif. will appeal dangerous federal ruling

SAN FRANCISCO — Attorneys representing ProtectMarriage.com will appeal a federal judge’s decision Wednesday that declared California’s voter-approved constitutional amendment protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys are litigating the lawsuit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, together with lead counsel Charles J. Cooper and ADF-allied attorney Andrew Pugno, who represent the official proponents and campaign committee of California’s Proposition 8.

“In America, we should respect and uphold the right of a free people to make policy choices through the democratic process--especially ones that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the foundation of the country and beyond,” said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum.

“We will certainly appeal this disappointing decision. Its impact could be devastating to marriage and the democratic process,” Raum said. “It’s not radical for more than 7 million Californians to protect marriage as they’ve always known it.

What would be radical would be to allow a handful of activists to gut the core of the American democratic system and, in addition, force the entire country to accept a system that intentionally denies children the mom and the dad they deserve.”

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/3618

SteelersinCA

08-05-2010, 09:31 AM

I don't know why they will appeal it, they put on the shittiest case I've seen.

SteelCityMom

08-05-2010, 10:28 AM

Denmark? Let's see, along with them the UK, The Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden all allow gay marriage... interesting, because those are the same 5 nations that that refused to allow persecuted Christians from Iraq into their country, and repatriated them to Iraq ? Interesting thing. Some others were also refused asylum- gays... and now, 25 gay men and 8 Christians were killed in Iraq for those very reasons (see amnesty international).

My point is... when Christianity is persecuted, so is homosexuality, and when homosexuality is persecuted, so is Christianity. Neither are persecuted in this country... yet. But be careful... because when one IS persecuted, the other is sure to follow quickly.

By the way... would you consider blocking buses from getting to a prayer rally legal? http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IdU9AAAAIBAJ&sjid=hoYDAAAAIBAJ&dq=churches%20blocked%20by%20homosexuals&pg=3545%2C677511

How about Jews, Christians, and Buddhists all having their religions services disrupted in the 1993-4... even to the point that the human rights commission of the fed. govt. was called in to investigate. Also quoted in that article is this example, "in Septebmber Homsexual activists in San Francisco blocked access to Hamilton Square Baptist Church shoved churchgoers and pelted some with eggs and stones... . (Washington Times article, April 2, 1994).

Interrupting meetings of the general conference.. by both blocking access and by entering the meeting and causing disruption. (2000). http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-26490043.html

Blocking entrances to a episcopal meeting in the same year... simply because in that meeting, "former gays" were giving testimony of how they felt God had helped them change. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-63114739.html

Jun 13, 2000, 200 gay activists stormed a Southern Baptist convention in protest. The SBC convention actually voted to allow them to stay for the duration of the discussion. However, when the vote came, gay activists blocked the stage and vowed not to leave until they were arrested (Orlando Sentinel - Orlando, Fla. Jun 13, 2000, Esmond Hilton, author.

I can go on and on about how Christians have been blocked from entering their worship services, meetings, etc. here in the united states, mainly by gays. Does that mean I think all gays are for this, or even a majority? Absolutely not. Do I think there is a vocal minority that has done this? Yep. Is there also a vocal minority of heterosexuals who just LOVE IT when the church is struck down in any way shape or form? Yep.

It is to those that my OP was directed. Those who see this decision and others like it as a strike against Christianity. Those who truly can't see the forest for the trees. That historically, when Christians become persecuted (which we are not...yet, though there have been isolated cases of actual violation of human rights, that is, freedom of religion)... or are open game for persecution by others, so are gays and lesbians.

Funny thing, when I was a college minister, the two groups that worked the hardest together to make sure both were protected at my school, was the Gay and Lesbian Student Alliance, and the Baptist Student Union... because there, both leaders understood the very point I am making.

Preacher...I respect you a lot. This just feels like reaching to me though. I understand your worry to a point, but I just can't get behind it. I'm sorry that some refugees were refused asylum and that some gay people have been harassing church services, but it's a real stretch to start comparing it to the beginnings of persecution of Christians.

I can understand how you think that gays and Christians being persecuted correlates alone...but realize this, when these kind of EXTREME persecutions take place (and you'll know when they take place), I would think it would be hard to say one way or the other what kind of persecution started it...and I doubt it would begin and end with the persecution of gays and Christians. I doubt as members of the human race, whoever was doing the persecution would limit themselves so.

Killer

08-05-2010, 11:23 AM

Gay marriage has nothing to do with religion. Marriage is now a legal institution, not a religious one. It’s a legal one because we have to go down to the courthouse to get a marriage license. The courthouse is a government building of the judicial branch of government. Ever wonder how athiests get married? They don’t go to church. They dont ask a priest. They go to the courthouse and get married by a judge or a Justice of the Peace.

So now that God has created AIDS to kill the homosexuals they want you to pay for it.

and they want marriage benefits for their AIDS and insurance claims to be paid by the taxpayers too. I bet that's a lot what this is all about.

BnG_Hevn

08-05-2010, 11:44 AM

I don't think people oppose it just for morals. When it comes to morals, who gives a rat's arse about who marries who.

I think the kicker is in health care and how costs will go up. Homosexuals will get married "for the insurance" which is what affects the general public, or at least those that pay for health insurance.

This country is failing faster and faster every day.

SteelCityMan786

08-05-2010, 12:31 PM

I do. I've got patience out the wazoo (normally). It's not something I'd do...but who the hell am I to stop someone else from doing it? Ya know? Nobody seems to want to ban pornos with a dude doing a bunch of women (or vice versa), so why not let a bunch of them get married and do it? Doesn't bother my life any.

First off, let me say that me saying "legislating morality" is a wrong phrase to use. Morals are different among different groups of people. Some people think rock music and porn are morally wrong. Some do not. Listening to rock or watching porn are not hurting anyone though...like two men or two women having sex or having a relationship are not hurting anyone, not physically at least. Pedophilia is grown adults hurting children. It's not in the same category as having sex before marriage, being gay, smoking pot, masturbating, listening to KISS or swearing. It just isn't. Anyone who says it is, is just trying to stretch their point to meet their argument. They just aren't the same and should not be argued as such.

Rock and Porn can be debated all the way around. That is for sure.(When you're talking people's morals)

I do however, shiver at what I consider the activist courts. Everyone person had the same right, to marry a person of the opposite sex. Whether a person wants to use that right or not, is their personal decision. No person had a right to marry the same sex. Whether a person wanted or didn't want to do that, was a personal decision. Thus, it was equal. This is not, in any way, shape, or form, an issue of civil rights. Gay couples are offered all the of the same civil protection in a civil union. The tax code should also be amended for civil unions (though it won't be, because the gov't wants more and more of your tax money). Therefore, there is no denial of civil rights, IMO. Sadly however, White American Christendom (as opposed to actual Christians) have brought this on, and especially the "white christian south". When elected officials, police, etc. were actually violating civil rights (anyone remember blacks sitting at the back of the bus, drinking from small, corroded drinking fountains, get food at the back of a restaurant- those ACTUAL civil rights that were violated), the american public, the American church, and the senate and house, all turned a blind eye until the courts were forced to rule on the issue. Give the courts an inch of authority, and they'll take a mile. After all, just look at how the interstate commerce clause has been completely abused.

