Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 77    Average: 4.3/5]
272 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 21787
Rating: 4.3
Category:
Date: 08/04/10 05:00 PM

272 Responses to California`s Prop 8, Overturned By Judge

  1. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 4:49 pm
    Link: California`s Prop 8, Overturned By Judge - Wow, that`s a full rainbow! It`s a double rainbow all the way! Oh My God! It`s a double rainbow all the way!
  2. Profile photo of heavenly15
    heavenly15 Female 13-17
    965 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 5:12 pm
    ... and all the gays rejoice! YAY!
  3. Profile photo of sawdusty
    sawdusty Male 40-49
    491 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 5:13 pm
    More power to them. Let then be miserable and unhappy like the rest of us after the honey moon is over.
  4. Profile photo of ElMustache
    ElMustache Male 18-29
    1625 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 5:17 pm
    Gotta love the 14th amendment.
  5. Profile photo of SPARTAKITTY
    SPARTAKITTY Female 18-29
    2123 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 5:18 pm
    Yaaaaay! This makes me happy.
  6. Profile photo of sugarhyped
    sugarhyped Female 18-29
    329 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 5:19 pm
    yay! there really is no reason to ban gay marriage.
  7. Profile photo of Suicism
    Suicism Male 18-29
    3625 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 5:20 pm
    Whatever.
  8. Profile photo of Mweebles
    Mweebles Female 18-29
    1653 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 5:20 pm
    About time. It was unconstitutional like hell. The only thing keeping it going was religious influence. Take a government class, people. Sheesh.
  9. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 5:26 pm
    @madest

    I see what you did there!
  10. Profile photo of belunan
    belunan Male 30-39
    1507 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 5:26 pm
    It`s a step in the right direction, but don`t start celebrating until the supreme court upholds the decision made today.
  11. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 5:28 pm
    Nice tie-in with the double rainbow guy.

    Can anyone tell me why homosexual marriages are a threat to the "traditional family"? Which, by the way, isn`t particularly traditional anyway.

    I don`t see a connection unless you`re arguing that homosexuality is so appealing that most people would be having homosexual marriages if they could.
  12. Profile photo of kamietsu
    kamietsu Male 18-29
    427 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 5:30 pm
    Well, if this doesn`t work, I saw we ban all marriages then, that way we can all still be equal.
  13. Profile photo of minitimm
    minitimm Male 18-29
    82 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 5:43 pm
    That`s just nasty. If you actually desire to have some dude`s sweaty sack all up in your face then you deserve whatever beatings come to you.
  14. Profile photo of aseirinn
    aseirinn Male 70 & Over
    877 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 5:46 pm
    the mormon church fronted by the cathoilc church bought the vote,...this is according to the prop8 documentry on the internet. if the mormon church offer a rebuttle i`ll watch that too...
  15. Profile photo of Ani187
    Ani187 Female 30-39
    4448 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 5:47 pm
    Madest, you win the interwebz in my book!
  16. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 5:50 pm
    Good!
  17. Profile photo of ElMustache
    ElMustache Male 18-29
    1625 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 5:55 pm
    minitimm: We all know you`ve been there and done that. It`s always people like you that are secretly gay.
  18. Profile photo of Baelzar
    Baelzar Male 40-49
    1399 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 5:59 pm
    Sounds like minitimm`s been through one of the christian camps that "cures" homosexuality.

    Is "sweaty sack all up in your face" one of the mantras during quiet meditation time?
  19. Profile photo of Norris
    Norris Male 18-29
    1011 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 6:05 pm
    good...now the rest of the country follow suit.


    Banning gay couples from marriage is nothing more than bigotry. This is similar BS when blacks couldn`t marry whites and etc

    But on the other hand, if a church or official doesn`t want to do the ceremony for whatever grounds..they should have that choice (like they do now with straight couples)..also people have the right to be stupid and bigots, as long as it doesnt infringe on others imho.

    They could simply go to the next town or church over and get married there :P not a big deal.

    Now the only things I would be opposed to is anything beyond 2 people getting married (no 3-5 people, no inanimate objects, etc)

  20. Profile photo of Ogen
    Ogen Male 18-29
    441 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 6:06 pm
    It really reads like minitimm was enjoying a fantasy as he wrote that. "That`s just naughty.... (backspace backspace backspace) nasty. If you actually desire to have some big beef man`s... (backspace) dude`s sweaty sack all up in your face then you deserve whatever sweet sweet... (backspace) beatings come to you."
  21. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 6:22 pm
    It`s not just good for the gays it`s good for all Americans it strengthens the constitutions 14th amendment:
    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
  22. Profile photo of entwife
    entwife Female 18-29
    536 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 6:33 pm
    excellent!

    It was stupidly unconstitutional to adopt the admendment in the first place (from a purely legal standpoint, regardless of where you stand on the issue), and now we`re finally seeing a step in the right direction. Too bad we have not heard the last from the Prop 8 supporters :(
  23. Profile photo of agamemnon
    agamemnon Male 18-29
    215 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 6:48 pm
    Here is the full text of the ruling. The "conclusions of law" are very strongly worded. If this sticks, it could make same-sex marriage legal nation-wide.
  24. Profile photo of IamBored29
    IamBored29 Male 18-29
    648 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 6:55 pm
    Everyone has the right to be miserable
  25. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 6:56 pm
    I guess the majority vote of the people holds no sway any more. This judge is openly gay, It`s no wonder he ruled the way he did.
  26. Profile photo of machtig
    machtig Male 30-39
    9 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 6:56 pm
    Cool. I can marry my dog now.
  27. Profile photo of KtySpix
    KtySpix Male 18-29
    621 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 7:16 pm
    One step in the right direction, but still far behind the progressive world.
  28. Profile photo of DFWBrysco
    DFWBrysco Male 40-49
    307 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 7:28 pm
    There`s a really great documentary about the Proposition 8 and the groups behind it from Wolfe Video (also available through Netflix). It is called "8: The Mormon Proposition (Equality for Some)." Check it out.

    It will be interesting to see the Supreme Court jump into this - will the right-leaning conservative majority go with their supporters, or what is right? I for one think it will be quite a fight...
  29. Profile photo of K3vin
    K3vin Male 18-29
    487 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 7:33 pm
    "Everyone has the right to be miserable "

    as a married person i second this...

    Honestly America, wtf does it matter?
  30. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 7:38 pm
    14th amendment was put in to give rights to free blacks after the civil war. It gives no rights, or even mentions sexual orientation or the right to marry therein.

    Actually, not even straight people have the right to marry. Nowhere in the constitution does it say we have this right. Know why?

    It`s the right of the states to set family law. Marriage is a family law, and the state of California VOTED against this. This is a states rights issue. The federal government has no jurisdiction, or precedence to interfere.

    I have no problem with homosexual marriage. It does not infringe on the liberties of others, so it`s okay in my book. That being said, I also believe that states rights should be respected under dual sovereignty. In this case, it has not.
  31. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 7:44 pm
    @agamemnon:

    Actually, since a federal judge made this ruling, it is federal law that California`s same sex law is unconstitutional (which it isn`t). That means no state can present a similar law.

    Unless of course, the appeal upholds the law, which it probably will.

    Also madest;

    You post should read California`s prop 8, Overturned by FEDERAL judge.

    It makes a difference.
  32. Profile photo of Boadicea
    Boadicea Female 18-29
    1678 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 7:53 pm
    "I guess the majority vote of the people holds no sway any more. This judge is openly gay, It`s no wonder he ruled the way he did."

    Yeah, gross! A gay guy standing up for his status as an equal human being, and extending that right to others! EWWW.

    Why should the majority get to decide whether two rational, consenting adults are allowed to marry each other? The majority probably would have voted against Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley getting married, yet even though that was a bigger freakshow than any gay wedding could be, they were allowed to do whatever the hell they liked based solely on their sexual orientation, completely unimpeded. What business is it of yours, CrakrJak, what people get married or don`t. Because you think they`re `icky`? You`re probably icky too, and nobody wants to think about you banging whatever poor soul puts up with you-- but it`s none of my business and I have no right to prevent you from marrying who you choose.
  33. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 8:00 pm
    I would delete that last comment Bo.

    It totally makes what you said previously irrelevant.
  34. Profile photo of Boadicea
    Boadicea Female 18-29
    1678 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 8:16 pm
    No it doesn`t.
  35. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 8:18 pm
    It doesn`t make your other points irrelevant Boadicea, but it IS out of line. There`s debate and expressing points of view, and then there`s just personal attacks. Stick to the former please.
  36. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 8:19 pm
    Only have so many spaces AJ.
    You`ll be shocked to learn that republicans are ironically working to weaken the 14th amendment. The same amendment they claim to have been the champion of.
  37. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 8:30 pm
    Boadicea: Just because `Gay marriage` has become fashionable in the past 10 years doesn`t make it right. Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman, It`s been that way since the beginning and it should stay that way.

