codeorama Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 IMO, marriage is a religious ceremony, if there are churches willing to perform gay marriages, then so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Unless the "strict constructionists" on the USSC rule that, since people can get married in Las Vegas, for money, therefore marriage is "interstate commerce". Well, even then, the US Supremes can only say that California law is overruled by federal law. They can't say that the decision that came down today was WRONG as a matter of California law. :nana: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 The last time gay marriage came up I asked a question that never got answered:I was wed by a judge and not in a church. Now, conservatives - am I married? Certainly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Certainly. Okay, then why can't gay people get married in the same exact way? It wouldn't involve religion, just like my wedding didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted May 16, 2008 Author Share Posted May 16, 2008 Okay, then why can't gay people get married in the same exact way? It wouldn't involve religion, just like my wedding didn't. I think that's been covered by argument and counter-argument in a gay-zillion other threads, rince. Not that I'm winking at you in a gay way, obviously. I mean you're non-gay married after all. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Huh,and here I thought people were nuts for banning gay civil unions. Perhaps they were not just paranoid about it leading to gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Does this really suprise anyone?...The land of silicone and immorality simply extends it's lead as America's premier anti-morals and values State. I was actually somewhat surprised to find that they hadn't done this YEARS AGO. What does Oden have to say about homosexuality? I don't think you've got a dog in this fight. Besides, Jaysus sez you're a filthy pagan so what do you know about morality of any kind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 The last time gay marriage came up I asked a question that never got answered:I was wed by a judge and not in a church. Now, conservatives - am I married? What does your certificate say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 How dare they read the state's Constitution? Don't they know that public opinion is more important? well, we always hear in issues like this that the federal gov shouldn't get involved and it should be left up to the individual states to choose. Than when we do, it gets trumped. I was unaware that my vote counted so little and was just public opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Yes, but that would just affect the secondary issue of the legal significance of a California marriage in another state.The US Supreme Court can't directly overrule the decision that came down today, because it was a decision about California law only. Isn't "legal significance" the point? What if there are laws in GA that bestow rights to a married couple that deny those rights to gays and they sue? Would it not work its way through the courts? I have no problem at all with two gay adults marrying but I'm not comfortable with other states imposing rulings through the full faith and credit clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Well so much for our vote counting and listening to the voice of the people.I'm kinda tired of the supreme court being activists rather than upholding the law!! We here in California are really, really tired of voting and than having a higher up stike something down. It happened also when we voted to deny free healthcare for illegals!! This is kinda why I don't vote very often here in Cali. Everytime we pass something, some higher up thinks we are some sort of hick poeple and tell us our vote didn't count and overturn what we voted for. QFT. Here's to going to the ballot this year and voting for the Constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman... even though apparently we thought it was voted for in 2000. I'm surprised it took 40 posts before someone called this what it is, judges imposing their will on the people. These jackasses should be recalled. The Constitutaional amendment was already going on the ballot and will pass with a nice margin, law passed 60%-40% in 2000... maybe this could even bring California into play for McCain if enough conservatives show up... maybe... although I'm pretty sure I'm voting for a 3rd party candidate.... even if McCain is close to carrying the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 It's not hard to see how under current laws this was struck-down. I agree with those who say marriage is a religious ceremony... although part of me also thinks if there weren't any benefits to being married from government or insurance purposes, than homosexuals wouldn't fight to for this either... so it's kind've a problem created by the government needing to "regulate" marriages. Why is marriage regulated again? I don't really have a problem with gay people any more than people who have sex outside of marriage or people who cheat on their wives. I think its a bit hypocritical for the family values folks to glom onto gay marriage and "we have to protect marriage" when marriage has been trampled on for the past 20+ years. I wish there were some type of penalties for cheating spouses and divorce... after all if we're going to give out benefits for this behavior, then there should be punishment. Maybe people would then think twice about getting married. It's kind've hard to 'defend marriage' from that intellectual standpoint. I don't have a problem with gay people, they just need love (no not that type of love) and freedom like everyone else. So I disagree with their lifestyle, but they should be able to do whatever they want. As a Christian I think there has to be something like "stand against the sin, but love the sinner..." many people don't get this right, and at the same time many people misunderstand it, especially when standing against the sin is saying "okay, now you've crossed a line". This ruling crosses the line, even the civil-union one crossed the line to me. It's hard because I see how logically it pretty much has to be done under whatever equal protection. You know this amendment is going to pass in November... when I signed petitions a few months ago they actually were running out of petitions to ban same-sex marriages. I hope there is some type of move to remove sexual preference as having equal protection under the law in California too. Again... its one thing to allow people to sin, but it's another to have the sin be