My problem however, is as an American citizen. Not as a Christian. It will only become my problem as a Christian if the courts 1. force me to officiate ceremonies of gay couples, 2. Force me to open the doors to the church building for gay weddings, 3. Try to control what I say from the pulpit on the issue, or 4. if my church, my association, or my denomination moves to legitimating homosexual marriage within the church.

Oh yeah, a word of warning to all those who are cheering this decision as a strike against the church-- In the 20th century, the homosexual community and the Christian community were linked quite intimately in one way: Whenever persecution began on one group, it quickly went to the other. Germany, Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran, etc. etc. Be careful what you celebrate, because there is a reason these two communities are linked as such. The very victories you are celebrating today, may be the foundation of the very things you are most fearful of in the future. And if the courts gain more and more of the authority- there is no one to stop it.

Which is one more reason why I say that gays have the same rights, they just don't like their options given to them.

This same argument could have been used to justify keeping interracial marriages illegal.

Every one person had the same right to marry a person of the same skin color. Whether a person wants to use that right or not is their personal decision. No person had a right to marry out of their race. Whether a person wanted or didn't want to do that, was a personal decision. Thus, it was equal.

How can that be justifiable? There has been no proven problem with an interracial marriage. In fact, it has been proven to be very beneficial to allow interracial. The same hasn't been proven yet for gay marriage YET.

You are speaking of persecution though. Nobody here has persecuted the church. I for one just want churches to do what they do and the government to do what it does...separately. Gay marriage has been legal in other countries for some time now, and it hasn't destroyed the church in the slightest. All decisions were made through the courts there as well. Denmark would be the biggest hotbed for persecution if this were true. It's not though...it's just Denmark.

And those of us who oppose it haven't been persecuting them either. Just because we disagree with one's lifestyle doesn't mean automatically we're persecuting it.

How would pedophilia have to be excepted both people have to be of legal age to marry. Minors cannot enter into legally binding contracts such as marriage. And by that arguement what would be the difference from marriage now to pedophillia if a man wanted to marry a 12 yr old girl? Gay marriage is following all of the other laws governing marriage except the fact that its two people of the same sex.

Not really. Minors can marry at age 16 in some states if their parents sign off on the marriage. It's just not as common to see happening.

Also for those who do think that love is required as part of a marriage contract, that isn't the case. The 4 Most Basic Requirements to certify a marriage are 1.) 2 Consenting Adults, 2.) 1 Witness on each side, 3.) A Celebrant, and 4.) A Promise. The Promise doesn't mean you have to love them. It can mean anything such as taking care of one person financially etc.

I don't know why they will appeal it, they put on the shittiest case I've seen.

Because they're that hell bent on protecting marriage as one man one woman. That's only reason why.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with religion. Marriage is now a legal institution, not a religious one. It's a legal one because we have to go down to the courthouse to get a marriage license. The courthouse is a government building of the judicial branch of government. Ever wonder how athiests get married? They don’t go to church. They dont ask a priest. They go to the courthouse and get married by a judge or a Justice of the Peace.

So now that God has created AIDS to kill the homosexuals they want you to pay for it
and they want marriage benefits for their AIDS and insurance claims to be paid by the taxpayers too. I bet that's a lot what this is all about.

Also if you consider the fact that the govt. also gives out taxbreaks for each time a couple has a child(By Birth I know, as for an adoption, I have to check that), yeah it has become somewhat of a govt. institution to.

SteelersinCA

08-05-2010, 01:06 PM

SteelCityMom

08-05-2010, 01:15 PM

How can that be justifiable? There has been no proven problem with an interracial marriage. In fact, it has been proven to be very beneficial to allow interracial. The same hasn't been proven yet for gay marriage YET.

It's not justifiable...that's the point. There are no proven problems with interracial marriage and there are no proven problems with gay marriage. Nobody's blown up Denmark or Norway or Sweden or Canada yet over it. These countries have gone on just fine since allowing gay marriage. The first same sex marriage laws were passed in the Netherlands 10 years ago...they don't have any problems. Everybody didn't turn gay or anything.

My point with this was, people who were opposed to interracial marriage could have (and maybe did) use this same argument to further their point. It would have made as much sense then as it does now.

And those of us who oppose it haven't been persecuting them either. Just because we disagree with one's lifestyle doesn't mean automatically we're persecuting it.

I never said anybody was persecuting gays. I was responding to Preacher saying that (and I thought he was referring to people in this thread) some were celebrating this victory as a slap in the face to the church and that persecution of the church would arise from this. I was never trying to say that I think gays are being persecuted by the church.

SteelCityMom

08-05-2010, 01:25 PM

A lot of this debate seems to be going in circles, and from where I stand not many of the reasons against gay marriage make a lot of sense...to me at least. It seems that people are ok with homosexuals playing house, but don't want to actually afford them the same benefits that straight couples enjoy. SiCA said it perfectly...separate but equal seems to be the norm in this thinking. You can't just tell people that the way they live is perfectly fine and then turn around and tell them that they can't reap the same benefits as others because of their lifestyle. It's just not right. You can't have it both ways.

7SteelGal43

08-05-2010, 01:37 PM

Can't we just skip the 9th Circuit and go straight to the Supreme Court? :pop2:

I'm with you on that one, Wallace.

7SteelGal43

08-05-2010, 01:39 PM

I'd be surprised if this is even appealed. The Proponents put on such a lackluster case, I can't find one thing that could be appealed. I'm still reading the opinion though. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL

Oh, it will be appealed. Bank on it.

Craic

08-05-2010, 04:59 PM

Preacher...I respect you a lot. This just feels like reaching to me though. I understand your worry to a point, but I just can't get behind it. I'm sorry that some refugees were refused asylum and that some gay people have been harassing church services, but it's a real stretch to start comparing it to the beginnings of persecution of Christians.

I can understand how you think that gays and Christians being persecuted correlates alone...but realize this, when these kind of EXTREME persecutions take place (and you'll know when they take place), I would think it would be hard to say one way or the other what kind of persecution started it...and I doubt it would begin and end with the persecution of gays and Christians. I doubt as members of the human race, whoever was doing the persecution would limit themselves so.

Please understand, I am not saying that the church in AMerica has been persecuted yet... (well, since the late 1700's. There WAS persecution before that, when we were still colonies. That is actually what led two Baptist preachers to write a letter to Jefferson requesting separation of church and state). I am stating however, and I believe you can see it in every post I have given, that it is shortsighted for people to get excited about a smack against the church on any legal grounds precisely BECAUSE of the correlation of the church and homosexuality concerning persecution. The seeds planted today is the harvest of tomorrow. That is all I am saying.