    Gays can have civil unions with equal protection under the law, They needn`t hijack the term marriage to gain political points.

    Besides, It makes a mockery of the word marriage when Gay male couples are 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than are heterosexuals. Lesbian couples are 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples in the same eight year-year period. Source
  38. Profile photo of Boadicea
    Boadicea Female 18-29
    1678 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 8:34 pm
    Well almightybob: I suggest you delete minitimm`s comment. If you`re going to wantonly delete insults at bigots, I think a post advocating violence against minorities (simply for being minorities) has no place here either.

    Also, I consider my comments "expressing my point of view" about what kind of person CJ is, but whatever. Mod as you please..
  39. Profile photo of gorgack2000
    gorgack2000 Male 13-17
    4683 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 8:36 pm
    @Boadicea- Yeah, don`t attack people on IAB, or else you`ll end up like me. You don`t want that happening, do you?

    Anyway great to hear this, although it`s rather sad that it had to be overturned in the first place. I am astounded that a good chunk of Californians are against homosexuality (or at least gay marriage). STILL.
  40. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 8:43 pm
    Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman, It`s been that way since the beginning and it should stay that way.

    Since the beginning of what?
    If you`re using the Bible as the basis of that statement, you`re wrong. Polygamy was rife and very widely accepted in the OT (see Gen 4:19, Gen 26:34, Deut 21:15, Judges 8:30, 2 Chronicles 11:21, etc etc etc).

    Hell, in Exodus 21:10, God specifically outlines the rules for taking a second wife.



    So which beginning were you referring to?
  41. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 8:59 pm
    7,001,084 Californians voted for it. One man overturned it. That must be right.

    (According to Wikipedia)
  42. Profile photo of Pooptart19
    Pooptart19 Male 18-29
    2442 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:03 pm
    lol @ all the usual homo-hatin`, Jesus-luvin` types here in the comments.

    Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman, It`s been that way since the beginning and it should stay that way.
    looooooooooooooooooool
  43. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:10 pm
    @An-egg.

    Because it`s called a Federally Constituted Republic. I think Federalist Paper No. 10 explains why we have these judges.
  44. Profile photo of jg0nz
    jg0nz Male 18-29
    113 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:13 pm
    I don`t get why people trip over Homosexual people. It`s not like you have to have sex with them. And I`m sure there`s an equal amount of great parents out there that happen to be homosexual. Just because you father impregnated your mother doesn`t change the fact that he drank all day and yelled at everyone in your family.

    And if you think gay people are gross because gay sex is gross,then you`re pretty gay too for thinking about it. The homophobic paradox.
  45. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:16 pm
    I found this on your `cite`:
    Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
  46. Profile photo of iLoveChoo
    iLoveChoo Female 18-29
    120 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:18 pm
    Is it just me or is it mostly an older generation that`s very anti-gay marriage?
  47. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:23 pm
    I`m just anti-asshat
  48. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:24 pm
    anti-I`ve-been-paid-to-
  49. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:24 pm
    "inform"-the-interwebs.
  50. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:25 pm
    Soz. 40 characters for me!
  51. Profile photo of Vindictive
    Vindictive Female 18-29
    1077 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:25 pm
    here`s a better idea: get rid of marriage all together and if you want to share insurance or money or items with your spouse you write up a legal document to do it. the end. do i get something?
  52. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:27 pm
    You said it. You want to get rid of marriage.
  53. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:28 pm
    Then why should ANY MARRIAGE be allowed?
  54. Profile photo of Vindictive
    Vindictive Female 18-29
    1077 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:29 pm
    yeah i did say it. why did you spazz out like that? you`re spamming and you`re going to get banned if you keep doing this. there`s better ways to create an argument than acting immaturely. to be fair, my previous comment was pretty sarcastic and off-hand. i`m not sure why you`re taking it so seriously.
  55. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:31 pm
    Sorry I made you look silly. Please don`t ban me SIR.
  56. Profile photo of Vindictive
    Vindictive Female 18-29
    1077 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:40 pm
    how did you make me look silly, all you did was post two things. and why did you call me sir? that doesn`t even make sense...
  57. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:42 pm
    I`m all for that too. But then again if we did that then everyone would get upset.

    Furthermore, one of the arguments against Prop 8 is that it is a violation of the 5th amendment (due process clause). I was wondering why at first, but then I thought about it. For a long time now marriage licenses have been granted by Justices of the Peace in every state for a while. Two parties acting through the legal system is due process. In civil cases men are prohibited from suing women and vice versa, like are not prohibited from suing others within their own gender. Ergo to deny two people marriage because of their orientation would be denial of due process.
  58. Profile photo of Vindictive
    Vindictive Female 18-29
    1077 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:44 pm
    well, i made a small typing error. i don`t see why that`s a big deal. and what about trolls? i never mentioned trolls. why did you bring that up? you`re not contributing anything to the conversation you`re just acting like a child.
  59. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:45 pm
    @ Vindictive
    altogether is one word. Sorry if I looked like I was uneducated.
  60. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:48 pm
    @Cajun: 7000000 people voted for it. It may be wrong but do the people count for poo?
  61. Profile photo of Vindictive
    Vindictive Female 18-29
    1077 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:50 pm
    an-egg, if 70,000 people voted murder was okay would you honestly say "well, then we should let it be okay"? 70,000 people can be wrong. that many people can be corrupt and unfair and unkind.
  62. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:50 pm
    No, it was 7 Million
  63. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:51 pm
    and if 70,000 people voted to kill Hitler, and they did, I`d probably say yes.
  64. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:54 pm
    Don`t you think it`s funny that, at this time of night, people are still (unpaid?) trying to attack a mediocre view
  65. Profile photo of Vindictive
    Vindictive Female 18-29
    1077 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:54 pm
    sorry, i misread. but we`re not talking about killing someone who has hurt millions of people. we`re talking about giving equl rights to all americans. what if 7 million people said YOU shouldn`t get married? wouldn`t you stomp your foot and cry no?
  66. Profile photo of Vindictive
    Vindictive Female 18-29
    1077 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:55 pm
    your last sentence didn`t make sense. unpaid? what relevance does that have?
  67. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:56 pm
    I`d find another way. I`m smart like that. Thanks for asking.
  68. Profile photo of Vindictive
    Vindictive Female 18-29
    1077 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:58 pm
    act your age. unless you`re lying it says you`re a grown man. i suppose it doesn`t matter. you can piss and moan all you want and the people will get equal rights. the world is changing. it`s a shame you won`t enjoy it.
  69. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:58 pm
    Well, there are paid people on these sites. They are supposed to support their `pimps` ideologies.
  70. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 9:59 pm
    Oh right. There aren`t further courts?
    Wait and see.
  71. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:00 pm
    I like "act your age" it shows that you have no better argument.
  72. Profile photo of Vindictive
    Vindictive Female 18-29
    1077 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:01 pm
    i will. and we`ll win. <3 lessthanthree in your direction.
  73. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:02 pm
    Also: The people get NO RIGHTS. But that`s OK for you, right?
  74. Profile photo of Vindictive
    Vindictive Female 18-29
    1077 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:02 pm
    <3 <3 <3 <3
  75. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:13 pm
    Glad you accepted the truth.
  76. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:14 pm
    almightybob1: Since before the beginning of our constitution. I don`t believe any founding father would be in favor of gays marrying, It was so preposterous a thought back then they didn`t address `marriage` at all. So left the rest of the laws up to the states to decide.

    We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams
  77. Profile photo of Vindictive
    Vindictive Female 18-29
    1077 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:17 pm
    i don`t see why it matters to anyone else who gets married. i mean like...come on. just let everyone get married and then we`ll forget about it. the end.
  78. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:18 pm
    @An-egg

    After taking a federal government course, it`s become clear to me that this idea was planted in my head. Of course our founding wanted to all three branches of government to check and balance each other. But James Madison (aka Publius) wanted to take that a step further and have the masses and aristocracy keep a check on each other. Which is why senators and representatives vote for federal laws to be enacted, and that we can vote them out if we disapprove of their decisions.
  79. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:20 pm
    Likewise the state can criminally prosecute any individual, and said individual can challenge his conviction.
  80. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:21 pm
    Bedybies for me


    Let me know if anyone needs schooling.
  81. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:24 pm
    This what my federal government teacher was about the historical "scoreboard" of Aristocrats vs. The People.

    3-1
    then
    2-2
  82. Profile photo of bram
    bram Male 18-29
    577 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:25 pm
    Wow, people are getting so angry on here that a bunch of the arguments don`t even make sense.

    I`m just lucky, that even though I`m gay, it doesn`t effect me, because nobody in their right mind would want to marry by ass. lol
  83. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:26 pm
    @Cajun247
    Try again,
    Quote something or, at least, be original.
  84. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:27 pm
    @bram

    On the flip side of the coin. I have heard of one homosexual claiming that the LGBT movement was hijacked. Wish I could cite it though. I guess you share his opinion?
  85. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:34 pm
    Certainly An-egg.