sanctioned by the government And yes... contrary to what people want you to believe, we legislate morality all the time. I hope we can civilly agree-to-disagree here... so I'm unsure if my views are mainstream or shared by many, but was just trying to give some perspective. So at the same time I find it hypocritical that there's no penalties for divorce and marriage has already been trampled on by heterosexuals, I still feel like it's worth fighting to defend marriage from homosexuals.... and then maybe we can roll back the civil unions... and then we can bring in some type of huge penalties for divorce... constitutional protection for unborn fetuses... we're going to heaven!! YEEAH (Howard Dean Scream!) I know I'm going to civilly-agree-to-disagree on this issue with others... I just wanted to post what I think... and don't really want to get into a war. I understand the whole choice vs. born argument, but to me it doesn't fly... too many people have chosen to switch, and some people aren't mutually exclusive... and some people even are into animals... alright, I've said my peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 None of my business. I could debate it up and down but ultimately, I really don't care and it is none of my business. Not to mention...it has no effect on my daily life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 The Republican Party (the party of states rights and limited Federal intervention in the people's lives) has pushed through a federal law declaring that all federal laws that reference marriage will only apply to heterosexual marriages, even if one or more states chose to marry gays. Ding freaking ding! As a conservative, I have found the conflict between the conservative ideal of limited govt interference combined with the power of the religious right to be more than a little bit contradictory. Minimal government interference in our personal lives should mean exactly that-not with an exception whenever the 700 Club gets its panties in a bunch over something Jesus wouldn't do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 I have no issue with it being a state thing. But if you then move to another state, don't use it to then force that state to adopt it. and YOU KNOW it will. So if the people vote for something and the courts overturn it. Then the people vote to fix it but the governor won't sign it. Have we finally admitted its not about the people: Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 I have no issue with it being a state thing.But if you then move to another state, don't use it to then force that state to adopt it. and YOU KNOW it will. So if the people vote for something and the courts overturn it. Then the people vote to fix it but the governor won't sign it. Have we finally admitted its not about the people: Ever. :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: This is about people with a minority view, who are in power, who want to deny the people their voice. I am all for fair. vote, which is what this country is based upon. who ever wins, whether I disagree or not, it's how things work. This whole situation is just wrong. The people are being denied thier vote being counted. We voted. we won, now the leaders are stripping us of that vote. Now when we try to play by their rules and try to vote again. our leaders are saying we won't even have the chance to vote again to correct any misdoings which stripped us of the first vote. Just curious, but can the gov deny us our right to vote?? If a ballot gets the amount of signatures it needs and is followed by rules, isn't it suppose to be allowed on the ballot regardless? Isn't it aganst the law for some higher up to deny it being on the ballot?? So if a ballot measure follows the rules and should be allowed on the nov ballot, our gov can say he doesn't agree with it and deny our voting on it?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 So 4 Activist judges ignored the will of the people. They already have the signatures to make this a ballot initiative to overturn the Courts ruling in November and return things to normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 So 4 Activist judges ignored the will of the people.They already have the signatures to make this a ballot initiative to overturn the Courts ruling in November and return things to normal. That would be true if the people didn't write the Constitution of California as well. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 None of my business. I could debate it up and down but ultimately, I really don't care and it is none of my business. Not to mention...it has no effect on my daily life. So the war on terror, illegal immigration,imminent domain, gas and food prices are none of your business either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Well this will definately help Al jazeera point out to the Islamic World how deviant and morally corrupt America is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Well this will definately help Al jazeera point out to the Islamic World how deviant and morally corrupt America is. So, you agree with Al Jazeera and the Islamic world that America is a corrupt place? :doh: worst. post. ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 I wonder if this will help McCain in California in November? Its a traditional Blue state but if conservatives and others that voted down Gay Marriage are motivated, I wonder if it would move CA to a Red state? Probably a reach but just wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 So, you agree with Al Jazeera and the Islamic world that America is a corrupt place? :doh:worst. post. ever. No son, news like this only helps fuel their propoganda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 So, you agree with Al Jazeera and the Islamic world that America is a corrupt place? :doh:worst. post. ever. Beat me to it TSF. I guess some of these folks whining about the will of the people being ignored don't understand the concept of avoiding the tyranny of the majority. Democracy doesn't mean anything goes as long as the majority of the voters approve of it. Were that the case we could put reinstating slavery or revoking women's sufferage on a referendum and abide by whatever the result is....right? :no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Well this will definately help Al jazeera point out to the Islamic World how deviant and morally corrupt America is. And your point is that we should be ignoring our country's moral values of freedom and equality, and running our country in a manner that doesn't offend Muslim extremists? You appeaser, you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.