USA Today - California's Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

[Larry]

I've seen a quote (from Jefferson?):

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for lunch.

Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.

[Larry]

Actually, now I'm wondering how many of the people in this thread claiming the sanctity of "the will of the people" also believe that having half of people not pay income tax proves that democracy is an evil tool whereby socialists conspire to screw the capitalist minority.

[Hunter44]

I am impressed not surprised how in less than 2 years liberals and progressives in the peoples republic of Calif, they have showed 7 million people that their votes do not mean pigeon stuff.

Well to liberals and progressives there the votes are worth pigeon stuff if they don't vote with them.

Lets get rid of Judges and just let the mob rule...

[The Evil Genius]

Actually, now I'm wondering how many of the people in this thread claiming the sanctity of "the will of the people" also believe that having half of people not pay income tax proves that democracy is an evil tool whereby socialists conspire to screw the capitalist minority.

Well, in 2000, the will of the people voted 1/2million more times for the runner-up to the Presidental election.

I don't hear them ****ing about that.

:evilg:

[shuler74]

George Takei and Brad are ecstatic.....

NSFW

UQGUNsJTGuM

[Hunter44]

Well, in 2000, the will of the people voted 1/2million more times for the runner-up to the Presidental election.

I don't hear them ****ing about that.

:evilg:

Yeah, those damn activist judges handed the election to GB against the will of the mob!!

[twa]

Marriage isn't a static institution. It's meaning has changed tremendously over the years. Until the early part of the 20th century, marriage was essentially a transaction that resulted in the transfer of property.

Has the meaning of marriage truly changed that much?....Tiger would likely disagree

Larry that legal statement from the US Supreme Court

would seem to indicate they defined the right of marriage quite differently than some try today don't it?

[renaissance]

Well, in 2000, the will of the people voted 1/2million more times for the runner-up to the Presidental election.

I don't hear them ****ing about that.

:evilg:

You mean to tell me that conservatives weren't up in arms when they lost the presidential election according to popular vote, but won according to actual legal standards???

[mjah]

Lets stop pretending to be a 5 watt light bulb.

Sounds good. Please feel free to stop acting that way at your leisure and convenience.

And please address my point while you're at it. Your last post got started, but it didn't finish the job. At the most generous, you got just shy of halfway there. Hey, it's a start. :whoknows:

Now, to be honest -- I know you won't do that. But I believe there's a lot more thought behind your posts than your perpetually leaning-oops-capsized tone suggests. So I'll continue to leave that hatch open for ya.

Stay dry, friend.

[Larry]

Larry that legal statement from the US Supreme Court

would seem to indicate they defined the right of marriage quite differently than some try today don't it?

Oh, most definitely.

It's disgusting, the way the pro-discrimination people have been trying to change the Constitution.

[skinfan133]

Oh, most definitely.

It's disgusting, the way the pro-discrimination people have been trying to change the Constitution.

I'm so glad that amendment was never passed.

[The Evil Genius]

You mean to tell me that conservatives weren't up in arms when they lost the presidential election according to popular vote, but won according to actual legal standards???

Which is why they shouldn't be upset now that "actual legal standards" (i.e. the 14th amendment) have overridden their popular vote.

[twa]

Which is why they shouldn't be upset now that "actual legal standards" (i.e. the 14th amendment) have overridden their popular vote.

Well they are Cali people anyway and prone to hysterics:silly:

When ya override mine we will talk:evilg:

[twa]

Oh, most definitely.

It's disgusting, the way the pro-discrimination people have been trying to change the Constitution.

You mean like those that attempt to change the meaning of marriage that SCOTUS used at the time?

Definitions sure cause a lot of trouble when they change over time ...like Life or person hood for example

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Other than YOUR religious beliefs, can someone tell me why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry?

Edit: I expect to be waiting a long time for the answer.

[The Evil Genius]

Other than YOUR religious beliefs, can someone tell me why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry?

"...each other."

Before some nitwit jumps in and says they can already marry.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

"...each other."

Before some nitwit jumps in and says they can already marry.

Thanks.

[Larry]

You mean like those that attempt to change the meaning of marriage that SCOTUS used at the time?

Definitions sure cause a lot of trouble when they change over time ...like Life or person hood for example

Excellent example of another term that the religious right is attempting to redefine, so they can justify their love of big government.

[twa]

Other than YOUR religious beliefs, can someone tell me why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry?

Edit: I expect to be waiting a long time for the answer.

Because I see no need for it and it will further complicate matters,there is also my belief it diminishes the state of matrimony on a secular level.

I also have a sneaky suspicion it will cost me money judging from the Mass case.

I however am fine for civil unions for all as a gesture of goodwill and hope of world peace:pfft:

[Larry]

Because I see no need for it

Right, because the "default condition" in our society is that citizens must not be treated equally under the law unless there's a reason why we have to.

It's not like equality is a principle that this country values for it's own sake. Something where the people who are opposed to it are the ones that have to come up with a justification.

. . . there is also my belief it diminishes the state of matrimony on a secular level.

You're talking about a "state" which can be performed at 4 in the morning in Las Vegas, on a pair of drunks who met in a bar, earlier that night, by an Elvis impersonator.

I also have a sneaky suspicion it will cost me money judging from the Mass case.

Confessing that I don't know what you're talking about, here.

[twa]

Been down this road before:beatdeadhorse:,you want my vote ya gotta convince me it is needed Larry.

I'm a conservative and by default resist change

Enjoy the constitutional process thru the courts otherwise.

[mbws]

if we really cared so much about the sanctity of marriage, why dont we just outlaw divorce?

Then there would be more murders.

[Larry]

Been down this road before:beatdeadhorse:,you want my vote ya gotta convince me it is needed Larry.

Right. Because "we've always discriminated against them" is a good enough reason to vote to continue doing so.

According to you.

I'm a conservative and by default resist change

So you're opposed to all of the laws, ballot initiatives, and constitutional amendments for the last 10 years which were designed for the purpose of embedding discrimination as deeply into our government as possible?

If you'd been in California, you would have voted against this proposition?

[mbws]

In Virginia, First Cousins can marry as long as they are also Third Cousins.

[twa]

Right. Because "we've always discriminated against them" is a good enough reason to vote to continue doing so.

According to you.

So you're opposed to all of the laws, ballot initiatives, and constitutional amendments for the last 10 years which were designed for the purpose of embedding discrimination as deeply into our government as possible?

If you'd been in California, you would have voted against this proposition?

I have no problem personally being discriminatory,nor bigoted,nor opinionated...in fact I see it as a positive in many ways.

I vote for or against nothing or no one w/o a good reason, I'm not afraid to leave a blank spot on a ballot.

Dude ya couldn't pay me enough to live in Cali.

As far as SSM here I voted against it after many gay friends said civil unions weren't acceptable....yes I'm petty at times