    At the VERY DAWN of the United States constitution, the only thing people could elect were representatives to the federal govt. (0-+1)Senators on the other hand could be selected by the legislatures within the state govts. (+1-1). Those senators could then appoint judges to the supreme court (1+1-1) and then select the president (2+1-1). Now then came 12th amendment which doesn`t change the scoreboard, and then came the 17th amendment ((3-1)-(1+1)).
    Now it`s 2-2.
  86. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:35 pm
    17th amendment:

    But now we have an electorate that represents the people.

    7000000 of them voted.


  87. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:36 pm
    1 man, whatever his position, nullified that.
  88. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:41 pm
    No, not 70 thousand, 7 Million.
  89. Profile photo of bram
    bram Male 18-29
    577 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:41 pm
    @Cajun247

    I live in a small town in Texas. I learned a long time ago to keep my mouth shut and just be glad that I`m not getting my ass kicked. At least, it`s not illegal for me to have sex anymore. That happened when I still cared about my rights and went to protests. :-)
  90. Profile photo of Dolomyte
    Dolomyte Male 18-29
    102 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:42 pm
    The issue of gay marriage has never made much sense to me.
    A ceremony of marriage is not prohibited because freedom of religion is specifically protected, if your church or religious organization is against gay marriage then it is that group`s prerogative to no perform those ceremonies. Ceremonies will still take place as long as groups are willing to perform them. So...

    The issue must be the marriage certificate issued by the Justice of the Peace, who is a public servant. A public servant who is funded by the public through taxes and refuses to provide service to members of the public who pay taxes?

    Just print and file the damn form, that is what you`re paid to do.
  91. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:42 pm
    The entire population of LA or London or New York.
  92. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:44 pm
    Well I ask you this then, how is this different than the Civil War? Millions of people across state lines supported a (horrible one mind you) institution. A handful of aristocrats nullified it (well there`s one difference) in the absence of hundreds of others.
  93. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:45 pm
    Finds Dolomyte amusing.
    Is gay.
    Doesn`t care about the laws.
  94. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:46 pm
    @bram

    Meh well attitudes vary by city hmm? I live just west of a big city.

    Anywho...
  95. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:47 pm
    Easy: The Californians, 7 million of them, were in one state. There was no `across state lines`
  96. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:51 pm
    A Judge, across state lines, subjected them to his fascist interpretation of the law. Fascists are cool, right?
  97. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:54 pm
    My point was the aristocracy struck down a law that had widespread support within a region.

    How is the interpretation fascist? Fascism is extreme loyalty to the state, allowing gay marriage is not asking for loyalty to the state, it is granting people liberty.
  98. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:56 pm
    Why? Because there were others and members of the masses believe the law was wrong.
  99. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:56 pm
    The other 6,000,000 people believed the law was unfair, unjust, and wrong.
  100. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:57 pm
    Fascism is the `Aristocracy` striking down the will of the people.

  101. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:58 pm
    I do not want to live in a system where the simple majority can always have the say. That`s called a Democracy this is a Republic.
  102. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:58 pm
    Cite 6 million.
  103. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 10:59 pm
    Was it fascism when they struck down slavery?
  104. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:00 pm
    "cite 6 million"

    Look it up yourself? Heck it should be common knowledge for you!

    Anyway

    Was it fascism when they reversed Pleggy v. Ferguson?

    Was Brown v. BoE fascism?
  105. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:02 pm
    Well, yes. The English got rid of slavery under a king. The Americans did it after a war and then some political pressure.
  106. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:02 pm
    Korematsu v. US in my mind WAS fascism.
  107. Profile photo of AmberCherry
    AmberCherry Female 18-29
    98 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:02 pm
    Wow that`s so weird, I was just watching 8:The Mormon Proposition earlier to today.
    Anyway, good for them...I`m so glad US is becoming more forward thinking. I felt so riled up watching that documentary, its scary the amount of power some groups have...but obviously not that much power. Now they know how it feels to have something given to them and then taken away.
  108. Profile photo of bram
    bram Male 18-29
    577 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:03 pm
    @Cajun247

    I don`t know. I`ve lived here most of my life. I used to get upset about stuff like this, I have friends that still do. We used to make roadtrips to Austin to go to protests. I just got tired of being so frustrated all the time, and I got tired of the harrassment from neighbors. I`ve only gotten physically injured a couple times, but I`ve had A LOT of garbage thrown at me, and these two guys used to love following me around when I went to do laundry or go to my car. Those guys came up with some of the most disgustingly creative insults I`ve ever heard.

    It`s probably good that someone is fighting for it, though.
  109. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:03 pm
    So you can`t cite 6 million against the vote?
  110. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:05 pm
    <sigh>
  111. Profile photo of bram
    bram Male 18-29
    577 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:07 pm
    He just cited more than 6 mill.
  112. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:09 pm
    Still, one man, Man, destroyed a million votes.
  113. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:10 pm
    That`s not a million voters, it`s a million people who went out to vote.
  114. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:10 pm
    Here`s the official report. Scroll on down to page 9.
  115. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:12 pm
    Check it An-egg.

    Page 9 the "Against" column row 8 "duh". 6.4 million against.
  116. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:14 pm
    7?
  117. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:18 pm
    Well, that clears it up. An unelected judge has more sway than the electorate. Get off your horse and look at the reality.
  118. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:18 pm
    Would you like it if a majority of Americans decided you had no right to privacy?
  119. Profile photo of Dolomyte
    Dolomyte Male 18-29
    102 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:19 pm
    I do not care about laws? Please state where a law can be levied to abridge one of the people`s right of life and of life style choices. Be careful now you can only point out amendments to the constitution because if it is not specifically stated as prohibited in an amendment then the people have the defacto right stated in the 9th amendment of the constitution.
  120. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:21 pm
    Wait til this automaton overturns something that impinges on your life. No seriously, I know that you think I`m taking the piss, but look at it.

    My last post on this matter
  121. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:22 pm
    Guys guys, can we please stop spamming up the boards here? Not every goddam sentence has to be a separate post. Wrap up your comments into single comments please, there`s a 1000 character limit which should be plenty... Go to chat if you want to have a back-and-forth, here it`s major spamming.

    Thanks!
  122. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:23 pm
    @cajun, you bater
    they didn`t, the `government` did
    I can`t be arsed to post all the info, look it up for yourself.
  123. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:25 pm
    @Davymid
    I got a 40 char limit. Sorry.
  124. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:26 pm
    Sorry davymid. I`ll admit though I can`t collect all my thoughts at a moment in one post.

    @An-egg
    O`RLY? So you`re telling me from the late 18th century onwards that the people didn`t strip other humans of their rights so they could claim them as their property. Really!?!
  125. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:29 pm
    There was once a judge in my state (long time ago) that said "There`s no law against killing a chinaman." Long time ago, but it allowed other citizens to strip said chinaman of his right to life.
  126. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:29 pm
    40 char limit? Well in that case I guess it`s cool, but how come only 40 chars? And @cajun, no biggie, just trying to keep the forum clean. Carry on!
  127. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:31 pm
    Yep good `ol Judge Roy Bean.
  128. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:31 pm
    @cajun, No. But you are being stripped of your right to vote by unelected judges. You may agree with his decision, but what happens when you don`t.

    I really am off to bed now.

    any questions, PM me, this thread`s dead.
  129. Profile photo of bram
    bram Male 18-29
    577 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:32 pm
    Dude, he doesn`t really have a 40 char limit. Most of this posts are over that.
  130. Profile photo of Nburkie420
    Nburkie420 Male 18-29
    721 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:33 pm
    Good for them, we should all abolish discrimination against any certain group for the better of mankind. I find it much easier to hate racists and people that are discrimatory like Hitler and white facists.
  131. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:33 pm
    @Davymid it seems to have fixed itself, but I was on 40 chars for a bit, dunno why,
  132. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:46 pm
    Not necessarily, you can still vote for another aristocrat to replace that judge once he`s done. Besides, it`s not like the other 8 propositions got overturned anyway. That vote is one a judge will have no ability to overturn. If that was the case then Bush v. Gore absolutely would`ve been decided by unelected judges. Judges do not appoint they are appointed! Lastly their power to interpret is implicitly expressed in Art 3. Sec 2. Paragraph one US constitution.

    See you later!
  133. Profile photo of 17945
    17945 Male 18-29
    725 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:46 pm
    That IS a f*cking double rainbow!
  134. Profile photo of Nburkie420
    Nburkie420 Male 18-29
    721 posts
    August 4, 2010 at 11:57 pm
    Am i the only one thinking this but An-egg you are annoying as shat. Just sayin.
  135. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 12:38 am
    I hate it when an issue comes up like this.