Each of those links shown is just that, seeds. Planted by the very people that will be harmed as much as Christians in the future when persecution does begin. And it will. Maybe not in my lifetime, but I would bet my life that it will by turn of the next century.

Craic

08-05-2010, 05:02 PM

I don't know why they will appeal it, they put on the shittiest case I've seen.

I have heard the rumor that basically, it was thrown for the ability to appeal to SCOTUS. I doubt it, but found it an interesting thought.

SteelCityMom

08-05-2010, 05:14 PM

Please understand, I am not saying that the church in AMerica has been persecuted yet... (well, since the late 1700's. There WAS persecution before that, when we were still colonies. That is actually what led two Baptist preachers to write a letter to Jefferson requesting separation of church and state). I am stating however, and I believe you can see it in every post I have given, that it is shortsighted for people to get excited about a smack against the church on any legal grounds precisely BECAUSE of the correlation of the church and homosexuality concerning persecution. The seeds planted today is the harvest of tomorrow. That is all I am saying.

Each of those links shown is just that, seeds. Planted by the very people that will be harmed as much as Christians in the future when persecution does begin. And it will. Maybe not in my lifetime, but I would bet my life that it will by turn of the next century.

Unfortunately, persecution will always happen. That is the nature of man (as we know it). But to say that allowing gay marriage means the majority of people think it a slap in the face to the Church (any church) just isn't so.

The seeds of persecution don't need to be planted in man...they are just there. Groups of people will often persecute those things that they feel are threatening to their way of life or things they see as wrong and/or immoral. It's been happening since the beginning of recorded history, and I doubt it will stop in our lifetimes. This does not mean that people who support gay marriages are hoping to one day overthrow the church. This is also not a good argument to support bans on gay marriage.

SteelCityMan786

08-05-2010, 05:37 PM

It's not justifiable...that's the point. There are no proven problems with interracial marriage and there are no proven problems with gay marriage. Nobody's blown up Denmark or Norway or Sweden or Canada yet over it. These countries have gone on just fine since allowing gay marriage. The first same sex marriage laws were passed in the Netherlands 10 years ago...they don't have any problems. Everybody didn't turn gay or anything.

My point with this was, people who were opposed to interracial marriage could have (and maybe did) use this same argument to further their point. It would have made as much sense then as it does now.

I never said anybody was persecuting gays. I was responding to Preacher saying that (and I thought he was referring to people in this thread) some were celebrating this victory as a slap in the face to the church and that persecution of the church would arise from this. I was never trying to say that I think gays are being persecuted by the church.

There have been no benefits strong enough to prove that gay marriage is beneficial though. That is the problem.

That wasn't directed at you SteelCityMom. You are one of those that I don't see accusing anyone of persecuting gays. That was part of my response to Preacher, and nor was I throwing him or anyone on this forum in that group

A lot of this debate seems to be going in circles, and from where I stand not many of the reasons against gay marriage make a lot of sense...to me at least. It seems that people are ok with homosexuals playing house, but don't want to actually afford them the same benefits that straight couples enjoy. SiCA said it perfectly...separate but equal seems to be the norm in this thinking. You can't just tell people that the way they live is perfectly fine and then turn around and tell them that they can't reap the same benefits as others because of their lifestyle. It's just not right. You can't have it both ways.

I have nothing against them living that way or entering into their own civil unions. I just have an issue with it being called a marriage.

SteelersinCA

08-05-2010, 05:38 PM

I have heard the rumor that basically, it was thrown for the ability to appeal to SCOTUS. I doubt it, but found it an interesting thought.

That is a mighty dangerous risk considered the current composition of the SCOTUS. I think even the staunchest of anti-gay judges would have a difficult time upholding Prop 8. I said the day Prop 8 passed it was the best thing to happen for opponents of it. It almost guarantees it will be heard all the way up to the SCOTUS. The distinction is once the SCOTUS rules on it, it goes for everyone, right now it's just CA.

Craic

08-05-2010, 05:39 PM

I'm sorry, but I never said any of that, nor insinuated it. What I did say was:

Unfortunately, persecution will always happen. That is the nature of man (as we know it). But to say that allowing gay marriage means the majority of people think it a slap in the face to the Church (any church) just isn't so.
I said, "for those who think..." Not, "The majority". I was very deliberate in the way I stated it-because I know there are a few people out there who think that way. Not the majority. It is those few people that I am speaking too, because it is quite short-sighted of them to think that way.

The seeds of persecution don't need to be planted in man...they are just there. Groups of people will often persecute those things that they feel are threatening to their way of life or things they see as wrong and/or immoral. It's been happening since the beginning of recorded history, and I doubt it will stop in our lifetimes.

I did not say they are planted IN Man. I said they are being planted... and my reference is in the American culture. It is an issue which will affect both groups just as much.

This does not mean that people who support gay marriages are hoping to one day overthrow the church.

Once again, I never said it did. I am saying that there is a minor group that looks to slap down the church at any and every place possible, because they see the church as nothing more than a superstition breeding hate and intolerance bread of a closed mind (The irony however, is quite thick).

This is also not a good argument to support bans on gay marriage.
And again. I never said it was, and never used it as an argument to support traditional marriage as opposed to gay marriage.

SteelersinCA

08-05-2010, 05:40 PM

There have been no benefits strong enough to prove that gay marriage is beneficial though. That is the problem.

Why exactly do they have to prove it's beneficial??? The way the law stands, the government has to prove under a strict scrutiny standard why they should be denied a fundamental right. The gays don't have to prove ANYTHING. They are a suspect class and marriage is a fundamental right. No one disputes that.

SteelCityMom

08-05-2010, 05:48 PM

SteelCityMan786

08-05-2010, 06:27 PM

Why exactly do they have to prove it's beneficial??? The way the law stands, the government has to prove under a strict scrutiny standard why they should be denied a fundamental right. The gays don't have to prove ANYTHING. They are a suspect class and marriage is a fundamental right. No one disputes that.

Show me where they're considered a protected minority. There is nothing that says gays are a protected minority.

SteelCityMom

08-05-2010, 06:49 PM

Show me where they're considered a protected minority. There is nothing that says gays are a protected minority.

First off...and I'm sure SiCA will want to answer this himself as well...no where in what you quoted does it say "protected minority". Are you honestly trying to say that only the majority in the US is protected under the US Constitution? That's not what the Constitution was set up to provide for you know.

SteelCityMan786

08-05-2010, 07:34 PM

First off...and I'm sure SiCA will want to answer this himself as well...no where in what you quoted does it say "protected minority". Are you honestly trying to say that only the majority in the US is protected under the US Constitution? That's not what the Constitution was set up to provide for you know.

No, I have taken more the enough classes in American Govt. to know that the constitution is for all 300+ Million Americans who have actual citizenship. It doesn't apply to those who are here illegally.

SteelCityMom

08-05-2010, 07:56 PM

No, I have taken more the enough classes in American Govt. to know that the constitution is for all 300+ Million Americans who have actual citizenship. It doesn't apply to those who are here illegally.