    It`s like the whole Obama thing. There are people out there who really, actually believe, that if you do not agree with his policy, you are racist.
    ...
    Like I said before, I am for the liberty of all people. I could care less if homosexuals marry. There are people out there that would ignore what I just said, because I am a conservative/libertarian/how ever you want to label it. They would just say "You do not agree with the judge. You are a homophobe." It`s so touchy, you know?

    I do not believe one judge should have the power that judge (with an agenda. He is openly gay) wielded today. Does that make me a homophobe? Some would say so.
  136. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 12:50 am
    Likewise there are people who believe 9/11 is a conspiracy and Obama wasn`t born in Hawai`i.
    Pending on how things go you`ll have nine more judges to decide.
    I think you`re libertarian (join the club).
  137. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 1:11 am
    Thanks cajun. I think I would fit there too, but madest thinks I`m republican, because I`m a libertarian with a conservative lean (ala Neal Boortz).
  138. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 1:21 am
    Like I said before, I am for the liberty of all people. I could care less if homosexuals marry.
    Couldn`t. You COULDN`T care less, goddamit. Sorry, pet peeve of mine.
  139. Profile photo of gingerlad95
    gingerlad95 Male 13-17
    67 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 1:24 am
    personally i dont care if gays get married or not. if they want to be miserable through marriage like the rest of america i say let them but whatever

    everything is so politically correct now its just annoying in which you cant do one thing. good thing im a free market anarchist because i only think that the government is trying to kill us, enslave us, and just push us around. i think that there should be far less government but still have a government
    yes i do see what youre talking about Neal Boortz hes got the right idea and i think that he shouldnt run for some office due to him not wanting it
  140. Profile photo of AlexTron
    AlexTron Male 18-29
    534 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 1:43 am
    yay toys. :)
  141. Profile photo of jeffcomedy
    jeffcomedy Male 30-39
    178 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 2:52 am
    I`m just glad. (but I`m not GLAD.)
  142. Profile photo of GothicQueen
    GothicQueen Male 13-17
    4376 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 4:38 am
    Full on.
  143. Profile photo of Yadarfyn
    Yadarfyn Female 18-29
    191 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 5:16 am
    Hooray!
  144. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 5:44 am
    Please state where a law can be levied to abridge one of the people`s right of life and of life style choices

    Dude! Governments of all nations can and do make laws which restrict all sorts of things!

    The POINT of being opposed to this is that MILLIONS (a majority in fact) of people voted one way, and ONE judge throws that out the window?

    We, as a society, have some rights too eh? No law says gays can`t de-facto live as married couples (unlike many nations, try being openly gay in Gaza!) BUT we have to draw the line somewhere, and it`s HERE. No poligamy, no polyamory, no marriage to sisters, children, german shepards!
    I`m not OPPOSED to gay marriage per-se, if the majority of the public want it, then that`s OK. I`m opposed to a minority imposing it`s will on the majority. Kind of anti-democratic, eh?
  145. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 5:53 am
    here`s a better idea: get rid of marriage all together and if you want to share insurance or money or items with your spouse you write up a legal document to do it. the end. do i get something?
    Vindictive, you get my respect for making such an intelligent statement! :)
    The government SHOULD get out of the marriage business, but sadly it`s in like a tick, or a tapeworm...
  146. Profile photo of IamBored29
    IamBored29 Male 18-29
    648 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 5:53 am
    "The moment a mere numerical superiority by either states or voters in this country proceeds to ignore the needs and desires of the minority, and for their own selfish purpose or advancement, hamper or oppress that minority, or debar them in any way from equal privileges and equal rights -- that moment will mark the failure of our constitutional system."

    -FDR-
  147. Profile photo of MEZA
    MEZA Male 18-29
    333 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 5:55 am
    Don`t like gays, but I have no right to restrict their rights. I was against prop 8 when it got passed, there were kids from my school on the corners of streets protesting and people would drive by and yell out FAG! Messed up (but somewhat funny). Congrats though gays.
  148. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 6:27 am
    I love how those opposed to this, some how feel they are affected by the decision. Unless you are gay, you have no right opposing this. Who gives a crap if "the majority" of people oppose it! If a gay couple gets married, are those "majority" affected in any way? No. Silly Homophobes.
  149. Profile photo of keetraver
    keetraver Male 18-29
    34 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 6:30 am
    To Mr 5Cats. The majority is not affected if the minority decides to marry. This is strictly affecting the minority and therefor the majority is still entitled to it`s opinion, but it`s of no importance. If the majority of, say, non-gingers want to take away some rights of the minority (being ginger) this doesn`t seem a good idea either, does it. (Of course this comparison is not entirely accurate as gay people DO have souls).
  150. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 6:35 am
    Exactly. If you`re against same sex marriage don`t marry someone of the same sex. It`s that simple.
  151. Profile photo of geek_kittie
    geek_kittie Female 30-39
    66 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 6:45 am
    I think some of you are forgetting the fact that civil rights were not voted for by the majority. People did not suddenly become enlightened and stopped being racist, they were forced to do so by the courts.
  152. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 6:47 am
    @Madest.
    Precisely. The entire purpose of having a bill of rights is to protect the rights of the minority from the prejudices and whims of the majority. Segregation wasn`t outlawed by popular vote- that decision was made in the courts as well.
  153. Profile photo of kilroy5555
    kilroy5555 Male 30-39
    496 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 6:47 am
    I think we need to decouple the religious marriage with the bundle of civil (meaning secular, state granted) rights and responsibilities which states grant to married couples. States have granted rights to married individuals because of the special relationship that follows from a marriage. Why not instead recognize that- regardless of marriage- two competent and consenting adults can decide that they wish to assume this bundle of rights with respect to one another, regardless whether a marriage exists. By decoupling "marriage" from the bundle of state granted rights/responsibilities, then you remove the primary grounds for religious objectors- that we are violating religious principles by having official state recognition of marriages. Makes sense to me...
  154. Profile photo of kilroy5555
    kilroy5555 Male 30-39
    496 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 6:51 am
    On another point, this judge may have wound up doing a disservice to homosexuals. He ruled that "rational basis" scrutiny applies to homosexual couples, which is the lowest level of scrutiny in equal protection cases. While this may be a "win" as far as prop 8 is concerned, they risk having the Supreme Court validate that rational basis scrutiny applies to homosexuals. If that`s the case, it`s a very low threshold for challenging future laws or government action.

    If I`m not mistaken (and I`m lazy so I haven`t bothered to look into it), the Supreme Court has suggested in the past that homosexuals are deserving of a higher level of scrutiny (in which case prop 8 would have failed anyway)...
  155. Profile photo of kilroy5555
    kilroy5555 Male 30-39
    496 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 7:14 am
    Also just FYI, this is about the 14th amendment, not the bill or rights.
  156. Profile photo of fatex52986
    fatex52986 Male 18-29
    1129 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 7:21 am
    Im from cali and am totally against the law, but at the same time I`m against how the judge handled the law. How can you overturn something the people wanted. To me that goes against everything this country and democracy stands for. Thats like saying F*CK to the people. so I dunno
  157. Profile photo of fiizok
    fiizok Male 40-49
    591 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 7:37 am
    "How can you overturn something the people wanted."

    Because you can`t take a vote to restrict constitutional rights. There is no higher law than the Constitution.
  158. Profile photo of edana42
    edana42 Female 50-59
    2509 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 7:49 am
    "I`m opposed to a minority imposing it`s will on the majority."

    welcome to the USA


    "How can you overturn something the people wanted"

    ...remember slavery, segregation
  159. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 7:57 am
    Again read Federalist No. 10 heck even the constitution. The Framers didn`t give the masses power to vote for new laws, they gave them the power to vote for personnel. People are acting like their right to vote was going to be stripped from them. That`s not true, your right to vote for personnel will not be taken from you.
  160. Profile photo of meepmaker
    meepmaker Male 30-39
    6694 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 8:01 am
    My birthday is Saturday and Friday night Im going to see Primus.
  161. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36198 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 8:03 am
    I`ve yet to meet anyone who could explain to me why Chuck and Larry getting married 850 miles away affects their own life in any way.

    States should all get out of the marriage business. Just have Civil Contracts instead with an automatic end date. Options to renew at 3, 5, or 10 years. Then the individual churches could do whatever their religious consciouses tell them is okay, but without legal consequences.
  162. Profile photo of fiizok
    fiizok Male 40-49
    591 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 8:04 am
    Next stop will be the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where Judge Walker`s decision is almost certain to be affirmed. Appeals courts do not call witnesses or hear testimony. Unless the trial court`s findings of fact lack any credible basis in the evidence, the appeals court must defer to the trial court on findings of fact. Judge Walker issued 80 findings of fact, all conclusive and well supported by evidence.
  163. Profile photo of Boadicea
    Boadicea Female 18-29
    1678 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 9:08 am
    "...that judge (with an agenda. He is openly gay) wielded today."

    So if some straight judge (who thought gays were icky) voted against this-- he *wouldn`t* have an agenda? Oy.

    "I`m opposed to a minority imposing its will on the majority."

    Gays getting married is not imposing ANYTHING on you. Its will? Their will to be married like any straight couple in love? How does that affect you? IT DOESN`T. Gay couples exist, married or not, so just let them get married. I don`t understand this argument. IT HAS NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER ON ANYBODY BUT THE TWO GAY PEOPLE GETTING MARRIED. OMG.
  164. Profile photo of laurjendee
    laurjendee Female 18-29
    202 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 9:09 am
    good for them
  165. Profile photo of Boredered
    Boredered Male 18-29
    2508 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 9:22 am
    Now we drat over majority rules, yay.
  166. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 9:43 am
    "So if some straight judge (who thought gays were icky) voted against this"
    I think the only legitimate reason the judge could disqualify himself from the decision making, is if that judge worked in either campaigns.
  167. Profile photo of pui
    pui Female 18-29
    3575 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 9:46 am
    I`m opposed to a minority imposing it`s will on the majority. Kind of anti-democratic, eh?
    America is not a democracy. It is a republic. If the "majority" voted that all black people should get out of the country, should the government ship them out? NO, because that is unconstitutional. The same applies here.
  168. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36198 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 9:53 am
    It may not get to the appeal stage. An appeal is submitted, but the higher court can just say "nope. that`s the right decision" and thereby avoid the issue. Judges who want the Supreme Court try to avoid having opinions.

    Probably will go to appeal, but hopefully not.
  169. Profile photo of StphnHrrll
    StphnHrrll Female 18-29
    434 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 10:23 am
    Not entirely against gay marriage, but I am against people saying "civil rights this and that" there is plenty of people who can`t marry and want to. Siblings or relatives of any kind. People want multiple spouses, some people love animals, or young children. All of these things which are illegal. You may scream and call me ignorant, but it`s a fact. These people do exist, but because it`s not your brand of perversion you do not rally for these people`s rights. Don`t get me wrong, I don`t hate or even mildly dislike gay people, everyone is entitled to their own life.... but really gay or straight is basically based on your sexually preference (or more basic definition, what gets you off) You shouldn`t pass out civil rights based on what makes you have an orgasm, black people should be offended.
  170. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 10:51 am
    vv @StphnHrrll makes excellent points (which sound a lot like mine! lolz! In other words I agree) which the anti-prop-8 folks have avoided discussing. WHERE does the restriction on who gets married end?
    polyamorous couples exist, married or not, so just let them get married.
    See how easy it is? I`m NOT suggesting gays are all for these other kinds of `marriage` BUT there are lots of groups who WILL use this to get their own version of `marriage` legalized.

    There NEVER was a vote on the legality of slavery in the USA, m-kay? If there was, and the anti-slavery people won, then a judge said "Oh no, it`s our constitutional right to own slaves" y`all would be happy? I THINK NOT! (and neither would I eh?)

    As others have mentioned, it`s great when 1 (one) judge overturns a law you don`t like, less so when they smack down one you`re fond of...
  171. Profile photo of Dolomyte
    Dolomyte Male 18-29
    102 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 10:58 am
    I really enjoy political debates on this forum because there is some genuine intelligence and reasoning among this crowd. Not to mention also, a broad spectrum of religious, ethnic, social, and moral backgrounds.
    We do live in a republic in America, not a democracy.
    Homosexuals are under higher scrutiny without requiring permission to get married, a marriage certificate is therefore unnecessary.
    A minority imposing it`s will on a majority is considered an oligarchy which is anti-democratic. A majority that imposes it`s will on a minority is considered a democracy and is anti-republican.
  172. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36198 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 11:07 am
    @ Dolomyte "Homosexuals are under higher scrutiny without requiring permission to get married, a marriage certificate is therefore unnecessary."

    Unfortunately, the AllMighty does not issue tax credits to gay couples the way the Fed`s do "MARRIED COUPLES". Other things the "Higher Authority" doesn`t cover are . . .

    Survivor benefits.
    Legal resposibility for a spouse`s debt {marriage is responsibility, not just benefits}
    Next-of-Kin status at hospitals and in legal matters.
    The right not to testify agains a spouse {I need that one!}
    Couples Discounts at resorts! ;)
    and the list goes on and on and on
  173. Profile photo of Dolomyte
    Dolomyte Male 18-29
    102 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 11:16 am
    Also @Cajun247 the people can propose legislation and pass it without the legislative or executive branch of government. It is in Article 1 of the US constitution.

    @StphnHrrll The issue is of free will. With the exercise of rights comes responsibility. An animal or child does not have the capacity to exercise those rights of life with responsibility. A child is presumed to at some age have responsibility, an animal not so much. So the preservation of rights to life shall be kept for a child not of age and still a minor.
    As to the freedom of life as it pertains to an animal, that gets kind of fuzzy. Michael Vick goes to prison for violating this right towards dogs but slaughter houses violate this right on a regular basis to cows, pigs, and chickens. Would Michael Vick not have gone to prison if we as a society consumed dog meat? It all comes down to civil rights, a.k.a public opinion.
  174. Profile photo of Dolomyte
    Dolomyte Male 18-29
    102 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 11:22 am
    @Gerry1of1
    The sad truth is in each case of discrimination, the injured party must bring suit in court for the trespasses and against the trespassers. There is lawful recourse for any injustice at law.
  175. Profile photo of JeffBeau
    JeffBeau Male 30-39
    180 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 11:42 am
    People are affected by `gay` marriage. The gov`t & laws view married people differently from single people. The homos` central argument for legal marriage is so each spouse can enjoy the benefits (medical, dental, etc.) the other gets from work. And in case one spouse dies, property & benefits are transferred to the survivor. These benefits are mandated by gov`t in many instances at taxpayers` expense, so yes, others are affected.

    Also, societies are defined by their rules. Ours has a number of rules against specific behavior that do not hurt others, like public nudity, helmet laws, and calling a black person the N-word.

    Minority rights are not implied by republican gov`t. Conversely democracy by definition disenfranchises the minority. In democracy everybody votes on every issue & candidate. In a republic elected representatives vote instead.
  176. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 11:55 am
    StphnHrrll, I`m afraid you`re employing the Slippery Slope Fallacy, which is a well-known logical fallacy going back to classical times. Allowing gay people marriage rights does not mean that next we`ll be legalizing peodphilia or bestiality... You know, those being "perversions" just like homosexuality and all...
  177. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25408 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 12:01 pm
    meh
  178. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 12:12 pm
    "Unfortunately, the AllMighty does not issue tax credits to gay couples the way the Fed`s do "MARRIED COUPLES". Other things the "Higher Authority" doesn`t cover are . . .

    Survivor benefits.
    Legal resposibility for a spouse`s debt {marriage is responsibility, not just benefits}
    Next-of-Kin status at hospitals and in legal matters.
    The right not to testify agains a spouse {I need that one!}
    Couples Discounts at resorts! ;)
    and the list goes on and on and on"

    In the end, it`s basically about money (and civil rights lawl)
  179. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 12:29 pm
    Yeah that whole slippery slope argument is only put forth by morons. You cannot compare 2 consenting adults with animals, children or crimes like polygamy and incest.
  180. Profile photo of MrTwidget
    MrTwidget Male 30-39
    795 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 12:54 pm
    How is gay marriage even an issue? When all this controversy started years back I laughed because I thought it was a joke. Who cares who gets married to whom? It doesn`t effect our lives. If someone wants to marry their dog, let them!
  181. Profile photo of unbwogable
    unbwogable Male 18-29
    555 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 12:59 pm
    MrTwidget, I fully agree. Regardless of how society views gay marriage, or GLBT folks in general, they are still human beings, they are still entitled to the same rights that everyone takes for granted.
    Being gay or transgendered doesn`t make you not human.

    */End soapbox/*
  182. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 1:09 pm
    @madest:

    Why is polygamy a crime?

    Just a question. Don`t read into it.
  183. Profile photo of slayer50515
    slayer50515 Male 18-29
    988 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 1:26 pm
    "Yeah that whole slippery slope argument is only put forth by morons."
    This.
  184. Profile photo of slayer50515
    slayer50515 Male 18-29
    988 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 1:28 pm
    Well actually I`m going to make a few exceptions on that. There really are situations where there are "slippery slopes" so to speak. Like if we randomly nuked Russia right now, that would easily constitute a slippery slope since it would break out into intense nuclear warfare.
    In general "slippery slopes" don`t happen very often, but there are stills some.

    Just wanted to put that out there before someone gets confused and tries to retaliate.
  185. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 1:44 pm
    Boredered - I know the right wing as of late thinks that majority rule should trump constitutional protections (which, amazingly, are in the Constitution to PROTECT minorities from oppression by the majority), but thats not how it works.

    This is the second Federal District Court in the past few months to find gay marriage bans unconstitutional.