Nobody has said anything about those here illegally. Why bring that up? In fact, no where in SiCA's statement does it say "protected minority". Everyone, from atheists, to Christians, to Satanists, to homosexuals are supposed to be protected under the Constitution, minority or not. Minorities are more than one race of people.

HometownGal

08-05-2010, 08:03 PM

I have nothing against them living that way or entering into their own civil unions. I just have an issue with it being called a marriage.

This is exactly where I"m at on this issue. :drink:

SteelCityMom

08-05-2010, 08:10 PM

This is exactly where I"m at on this issue. :drink:

Ok...so you are ok with it being called a civil union. That means you are ok with them having the title of domestic partnership. This title does not come with the same benefits that married couples enjoy (or don't enjoy depending on who you ask :chuckle:). That means you are ok with them playing house as long as they are not given the same benefits as straight married couples. This is not ok in my book. This falls under "separate but equal" as far as I'm concerned.

If a civil union was something that anyone (gay or straight) entered into outside of the church...fine, I'd agree with you. But civil unions are only for gay couples. They are not for atheists, they are not for satanists, they are not for people married by Elvis impersonators...they are for gay people. Civil unions do not carry the same legal status that marriages do in the eyes of the state or the federal government. Again, I have to reiterate, this is saying that we....as a people...are ok with homosexuals playing house, as long as they are not afforded the same benefits. It's just wrong. You can't have it both ways.

Killer

08-05-2010, 08:17 PM

Preacher jus like to git the heathens riled up y'all - have a shot of tequilla on me.

I know how to deal with these snake handlers - I have the healing touch.

yea verily

JonM229

08-05-2010, 11:32 PM

Show me where they're considered a protected minority. There is nothing that says gays are a protected minority.

They are in the state of Washington (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002029585_gaymarriage08m.html)

SteelCityMan786

08-05-2010, 11:58 PM

They are in the state of Washington (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002029585_gaymarriage08m.html)

And that is not a significant enough of a margin for me to say that on a national level.

BuddhaBus

08-06-2010, 12:06 AM

Like SiCA said, fundamental rights aren't (and shouldn't be) subject to popular vote. Besides...the majority of people aren't always right anyways. Just look at Obama...and American Idol. :chuckle:

Spot on, SCM!

Mattsme

08-06-2010, 12:06 AM

A little off topic, but am I the only one that thinks the abbreviation "SCOTUS" sounds just a little dirty? :heh:

The WH

08-06-2010, 02:37 AM

A little off topic, but am I the only one that thinks the abbreviation "SCOTUS" sounds just a little dirty? :heh:
yeah, it's a little nasty

Killer

08-06-2010, 08:53 AM

1 Judge Trumps 7,000,000 voters

"Here we have an openly gay federal judge, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who, I promise you, would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution," said Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of The National Organization for Marriage, a group that helped fund Proposition 8.

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100805/capt.ffa34b67039744e7b5d57c07cb6c4354-ffa34b67039744e7b5d57c07cb6c4354-0.jpg?x=400&y=278&q=85&sig=6H5lqG4ts.5rQlHekFlDyQ--

In response, the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, a political action committee for gay candidates, launched an online petition accusing Gallagher's group of "gay-baiting."

st33lersguy

08-06-2010, 09:04 AM

I really believe his ruling is unconstitutional because he is going against the will of the american people. One man should not be able to strike down a proposition that the majority vote in favor of

WindyCitySteelerFan

08-06-2010, 09:37 AM

Who cares. I mean .. .really? With over 50% divorce rates in America, don't gays have the same right to be as pissed off and unhappy as straights?

The judge? He's a libertarian. He wants less government/nanny state-ism.

I agree.

SteelersinCA

08-06-2010, 10:15 AM

Show me where they're considered a protected minority. There is nothing that says gays are a protected minority.

How about you show me first why they have to prove anything. You answer my question with a question, I'll be happy to answer yours, but you answer mine first, deal? When the government takes away a right from ANYONE, the GOVERNMENT must provide justification for doing so. You tell me how you shift the burden to homosexuals in this instance.

venom

08-06-2010, 10:17 AM

I lean to the right on most areas but if gays want to marry , go ahead . Im all for them .

SteelCityMan786

08-06-2010, 12:50 PM

A little off topic, but am I the only one that thinks the abbreviation "SCOTUS" sounds just a little dirty? :heh:

you running on a dirty mind today Mattsme? :heh:

How about you show me first why they have to prove anything. You answer my question with a question, I'll be happy to answer yours, but you answer mine first, deal? When the government takes away a right from ANYONE, the GOVERNMENT must provide justification for doing so. You tell me how you shift the burden to homosexuals in this instance.

Like I did in posts 61 and 77?

For various reasons. One of the most common arguements is that gays are gays by default. Gordon M Sheppard and Marc Breedlove(Neuroscientists), in their own studies proved that no genetic link has been found. Gays act out on this lifestyle daily. You can't change how you are genetically from birth. This is caused by sexual behaviors.(Which in essence can alter the brain). Also it is claimed that any gay can't marry who they love when as I pointed out earlier when love is not required for a marriage contract. That "promise" could mean anything. Other arguements include how they save the adoption process whenever it's a hot commodity with heterosexuals as is. No one has presented to me how this could benefit society as a whole.

Well, I think the court disagrees with your definition of the right of marriage. You say between a man and a woman and they have that right so it's equal. They looked at what marriage has traditionally been defined as; foundation for the household, sharing of assets and debts, lifelong commitment, etc. A same sex couple does not have the right to enjoy those things as you or I have. Even though I'm against it, I certainly get that definition of the right of marriage. If I honestly defined marriage, marrying a woman wouldn't even be in my definition, it would be much more in line with the court's conclusion.

At least the court who ruled on Prop 8 this time around. We'll see later in the event this goes in front of the SCOTUS.

That is a mighty dangerous risk considered the current composition of the SCOTUS. I think even the staunchest of anti-gay judges would have a difficult time upholding Prop 8. I said the day Prop 8 passed it was the best thing to happen for opponents of it. It almost guarantees it will be heard all the way up to the SCOTUS. The distinction is once the SCOTUS rules on it, it goes for everyone, right now it's just CA.

Unless they find a way to strengthen their case and found a way to strengthen their case

Why exactly do they have to prove it's beneficial??? The way the law stands, the government has to prove under a strict scrutiny standard why they should be denied a fundamental right. The gays don't have to prove ANYTHING. They are a suspect class and marriage is a fundamental right. No one disputes that.

(See earlier remark)

SteelCityMom

08-06-2010, 01:04 PM

There have been no benefits strong enough to prove that gay marriage is beneficial though. That is the problem.

No there doesn't. Why do you have that idea? They're human beings not lab rats.

I have nothing against them living that way or entering into their own civil unions. I just have an issue with it being called a marriage.

Well, until civil unions carry the same benefits that a marriage does, I'll never agree that they are equal...because they're not. Besides, if you've already given in to the fact that a marriage isn't alway about love (hence, it does not alway deal with a sacred bond), why does it need to be called something different if two gay people want to enter into the same contract? That doesn't make any sense to me.

SteelCityMom

08-06-2010, 01:12 PM

For various reasons. One of the most common arguements is that gays are gays by default. Gordon M Sheppard and Marc Breedlove(Neuroscientists), in their own studies proved that no genetic link has been found. Gays act out on this lifestyle daily. You can't change how you are genetically from birth. This is caused by sexual behaviors.(Which in essence can alter the brain). Also it is claimed that any gay can't marry who they love when as I pointed out earlier when love is not required for a marriage contract. That "promise" could mean anything. Other arguements include how they save the adoption process whenever it's a hot commodity with heterosexuals as is. No one has presented to me how this could benefit society as a whole.

I'll agree with you on one thing...being gay is not genetic. It's not sickle cell or tay-sachs. But that doesn't mean they can change who they are attracted to anymore than you can. Some people like fat chicks, some have foot fetishes, some only dig guys with great abs, etc. etc....some people are just gay. That's just the way it is.

And since you're stuck on how they can benefit society as a whole...they make great loving parents, and that's been proven many times over. If that doesn't benefit society, I don't know what does. They shouldn't have to "prove" their worth to society though anymore than two drunks who bang one night and decide to get married in Vegas in a drunken stupor should have to "prove" their worth when they get hitched by Elvis.

And please...don't say they are stealing adoption babies from straight couples. A good loving home is a good loving home, no matter who it is with.

SteelCityMan786

08-06-2010, 01:20 PM

I'll agree with you on one thing...being gay is not genetic. It's not sickle cell or tay-sachs. But that doesn't mean they can change who they are attracted to anymore than you can. Some people like fat chicks, some have foot fetishes, some only dig guys with great abs, etc. etc....some people are just gay. That's just the way it is.

And since you're stuck on how they can benefit society as a whole...they make great loving parents, and that's been proven many times over. If that doesn't benefit society, I don't know what does. They shouldn't have to "prove" their worth to society though anymore than two drunks who bang one night and decide to get married in Vegas in a drunken stupor should have to "prove" their worth when they get hitched by Elvis.

And please...don't say they are stealing adoption babies from straight couples. A good loving home is a good loving home, no matter who it is with.

This is exactly what I have been asking for. Even if I feel some research of my own would also be of benefit to me personally.

I didn't say that even if it sounded like I did for one second. I know there are broken homes with heterosexual parents at the head of household.

Craic

08-06-2010, 02:57 PM

Preacher...I'm sorry, but I don't see your point in bringing up what you think people are going to persecute others on if you don't think a majority of people are going to be doing the persecuting. If you are just throwing around the term to mean that a small group of people are going to bash an organization, then I don't think you get what the actual definition and social ramifications of persecute means (in the context of mass persecution, which is what was implied in your original post). It's just how you made your post sound, that you thought that by allowing gay marriage that it would open up unforeseen doors to religious persecution in the US and worldwide.

And I stand by my statement that humanity will always (eventually) find a reason to persecute others. It's one of the most repeated themes in the history of man, and I doubt it will end in our lifetimes, let alone any foreseeable future.

Once again, I think you are completely taken what I am saying out of context. Let us go back to my first post.

Sigh.

As a Christian, and a pastor, I could care less about the actions of those who do not confess the same belief that I do. It is only those who claim to be Christian and that they believe God within the Christian belief condones their actions that I have a problem with... because we have a common foundation. I believe the biblical text on this matter is 1 Cor. 5:12-13. "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside." My only care about those outside the church is that I get the opportunity to share, "Come, and meet the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."

As far as protecting the church, it is simple. I am going to lead the church to state in their bylaws that only members in good standing are to be married in the church. Problem solved.

I do however, shiver at what I consider the activist courts. Everyone person had the same right, to marry a person of the opposite sex. Whether a person wants to use that right or not, is their personal decision. No person had a right to marry the same sex. Whether a person wanted or didn't want to do that, was a personal decision. Thus, it was equal. This is not, in any way, shape, or form, an issue of civil rights. Gay couples are offered all the of the same civil protection in a civil union. The tax code should also be amended for civil unions (though it won't be, because the gov't wants more and more of your tax money). Therefore, there is no denial of civil rights, IMO. Sadly however, White American Christendom (as opposed to actual Christians) have brought this on, and especially the "white christian south". When elected officials, police, etc. were actually violating civil rights (anyone remember blacks sitting at the back of the bus, drinking from small, corroded drinking fountains, get food at the back of a restaurant- those ACTUAL civil rights that were violated), the american public, the American church, and the senate and house, all turned a blind eye until the courts were forced to rule on the issue. Give the courts an inch of authority, and they'll take a mile. After all, just look at how the interstate commerce clause has been completely abused.

My problem however, is as an American citizen. Not as a Christian. It will only become my problem as a Christian if the courts 1. force me to officiate ceremonies of gay couples, 2. Force me to open the doors to the church building for gay weddings, 3. Try to control what I say from the pulpit on the issue, or 4. if my church, my association, or my denomination moves to legitimating homosexual marriage within the church.

Oh yeah, a word of warning to all those who are cheering this decision as a strike against the church-- In the 20th century, the homosexual community and the Christian community were linked quite intimately in one way: Whenever persecution began on one group, it quickly went to the other. Germany, Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran, etc. etc. Be careful what you celebrate, because there is a reason these two communities are linked as such. The very victories you are celebrating today, may be the foundation of the very things you are most fearful of in the future. And if the courts gain more and more of the authority- there is no one to stop it.

My word of warning was to those who TODAY see this as a slap at the church. Because sometime IN THE FUTURE, I do believe there will be MASS PERSECUTION of the church. And I simply pointed out, that when that begins, the homosexual community will be persecuted right along side the church.

It was a statement to the few people TODAY that support Gay rights, and wants to see the church slapped down (notice here, I do not say one immediately equates to the other.)

I have no idea how you built that up to everything you have been saying... such as the following...

You are speaking of persecution though. Nobody here has persecuted the church. I for one just want churches to do what they do and the government to do what it does...separately. Gay marriage has been legal in other countries for some time now, and it hasn't destroyed the church in the slightest. All decisions were made through the courts there as well. Denmark would be the biggest hotbed for persecution if this were true. It's not though...it's just Denmark.