    Why? Because the ONLY justification for such bans, when you push opponents of gay marriage on the issue (i.e., arguing to a Court), the argument becomes nothing more than "certain people (typically religious people) really don`t like the idea of gay people marrying. Thus, we shouldn`t allow gay marriage because it would offend those people."

    THIS RULING WAS NOT UNPRECEDENTED.

    Romer v. Evans - Colorado citizens VOTED to pass a proposition that prevented any state government from recognizing gays as a protected class.

    Supreme Court said there was NO reason for the law other than hatred of gays
  186. Profile photo of Nburkie420
    Nburkie420 Male 18-29
    721 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 1:45 pm
    5cats, for the sake of canada, please stop saying eh on this site.
  187. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 1:50 pm
    This case REEKS of Romer v. Evans.

    Come on. Even you people opposed to gay marriage know its because you don`t like gays, either because they are icky, you don`t like butt sex, or Jesus says so. THAT IS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON to single out an identifiable class of persons for different treatment.

    There is A DIFFERENT ANGLE too.

    Supreme Court says marriage is a "fundamental right," as is procreation, and decisions about birth control / abortion. Who holds that right? The INDIVIDUAL.

    Marriage is (counter-intuitively) a right held by the individual - the individual choses who to marry, when, why, etc. Thus, gay-marriage bans tell people who they can or cannot marry. Not allowed unless you can pass strict scrutiny.

    And again, there is no actual, valid, rational argument against gay marriage that doesn`t devolve into "some people don`t like those gays."
  188. Profile photo of EmilyLitella
    EmilyLitella Female 30-39
    16 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 2:01 pm
    That`s so dratin` gay
  189. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 2:02 pm
    "Because Jesus says so" is never a legally sufficient reason, for the simple reason that in America, people do not have to believe in Jesus in order to be protected by the laws.

    "Because we don`t like them" isn`t a legally sufficient reason because "they" haven`t in ANY WAY harmed you, other than in your moral convictions. In order to sue - or to pass a law banning behavior - you have to show some sort of HARM. What harm do gays marrying do, other than pissing off gay-haters?
  190. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 2:18 pm
    @goaliejerry
    I don`t think Jesus said anything about homosexuals.
    @Dolomyte
    Which section?
  191. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 2:18 pm
    Last point, and another one that is lost on religious conservatives. The First Amendment protects freedom of religion - you have the right to think gays are immoral. BUT, the First Amendment ALSO prevents the Federal Government (of which the Courts are a Branch) from ADVANCING or adopting, i.e. respecting the Establishment of, a religion. So courts cannot uphold the law if the only support offered for the law is based on religious morality. To do so would be to establish that the feds think Christianity is best, when instead they have a duty to be NEUTRAL when it comes to religion.

    The First Amendment protects the right to hate others, and protects the hated from discrimination based solely on that hatred. See? Our Constitution strikes a JUST and FAIR BALANCE, allowing our country to prosper, despite the fact that we all know gays want to convert our children into sex slaves.
  192. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 2:19 pm
    "@goaliejerry
    I don`t think Jesus said anything about homosexuals."

    Seems to depend on who you ask, doesn`t it?
  193. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 2:23 pm
    Dolomyte it does not say that the people can pass federal laws without the approval from the president or congress.
  194. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 2:26 pm
    The legislative power (approving) is vested solely in congress (Art 1 Sec 1). The power to pass laws is vested solely in the president (Art 1 Sec 7 Clause 2).
  195. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 2:30 pm
    Do you know who argued, and won, this case?

    Ted Olsen. AKA - the guy who won Bush his first term in Bush v. Gore.

    Think about this. If a majority of people voted to completely ban guns, conservatives would flip out. But thats just "majority" rule, right? How is that different than saying a "majority" should be able to pass laws specifically discriminating against gays?
  196. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 2:33 pm
    "Well actually I`m going to make a few exceptions on that. There really are situations where there are "slippery slopes" so to speak. Like if we randomly nuked Russia right now, that would easily constitute a slippery slope since it would break out into intense nuclear warfare."

    You`re clearly having difficulty with the "slippery slope" concept, slayer50515. A slippery slope usually starts with a relatively benign action and results in a drastic consequence- like having one drink, that leads to another that results in chronic alcoholism and death by cirrhosis of the liver. Your example is of one insanely drastic and horribly damaging action resulting in an even more massively horrible event. That`s not a slippery slope- that`s just a bad choice with predictably awful consequences. That being said, the "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage is nonsense, and it was used to argue against interracial marriage back in the day.
  197. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 2:36 pm
    "My birthday is Saturday and Friday night Im going to see Primus."

    This.
  198. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 2:37 pm
    "It all comes down to civil rights, a.k.a public opinion."

    I might even accept this, along with the recognition that society at large has become more accepting of the existence of homosexuality as a benign fact of human life.
  199. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 2:39 pm
    "That being said, the "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage is nonsense"

    Absolutely. You cannot make such an argument without eventually admitting you believe homosexuals are no better than dog f*ckers and child molsters, and that doesn`t play well in public.
  200. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 2:40 pm
    "Im from cali and am totally against the law, but at the same time I`m against how the judge handled the law. How can you overturn something the people wanted. To me that goes against everything this country and democracy stands for. Thats like saying F*CK to the people. so I dunno"

    So, I dunno- if a State passed a law by popular referendum that required its citizens to attend Baptist Church every Sunday under threat of imprisonment, do you think it would be "against everything this country stands for" if a judge were to "overturn something the people wanted" by declaring the law unconstitutional?
  201. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 2:41 pm
    "That being said, the "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage is nonsense"

    Absolutely. You cannot make such an argument without eventually admitting you believe homosexuals are no better than dog f*ckers and child molsters, and that doesn`t play well in public, for the very reason that more and more people KNOW a homosexual - since society is becoming more accepting and homosexuals are freer to come "out" - and realize that person is no more likely to be a deviant than anyone else, gay or straight.
  202. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 2:45 pm
    "Minority rights are not implied by republican gov`t. Conversely democracy by definition disenfranchises the minority."

    The Bill of Rights explicitly exists to protect the rights of the minority. If it were only around to protect the majority, it would be redundant- since it would be protecting behaviors that the majority of people were in favor of anyway, so there would be no need to provide legal protection for the behaviors. The principle is summed up nicely by Salmon Rushdie: "What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."
  203. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 2:45 pm
    The Best of the WORST Typical Reactions to the Prop 8 Ruling

    I LOVE seeing right-winger`s heads exploding, trying to understand HOW America can protect homosexuals from discrimination.
  204. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 2:47 pm
    "Absolutely. You cannot make such an argument without eventually admitting you believe homosexuals are no better than dog f*ckers and child molsters, and that doesn`t play well in public."

    It has nothing to do with weather or not it "plays well in public." It doesn`t stand up to reason. Sex between two consenting adults is in no way analogous to people who impose their sexuality on children or animals.
  205. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 2:49 pm
    Sbeelz - your last point is certainly correct, I was perhaps just alluding to why the political tides may be turning in America. People won`t let people get away with irrational hate arguments anymore.
  206. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 2:53 pm
    "The fundamental issue here is whether homosexual conduct, with all its physical and psychological risks, should be promoted and endorsed by society."

    From that link - yeah, never mind the 50% divorce rate, or the general risks that come from promiscuous sex. No, the REAL risk to society is consenting males having butt sex.

    Lol, "psychological risks," like what, that you might like it???? Or that you might marry a woman when you are in fact gay, due to social pressure to conform, destroying families when you can no longer stand to hide what you really are? That s*it happens yo, we see the stories repeated over and over (tends to be more high-profile when it involves Republicans, but it happens everywhere).
  207. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 2:53 pm
    "The fundamental issue here is whether homosexual conduct, with all its physical and psychological risks, should be promoted and endorsed by society."

    How is having a monogamous relationship with someone of the same sex any riskier than a monogamous relationship with someone of the opposite sex? The religious right, in constantly beating this dead horse of "all gays do is go around drating eachother all the time they`re so promiscuous blah blah blah," sound absolutely retarded when they then try to argue against gay people wanting to be in committed long-term relationships. It`s like they are pissed because gay people don`t live up to the stereotype of the hyper-promiscuous sex-crazed monster that they themselves created, and want to do everything they can to keep the stereotype alive.
  208. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 3:20 pm
    I`m afraid you`re employing the Slippery Slope Fallacy
    Oh yeah, like this one:
    If we allow certain kinds of abortion in Canada, we`ll end up with NO LAWS AT ALL that restrict abortions, paid for by free medicare!
    HAhahaha! Thats just silly talk, crazy talk!
    Oh wait, there`s NO LAWS at all restricting abortions in Canada. And guess what? Gender selection abortions? Legal! How slippery was THAT slope, eh?
    5cats, for the sake of canada, please stop saying eh on this site.
    No way fellow hoser! I type like I talk! (plus it drives the yanks bonkers, lolz!)

    Again I say: if SOCIETY wants gay marriage, they by all means pass laws! If the majority rejects it, then having a judge impose unwanted laws on `the people` is tyrrany!

    MADEST: Why is poligamy a validly illegal activity? It`s between 2-7 concenting adults, eh?
  209. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 3:24 pm
    Oh and to those who say "it`s a Republic! We elect people to make laws for us, not `majority rule`"
    WELL! They DID make a decision on this law: the elected officials decided to hold a public, majority-rules VOTE! So by your `logic` everyone who supports a Republic SHOULD UPHOLD the result!
  210. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 3:29 pm
    Wow Cat5 America is just too confusing for you. It doesn`t matter that people voted. It doesn`t matter that representatives decided (which they did not). If the law is unconstitutional it`s not allowed. But that`s been told to you 2 dozen times so I suspect this is just another attempt by you to be a right wing republican.
  211. Profile photo of ElSombrero
    ElSombrero Male 13-17
    716 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 3:36 pm
    Well, technically, all you would need to do to have the 52 percent enforced is to get Congress to "amend" the constitution.
  212. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 3:45 pm
    Not so. A constitutional amendment takes 2/3 majority vote then 38 of the 50 states.
  213. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 3:58 pm
    @5Cats

    So by your logic if the majority in a state decides to ban all guns from within its borders, the aristocracy should uphold the result, despite the fact that it is unconstitutional to do so hmm?
  214. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 4:01 pm
    Or maybe the older majority within a state should ability the right to strip 18 year olds of their right to vote and the higher-ups should just respect the decision?

    Despite the fact that is unconstitutional do so (26th amendment)?

    hmm?
  215. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 4:01 pm
    excuse me "should have the ability"
  216. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 4:04 pm
    No they shouldn`t.

    If you argue in favor of these measures then you are anti-constitutional.

    (On the other hand you could try madest posted)

    Stay Canadian my friend.
  217. Profile photo of Dolomyte
    Dolomyte Male 18-29
    102 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 4:32 pm
    I stand corrected. Not legislation but amendments through conventions of the people without the legislative or executive branches of government, 2/3 to propose and 3/4 to affirm. Stated in article 5.
  218. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 4:42 pm
    Not entirely correct Dolomyte

    2/3 of the states via legislatures can call conventions to propose

    BUT you are right saying 3/4 of the states via conventions can ratify amendments.
  219. Profile photo of Boadicea
    Boadicea Female 18-29
    1678 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 6:40 pm
    5Cats shut up for the love of God. All these `lolz` and `ehs` are making us all look retarded. Why don`t you move to Texas or something. Ugh.
  220. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 6:49 pm
    @Boadica
    Considering that`s the state I`m living in right now, I found your statement highly amusing.

    hehe.
  221. Profile photo of IamBored29
    IamBored29 Male 18-29
    648 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 7:24 pm
    I felt this was worth repeating since some feel compelled to drive home their belief in "majority rule" as the be all / end all of decision making in Gov`t.

    "The moment a mere numerical superiority by either states or voters in this country proceeds to ignore the needs and desires of the minority, and for their own selfish purpose or advancement, hamper or oppress that minority, or debar them in any way from equal privileges and equal rights -- that moment will mark the failure of our constitutional system."

    -FDR-

  222. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 7:25 pm
    Well, yes. The English got rid of slavery under a king. The Americans did it after a war and then some political pressure.

    For clarification:

    It was parliament, not the king. The monarch has never really been an outright ruler in England and their power has been constitutionally restricted since 1215(*).

    That particular king was the last one to take direct political action, but that was in 1832 over voting reform and it wasn`t an official use of royal power. Even under the extreme circumstances (two governments collapsed and a revolt was a definite possibility), official use of royal power was going to far. Instead, he used political coercion to rig a vote.

    * In which a small group of noblemen imposed the idea of inalienable rights at swordpoint.

    Come to think of it, basic rights have often resulted from the aristocracy acting alone.
  223. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 7:38 pm
    Yeah that whole slippery slope argument is only put forth by morons. You cannot compare 2 consenting adults with animals, children or crimes like polygamy and incest.

    Of course you can. Homosexuality used to be a crime itself, so your argument is obviously silly right there. You can`t rationally use "it`s a crime" as an argument against something.

    The right question is not "is it a crime?" but "should it be a crime?"

    My baseline question is "Where`s the victim?"

    Polygamy - where`s the victim?

    That`s clear - there isn`t a victim. So there`s no reason for polygamy to be illegal. Your "only two people" argument is no more rational than the "only one person of each sex" argument.

    Incest - where`s the victim?

    Not so clear due to genetics, but in situations where pregnancy cannot occur and all concerned are adults...where is the victim?
  224. Profile photo of Fuego
    Fuego Male 40-49
    1287 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 7:47 pm
    Why don`t you move to Texas or something. Ugh.

    Only if he moves to Dallas. One more bozo there won`t make a difference.
  225. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 7:51 pm
    @Fuego

    This coming from a guy who also lives in a big city?

    I suppose one more bozo in Houston won`t make a big difference there either.

    hehe.
  226. Profile photo of rikakitty
    rikakitty Female 18-29
    683 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 9:44 pm
    If you don`t like it, fine, but don`t be an idiot and ignore the constitutional rights of others. That makes your argument completely invalid.

    On another note, yay. <3 Biiig step.
  227. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 9:45 pm
    Angilion: The slippery slope argument has already came true. No one born in the 1920s would`ve ever believed America would ever allow this, Just as you don`t believe, Right now, The unintended consequences to come.
  228. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 11:28 pm
    Angilion: The slippery slope argument has already came true. No one born in the 1920s would`ve ever believed America would ever allow this
    Crakr, please listen to yourself. Are you really wishing America would revert back to how it was in the 1920s? The 1920s was a swell time to be an American, that`s for sure. As long as you weren`t black. Or a woman. Or Irish. Or gay. Or an atheist. Or an immigrant from another country. America in the 1920s was just awesome, as long as you were a white, anglo-saxon, english-speaking, heterosexual man. For pretty much everyone else, the 1920s kinda sucked. If that`s your idea of utopia, then... I dunno, I`m gonna stop here before I say something abhorrent.

    Instead I`ll fall back on what I`ve said before and I`ll say again: Don`t like gay marriage? Then shut the f*ck up and don`t get one. Easy.
  229. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    August 5, 2010 at 11:38 pm
    davymid: I`m not saying that America revert back to the 1920s, Geesh. You read into one part my comment too much and wouldn`t even touch the real emphasis which is the unintended consequences to come.

    Quit being obtuse and quit trying to paint people as racist homophobic bigots just because they disagree with this decision.
  230. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 4:30 am
    Davymid has a point CJ. You do often reminisce about old times where rights were restricted to everyone but white, straight people.
    These are Americans. Equal to you in the eyes of the law and that is what this is about. We`re a better country because of this.
  231. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 5:50 am
    If the law is unconstitutional it`s not allowed
    Geez madest, you`re awfully PEDANTIC about the language of others, but very loosey-goosey with your own.
    INTHE OPINION of one judge it`s unconstitutional. IN THE OPINION of SEVEN MILLION VOTERS it`s OK.
    There happy? Now it goes up the court system, in accordance with the laws and constitutions of various states and federal blah blah blah.

    @Cajun247 If voters are stupid enough to pass a referendum saying those things, let them stew in their own juices! lolz! But yes it will be appealed just like this is. The process isn`t the problem here (with prop 8) it`s just that I don`t agree with THIS judges decision.
    Nice try at the `strawman` though...
  232. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 5:56 am
    You both miss CJ`s point (as usual).
    UNEXPECTED CONSIQUENCES are what the `slippery slope` is all about! If things go perfectly, then HEY! That`s peachy!
    It`s when your `good intentions` lead to other paths, THAT is the problem.
    And can y`all guarentee that these other things won`t happen? DUH! NOT! No one can predict the future. THAT is what CJ`s refering to. In the past people would never have dreamed that A leads to B leads to R... R? WTF who allowed R to happen? Get it?
    So along with many benifits of gay marriage come some dangers inherent in every change of this magnitude. Clear now? Some accept the dangers and others don`t. It`s called freedom of opinion.
    BUt just moaning over and over that there IS NO risk involved isn`t helping anyone. It`s typical liberal blindness.
  233. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 6:43 am
    Morons use the slippery slope argument. No where in the constitution does it allow the majority to vote on the rights of the minority. You already know all this. It`s been stated to you several times. The constitution is the law of the land. Nobody can usurp it. You are not the Rush Limbaugh of Canada as much as you`d like to be.
  234. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 7:17 am
    "No where in the constitution does it allow the majority to vote on the rights of the minority."

    This.
  235. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 8:59 am
    "INTHE OPINION of one judge it`s unconstitutional. IN THE OPINION of SEVEN MILLION VOTERS it`s OK."