And, I do take a bit of personal insult at the idea of not understanding "mass persecution". From having my spiritual forefathers lit on fire to illuminate the night in Rome, to being burned at the stake by the Catholic church (and anglican), to the Swiss catholics drowning them in laughter all the while saying, "You want to be re-baptized? Let's re-baptize you.." and never letting them up out of the water. To the confessing church in Hitler's Germany being persecuted. I have been detained by the police for hours for nothing more than my faith (not in this country). Trust me, I know what persecution is, and what it isn't (and even my detention was not persecution). I also know how it begins when it comes to the church... and also to whom it also relates outside of the church. It is from that place, that I stated, "Oh yeah, a word of warning to all those who are cheering this decision as a strike against the church-- In the 20th century, the homosexual community and the Christian community were linked quite intimately in one way: Whenever persecution began on one group, it quickly went to the other. Germany, Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran, etc. etc. Be careful what you celebrate, because there is a reason these two communities are linked as such. The very victories you are celebrating today, may be the foundation of the very things you are most fearful of in the future. And if the courts gain more and more of the authority- there is no one to stop it"

SteelCityMom

08-06-2010, 03:04 PM

I do get your point...I originally thought you were speaking about some in this thread. And yes, the Church will most likely be persecuted again, as will gays. Like I said in a previous post, it's just the natural order of humanity to persecute others. And while you posted a few examples of gays bashing churches, I'm sure I could find some examples of churches bashing gays as well. I don't take the extremes from either side to represent the whole of either community though.

Sorry if there was any confusion in what you meant though, I wasn't trying to offend in any way.

SteelersinCA

08-06-2010, 04:03 PM

Like I did in posts 61 and 77?

For various reasons. One of the most common arguements is that gays are gays by default. Gordon M Sheppard and Marc Breedlove(Neuroscientists), in their own studies proved that no genetic link has been found. Gays act out on this lifestyle daily. You can't change how you are genetically from birth. This is caused by sexual behaviors.(Which in essence can alter the brain). Also it is claimed that any gay can't marry who they love when as I pointed out earlier when love is not required for a marriage contract. That "promise" could mean anything. Other arguements include how they save the adoption process whenever it's a hot commodity with heterosexuals as is. No one has presented to me how this could benefit society as a whole.

(See earlier remark)

Here's reply #61

Rock and Porn can be debated all the way around. That is for sure.(When you're talking people's morals)

Which is one more reason why I say that gays have the same rights, they just don't like their options given to them.

How can that be justifiable? There has been no proven problem with an interracial marriage. In fact, it has been proven to be very beneficial to allow interracial. The same hasn't been proven yet for gay marriage YET.

And those of us who oppose it haven't been persecuting them either. Just because we disagree with one's lifestyle doesn't mean automatically we're persecuting it.

Not really. Minors can marry at age 16 in some states if their parents sign off on the marriage. It's just not as common to see happening.

Also for those who do think that love is required as part of a marriage contract, that isn't the case. The 4 Most Basic Requirements to certify a marriage are 1.) 2 Consenting Adults, 2.) 1 Witness on each side, 3.) A Celebrant, and 4.) A Promise. The Promise doesn't mean you have to love them. It can mean anything such as taking care of one person financially etc.

Because they're that hell bent on protecting marriage as one man one woman. That's only reason why.

Also if you consider the fact that the govt. also gives out taxbreaks for each time a couple has a child(By Birth I know, as for an adoption, I have to check that), yeah it has become somewhat of a govt. institution to.

Here's #77

No, I have taken more the enough classes in American Govt. to know that the constitution is for all 300+ Million Americans who have actual citizenship. It doesn't apply to those who are here illegally.

There must be a justifiable government intrusion on the fundamental right. Where, in either of those posts, is the justifiable government reasoning? Gays being gay by default is not a government reason for denying someone a right. We deny them the right because they choose to be gay? Does that really make sense to you? Does that mean we can go back to owning slaves as long as someone consents to be our salve? Of course not.

I think you are asking the gays to prove something and the simple fact is they don't have to. YOU have to prove that you can deny them of a fundamental right with a compelling reason, of which you have yet to come up with one. If I'm missing it please let me know.

This is not just me being stubborn, this is the legal requirement for the upholding of an anti-gay marriage ban. There most be some justifiable reason the government is preventing gays from a fundamental right. The reason it must pass strict scrutiny, in this case, is because no one objected to the designation of homosexuals as a "suspect class." Neither marriage being a fundamental right nor homosexuals being a suspect class was argued by the proponents of Prop 8.

"Under strict scrutiny, the state bears the burden of producing evidence to show that Prop 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest." Carey v. Population service Intl. 4321 US 678.

Additionally, once you fail to object to something, you can no longer use that as a basis for appeal. So the suspect class ship has sailed so to speak.

Now to address your argument about they have the same right as we do to marry someone of the opposite sex so they have the same rights, the proponents of Prop 8 admitted, "there is a significant symbolic disparity between domestic partnerships and marriage." This goes back to separate but equal, it's not the same, if it were the same would you be OK with not marrying who you love and just getting a domestic partnership?

Please, read the ruling. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL

At least the court who ruled on Prop 8 this time around. We'll see later in the event this goes in front of the SCOTUS.

I think you even agree with their definition of marriage you were the one saying it doesn't require love. Of the 4 things you listed, what can a gay couple not do?

Unless they find a way to strengthen their case and found a way to strengthen their case

Again, they are stuck with the state of the record as they made it. They cannot advance new arguments, they can't make new ones, they can't now object to something they didn't before. They are stuck with the same shitty record they created.

SteelCityMan786

08-06-2010, 06:48 PM

There must be a justifiable government intrusion on the fundamental right. Where, in either of those posts, is the justifiable government reasoning? Gays being gay by default is not a government reason for denying someone a right. We deny them the right because they choose to be gay? Does that really make sense to you? Does that mean we can go back to owning slaves as long as someone consents to be our salve? Of course not.

I think you are asking the gays to prove something and the simple fact is they don't have to. YOU have to prove that you can deny them of a fundamental right with a compelling reason, of which you have yet to come up with one. If I'm missing it please let me know.

In the opinion Kristin Perry states that she wants marriage for a more secure and stable relationship. Is that supposed to mean that she couldn’t have a stable relationship as unmarried or a relationship that has the same benefits of a marriage under the title of Civil Union? Is she also leaving me to believe that you can’t have a stable relationship without being married? Who said unmarried couples can’t have an stable one as is?

That is not a reason strong enough to overturn the ruling and one more reason why the government can act. It’s basically saying to me that you can’t have a stable relationship unless you are married.(And that comes directly from reading the ruling to). If they were to say it could improve it, then you might get somewhere.

This is not just me being stubborn, this is the legal requirement for the upholding of an anti-gay marriage ban. There most be some justifiable reason the government is preventing gays from a fundamental right. The reason it must pass strict scrutiny, in this case, is because no one objected to the designation of homosexuals as a "suspect class." Neither marriage being a fundamental right nor homosexuals being a suspect class was argued by the proponents of Prop 8.
"Under strict scrutiny, the state bears the burden of producing evidence to show that Prop 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest." Carey v. Population service Intl. 4321 US 678.
Additionally, once you fail to object to something, you can no longer use that as a basis for appeal. So the suspect class ship has sailed so to speak.
That would have probably helped their(prop 8 proponents) case to the heaviest degree possible. I am really stunned they didn’t use that argument in all that I have read so far on the ruling. It wouldn’t surprise me though if they try to argue it anyway.

Now to address your argument about they have the same right as we do to marry someone of the opposite sex so they have the same rights, the proponents of Prop 8 admitted, "there is a significant symbolic disparity between domestic partnerships and marriage." This goes back to separate but equal, it's not the same, if it were the same would you be OK with not marrying who you love and just getting a domestic partnership?
Please, read the ruling. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL

This ultimately was their downfall right there. Now that you put it that way, when it comes to heteros then you could call me “in the middle"

I think you even agree with their definition of marriage you were the one saying it doesn't require love. Of the 4 things you listed, what can a gay couple not do?
Again, they are stuck with the state of the record as they made it. They cannot advance new arguments, they can't make new ones, they can't now object to something they didn't before. They are stuck with the same shitty record they created.

From a requirement standpoint, yes, however I do factor other things into it as well(Such as the church definition).

SteelCityMom

08-06-2010, 08:39 PM

In the opinion Kristin Perry states that she wants marriage for a more secure and stable relationship. Is that supposed to mean that she couldn’t have a stable relationship as unmarried or a relationship that has the same benefits of a marriage under the title of Civil Union? Is she also leaving me to believe that you can’t have a stable relationship without being married? Who said unmarried couples can’t have an stable one as is?

You certainly can have a stable relationship as an unmarried couple, but not as secure a one as a married couple (secure meaning tax benefits, undeniable custody rights should one of you die...her and her partner have 4 boys, your partners family cannot contest a clearly written will, your partners surviving family cannot seize property that you and your married partner owned should your partner die, nobody can deny you the right to visit your partners hospital bed or grave). These are very real benefits that married couples enjoy, but civil unions do not provide for. I think that's part of what she means when she says she wants a more stable and secure relationship.

Here are some other examples...http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm

SteelersinCA

08-06-2010, 09:13 PM

That is not a reason strong enough to overturn the ruling and one more reason why the government can act. It’s basically saying to me that you can’t have a stable relationship unless you are married.(And that comes directly from reading the ruling to). If they were to say it could improve it, then you might get somewhere.

Again, they don't need a reason to overturn; the government needs a reason to deny them the right. What is the reason the government has to deny them a right? Whether unmarried couples can have a stable relationship is irrelevant. It's sort of like a warrantless search; they are presumed illegal. The government must prove some reason for the warrantless search to justify it. So here's how it starts:

Marraige = fundamental right, any restriction on that right to ANYONE is illegal. Now, give me a reason why the GOVERNMENT can restrict that right without mentioning anything a homosexual has to do, they don't have a duty to prove anything. They can just sit back and wait for the government to come up with a compelling interest. This would be something along the lines like homosexuals abuse their kids, they sell them into slavery, it makes them retarded. We all know those aren't true but thats what we are looking for. I can't think of one, so if you can, let us know!

If the govt can't come up with a reason, then it remains illegal to restrict the fundamental right.

That would have probably helped their(prop 8 proponents) case to the heaviest degree possible. I am really stunned they didn’t use that argument in all that I have read so far on the ruling. It wouldn’t surprise me though if they try to argue it anyway.

I'm shocked they let this slide. There has been no single case that I can find that has designated homosexuals a suspect class until this one. By not objecting to it, they let it become the rule of law. I'll have to check into it but they may be able to challenge it if it reaches the SCOTUS because you are talking about the US Consititution and not just the CA one. I think it would be pretty weak though. However, what is happening is that the gay marriage advocates are methodically dismantling every argument the anti-gay people throw at them. This isn't a question of IF gay marriage will be made legal but WHEN.

Killer

08-07-2010, 07:59 AM

This isn't a question of IF gay marriage will be made legal but WHEN

Only when gay homosexual activist judges are in charge.

Let's review what the people voted for in the first place - Nov 2008 elections.

States issue verdicts on gay rights

After expensive campaign, Calif. voters outlaw same-sex marriages

Voters put a stop to same-sex marriage in California, dealing a crushing defeat to gay-rights activists in a state they hoped would be a vanguard

In California, the nation's most populous state, voters approved a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriages. With almost all precincts reporting, Proposition 8 had 52 percent approval.

Ban-gay-marriage amendments were also approved in Arizona and Florida, states where such unions were never legal. Similar bans had prevailed in 27 states before Tuesday's elections.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27523989/

SteelersinCA

08-07-2010, 12:11 PM

They felt the same way in Brown vs Board of Education too.

LLT

08-07-2010, 12:38 PM

They felt the same way in Brown vs Board of Education too.

Not taking one side or the other...because most of my thoughts on the matter are of a moral leaning....but from a LEGAL standpoint I was wondering if SteelersinCA might be able to help me wrap my mind around a point with marriage.

IF marriage was allowed between consenting ADULTS....straight/gay....whatever....and IF Polygamy were allowed....what is the legal ramications towards health/retirement/socaial security benefits. I know that if were to pass away, my wife and children would recieve benefits from me. So hypothetically what would be the result a situation in which a man with lets say... 6 legal wives....were to die. If that person was a state employee could the state handle the benefit claim to all involved?

How could a state/business set itself up to handle that type of situation? I dont think you could limit the amount of beneficiaries any more that if the man had 6 children...right? So in an extreme situation, If i was a state employee with 6 wives and lets say 36 children...and i should pass away....well...could that be part of the case against polygamy?

Killer

08-07-2010, 12:49 PM

So it will be Perry vs. Schwarzenegger that caused God to finally snap off California and sink it.

We'll see...He's a vengeful God when it come to abominations.

http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/images/800px-John_Martin_-_Sodom_and_Gomorrah.jpg

The WH

08-07-2010, 02:24 PM

did that lady get turned into a pillar of salt because she looked back?

Shea

08-07-2010, 04:28 PM

Shit, did I leave my webcam on again?

I thought that feeling of being watched was just from the pot...:nervous:

That is funny as all hell!

So now that God has created AIDS to kill the homosexuals they want you to pay for it.

and they want marriage benefits for their AIDS and insurance claims to be paid by the taxpayers too. I bet that's a lot what this is all about.

Wow ...

Please tell me that this is just another example of your quirky sense of humor and that you really don't believe that.

SteelersinCA

08-08-2010, 11:26 AM

Great article on this, Chemerinsky is pretty much a ConLaw deity in jurisprudence. I think he makes an excellent point about no conservatives complaining about activist judges when the Chicago gun laws were struck down.:huh:

THE PROPOSITION 8 RULING

One judge vs. 7 million voters?

John Diaz

Sunday, August 8, 2010

The reaction to Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling from opponents of same-sex marriage was swift, angry and predictable. How dare, they ask, could the opinion of one judge invalidate the votes of the 7 million Californians who supported Proposition 8? On Fox News, Sarah Palin expressed frustration at "that third branch of government undoing the will of the people." Similar sentiments reverberated from conservatives in the blogosphere, cable news and talk radio.

Reasonable people may disagree about whether Walker's 136-page ruling made the case that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional because it lacked "any rational basis" for singling out gays and lesbians for denial of marriage licenses. But there should be no argument about the authority - indeed, the responsibility - of the federal judiciary to assess the constitutionality of a law.

This is exactly how our constitutional democracy is supposed to work.

Don't blame federal judges for doing their jobs. The concept of judicial review has been at the core of our checks-and-balances democracy since the landmark Marbury vs. Madison ruling in 1803.

"It's the nature of our constitutional system," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine law school. "It doesn't matter whether a law was passed by Congress, a state legislature, a city council or the voters - it has to comply with the U.S. Constitution."

In reading Walker's opinion, which carefully and quite compellingly dissected the arguments of each side, it is apparent that a judge known for his diligence went to great lengths to put it on display in this case.

Still, some critics of the ruling saw fit to note that Walker is gay, with the insinuation of an inherent bias. Many of those conservative commentators neglected to add that Walker was originally appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan, and renominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1989.

"This is by no means a renegade decision," said Jesse Choper, a constitutional law professor at the UC Berkeley School of Law.

Nor is it the last word. The oft-echoed argument that "one judge" has somehow thwarted the will of the people is a "rhetorical flourish" that does not hold up to scrutiny, Chemerinsky said.

"This ultimately will go to three judges (on the appellate level) for review, and then to nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court," he said.

Chemerinsky added that many of the conservatives railing about judicial excess in the marriage case were not complaining when the federal courts struck down a Seattle law on the consideration of race in school assignments or Chicago's ban on handgun ownership.

Walker's ruling was based in large part on the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. Proponents of Prop. 8 failed to support their claim that same-sex marriages undermine the institution of marriage or are harmful to children, he asserted. "Moral disapproval" of homosexuality is not a sufficient basis for such discrimination, he wrote.

As for the other complaint about the ruling - that judges should not force social change on a culture that is not ready for it - remember: It was the federal judiciary, invoking the Constitution, that desegregated schools and ended bans on interracial marriage. Discomfort with a minority group, whether based on skin color or sexual orientation, does not justify the denial of basic rights.

And marriage has been determined to be a fundamental right in this nation.

In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Wisconsin law that denied marriage licenses to noncustodial parents who were behind in child-support payments. In that case, unlike same-sex marriage, Wisconsin could plausibly claim it had a vested interest in denying a marriage license to a particular class of individuals - because the child of a deadbeat parent about to enter a new marriage could be at heightened risk of becoming dependent on the state.

Also, as Choper noted, the Wisconsin residents precluded from marriage under that law had a straightforward way to get around the prohibition - "pay their darn child support."

In the case of two people of the same sex who want to marry, "there is no way on God's Earth they can get around" the Prop. 8 exclusion, Choper said.

Yet even with Wisconsin's legitimate interest in keeping deadbeat parents from marrying, the Supreme Court found the law unconstitutional because it "interferes with a fundamental right."

In our system of democracy, no ballot measure - even one that passed by a margin of 600,000 votes, as Prop. 8 did - should be inviolate from the reach of the judiciary.

"This is tyranny," roared talk-radio blowhard Rush Limbaugh, suggesting the judiciary had been overtaken by "leftist nut jobs." Limbaugh made a point of noting Walker's sexual orientation - but not the fact that he was selected for the bench by Reagan and Bush.

Tyranny? I would be more worried about a democracy that did not protect fundamental rights from the "tyranny of the majority" that James Madison warned of in the Federalist Papers.

As of today, deadbeat parents who want to marry enjoy a constitutional protection that is denied same-sex couples who want to build a family with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Walker's ruling was an essential step toward rectifying that injustice.

John Diaz is The Chronicle's editorial page editor. E-mail: jdiaz@sfchronicle.com.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/07/INO61EFPES.DTL&type=gaylesbian#ixzz0w24AtjZZ

urgle burgle

08-09-2010, 08:56 PM

the issue is in the gun ban law and others, their was no vote by the people to approve such measures. that would be going against the peoples mandate. however, if they did, with the gun ban, it would be ruled unconstitutional, which it eventually was. this will go to the supreme court, as it should. anything voted by the people that is unconstitutional, should not stand. the issue, is that the supreme court says that (through precedence) that marriage is a right afforded in the constitution for all. if that is what they said, that is what stands. although i do not agree. problem, is that the court know goes almost only through precedence, and not original intent. that is the true problem itself. not to mention, the govt. should get out of marriage entirely. but whatever......at this point, although i do not agree with homosexual marriage, i just do not really care anymore. just likes gays in the military...i am former army, and do not particualrly want gays in the military. but, i just dont care anymore. if the pro-gay, and DOD would just explain how they would implement gays into the military (housing, barracks, showers, etc), and it made sense, most would go for it. that is what most military is waiting for. just explain how it will eventually effect us. then we may get on board. but everybody is so busy calling everybody hate mongers, racists, etc. they wont even get to the important specifics. like i said.....i just dont care anymore. whatever.

SteelersinCA

08-10-2010, 05:18 PM

Not taking one side or the other...because most of my thoughts on the matter are of a moral leaning....but from a LEGAL standpoint I was wondering if SteelersinCA might be able to help me wrap my mind around a point with marriage.

IF marriage was allowed between consenting ADULTS....straight/gay....whatever....and IF Polygamy were allowed....what is the legal ramications towards health/retirement/socaial security benefits. I know that if were to pass away, my wife and children would recieve benefits from me. So hypothetically what would be the result a situation in which a man with lets say... 6 legal wives....were to die. If that person was a state employee could the state handle the benefit claim to all involved?

How could a state/business set itself up to handle that type of situation? I dont think you could limit the amount of beneficiaries any more that if the man had 6 children...right? So in an extreme situation, If i was a state employee with 6 wives and lets say 36 children...and i should pass away....well...could that be part of the case against polygamy?

Sorry LLT, didn't see this.

It's difficult to answer your question without making several assumptions (typical lawyer answer right?). I assume you mean that if you died with 6 wives and no will or trust? The traditional pecking order, so to speak, in cases like that is your assets would go to your wife. Your kids would get nothing. Only when your wife dies do the kids get anything. So in your hypothetical your assets would be divided 6 ways to your wives. Then once they die in equal 36ths to the kids. Of course I'm also assuming you have the stamina and patience to create 36 kids, which I think we all know is a tad unrealistic :) (Joking only!)

I honestly don't know what you mean by if the person was a state employee could the state handle it. Do you mean because they are a quasi interested party?

Also, every state is different. Some are community property states and that would be an absolute nightmare for polygamy. I would think the estate would have to be valued at different times of marriage. Then you would get into a question of do the wife's marry the other wife's further clouding the "community property?" It has the potential to get very very messy.

I suppose it could be a reason against polygamy but I don't think it would pass constitutional muster either. Just because something is hard or difficult to do doesn't make it a compelling reason. Then again, who knows what the judges would think. The best argument against polygamy is that it creates a new right, which is subject to a different type of scrutiny. Then the government doesn't have to meet such a stringent standard.

I hope that helps.