    Seven million voters have no authority to decide whether or not a law is unconstitutional- they can only decide if they want it or not. Voters can pass a law that you have to wear red socks on wednesdays under penalty of death- that doesn`t make it constitutional, and it will be swiftly shot down by the courts.
  236. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 10:39 am
    vv you 3 below vv
    If the government rulers decide to have a Binding Referendum on a matter, then guess what? IT`S BINDING.
    So yes their votes DO count because that`s what the government decided!
    How simple does it need to be? You keep saying "the majority has no voice, only the government!" BUT in this case the government SAID the majority would rule. DUH! It`s not "in the constitution" because it`s a constitutionally valid LAW PASSED LATER!

    madest you get it now? The power to order a referendum is not "in the constitution" BUT THAT`S A MOOT POINT. Try actually answering a question once in a while, you know, just for a change of pace, eh?
    I`m tired of explaining the obvious to 3 year-old minds, it`s just like being at work!
  237. Profile photo of Satkela
    Satkela Female 18-29
    583 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 11:15 am
    I know a lot of people will probably think I`m closed minded or whatever but that`s their prerogative. I think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The whole purpose for marriage was so that man and woman could consummate and make love to procreate. I for one am quite tired of people trying to make it seem as though being gay is a ethnicity. Being gay is a choice. You cannot choose what color you`re born to be. I am also tired of people bashing those who don`t want to "embrace" the ways of homosexuals. You want to be gay then that`s fine but don`t try to force everyone else to conform to the Ideal that two men or two women should marry. If we accept this then we might as well accept all the other sexually immoral things that are going on like bestiality and pedophilia. Hell why not just eliminate marriage all together so that everyone can do whatever they want to whoever they want to so that everyone can practice their "constitutional right"!
  238. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 11:39 am
    You know what Cat5. You know the rules. You`re just being a dick. Worry about Canada. There`s only so many ways one can say the same thing. There was no "binding resolution" as you call it. It was a proposition. Use Google they`ll tell you all about it.
  239. Profile photo of Satkela
    Satkela Female 18-29
    583 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 12:09 pm
    Oh and by the way, not everyone who is against gay marriage is either "a bigot, homophobe, or religious freak" Some just believe that marriage should involve 1 man and 1 woman. My best friend is a homosexual and he himself is against gay marriage. He believes that gays rights aren`t being compromised he thinks that, and these are HIS words not mine "that it`s a lot of pissy fags who want everyone else to do things their way and to accept the fact that what their doing is right." He said he "didn`t need a ring on his finger to express that he loves his boyfriend and that if he wanted the legal and monetary rights that he would just go have a civil union."
  240. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 12:32 pm
    I understand 5cats. Nonetheless even the citizenry has to agree to the constitution. I have to agree to it, follow it to the letter. This overall was a constitutional process.
    @Satkela
    I beg to differ. On the other hand I have heard on the radio a homosexual man claiming that the LGBT movement was hijacked.
  241. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 1:29 pm
    @satkela:

    All a marriage is, is a binding contract of monogamy, to afford the signing parties special rights afforded them due to that contract.

    This is in the eyes of the government.

    In the eyes of God, anyone can get married. If God accepts their marriage, only God knows. It is up to Him to pass that judgment.
  242. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 3:54 pm
    This overall was a constitutional process.
    Right Cajun, it`s still ongoing too! I don`t argue that the judge doesn`t have the "right" to overturn it, I just think he`s made a mistake. Sooner or later it will go to the Supreme Court and then the SC of Appeals! lolz! In the meanwhile, we can listen to madest whine and cry like a little sissy because he`s been proven wrong YET AGAIN!
    madest, if it wasn`t "binding" then WHY did they pass it? Hummmm?
  243. Profile photo of StphnHrrll
    StphnHrrll Female 18-29
    434 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 4:12 pm
    Wait, why does anyone care about polygamy... that confuses me. Someone intimated that it was a bad thing. If it`s 3 or more consenting adults what do you care? BTWI wasn`t doing the "slippery slope" comparison. I was doing a logical one and I already stated that I don`t give a crap about them getting married. What I care about is hearing the "civil rights this and that" comparing yourselves to the same fights African American`s had to go through. That to me is offensive and I`m WHITE!
  244. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 4:17 pm
    Would you have felt differently if a straight judge overturned it or for other reasons?
  245. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 4:56 pm
    Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states and federally. The courts have found that polygamous families are often formed under religious threat with pervasive incestuous relations, child and spousal abuse including the abandonment of boys. There is no minority polygamous groups clamoring for their rights because the courts have deemed polygamy illegal.
  246. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 5:12 pm
    Angilion: The slippery slope argument has already came true. No one born in the 1920s would`ve ever believed America would ever allow this, Just as you don`t believe, Right now, The unintended consequences to come.

    Consequences will never be the same!

    Unintended consequences isn`t a catch-all excuse for not changing things. In fact, not changing things will also have unintended consequences. There are always unintended consequences.

    If you can show that one course of action will result in consequences worse than another course of action, that`s a different matter.

    So, have a go. What consequences of allowing homosexual marriages will happen and are worse than the consequences of not allowing it?
  247. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 5:18 pm
    The whole purpose for marriage was so that man and woman could consummate and make love to procreate.

    This premise is incorrect.

    try to force everyone else to conform to the Ideal that two men or two women should marry.

    This premise is incorrect.

    If we accept this then we might as well accept all the other sexually immoral things that are going on like bestiality and pedophilia.

    This premise is incorrect and also contains the unsubstantiated assumption that homosexuality is sexually immoral.

    So your conclusion, being based on multiple false premises, is wrong.
  248. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 5:27 pm
    Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states and federally.

    As was homosexuality between men not so long ago. Arguing that something should be illegal because it`s illegal is circular.

    polygamous families are often formed under religious threat with pervasive incestuous relations, child and spousal abuse including the abandonment of boys.

    If it`s true, those things stem from specific circumstances. They are not inherent to, or even really related to, polygamy.

    Domestic violence exists. Is that a good enough reason to outlaw all relationships, regardless of whether or not violence occurs within them? Or would it be better to just outlaw the thing that is wrong, i.e. the violence?

    Or a much stronger example - alcohol. Alcohol use is genuinely a factor in all sorts of bad things. Your argument applies much more strongly in favour of outlawing alcohol than outlawing polygamy.
  249. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 5:29 pm
    There is no minority polygamous groups clamoring for their rights because the courts have deemed polygamy illegal.

    If homosexuality was outlawed so strongly that it wasn`t possible for homosexuals to clamour for rights, would that be OK with you? If not, why not?
  250. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 5:53 pm
    Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states and federally - madest
    In the immortal words of Archie Bunker:
    "Whoop de do! Whoop de DO! Whoop de DO!
    madest = concern troll
  251. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 5:55 pm
    There is no minority polygamous groups clamoring for their rights
    SO! You ADMIT they have rights? lolz!
    You are an idiot madest, pure & simple.
    There are PLENTY of groups who support polygamy. Just google it you dumbf*ck!
  252. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 6:41 pm
    There is no minority polygamous groups clamoring for their rights.

    Tell that to Warren Jeffs, Former leader of the FLDS. This opens the floodgates for any group no matter what lifestyle choice they have.

    No where in the constitution does it allow the majority to vote on the rights of the minority.

    Did you just completely skip civics class in school or did you flunk it outright ? Majority rule is well defined in the constitution and there have been many amendments to it over the years. In fact, The 26th amendment specifically restricts anyone under the age of 18 from voting at all.

    So, Don`t lie and say that the majority has no power over the minority. That`s pure liberal bullcrap.
  253. Profile photo of StphnHrrll
    StphnHrrll Female 18-29
    434 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 7:30 pm
    Could you imagine what this Country would be like if majority didn`t rule? "Oh the majority want to be able to decide things for themselves...Oh but look here 7% want the government to decide for them.... well Minority rules!"
  254. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 8:01 pm
    StphnHrrll: With the activist judges we have now that is slowly becoming the case. Law should be legislated and voted on. Judges legislating from the bench is a fear our founding fathers warned about, and tried to guard against.
  255. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 8:12 pm
    majority has power over the minority

    The limitation there (in terms of the federal government anyway) is that they have the power to approve certain personnel NOT laws (Art. 1 Sec. 2 Clause 1 plus Amendment 17). When it comes to the president you are only voting for electors to choose the president. Those electors, however, can then choose whoever they want (they rarely do) (Art 2 clauses 2 & 3). One exception of course in Article 5, even there it is majorities within states not the majority of the entire US.
  256. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 8:15 pm
    One more thing while the Framers may have feared activist judges they also afraid of something called the "violence of faction". As I said earlier James Madison (aka Publius) wrote about this idea Federalist No. 10
  257. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 8:20 pm
    That should say Art 2 Section 1 clauses 2 & 3
  258. Profile photo of Heureux
    Heureux Male 40-49
    1054 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 9:34 pm
    CrakrJak - So, you hate the U.S. Constitution. Why do you live in the U.S. if you hate the very foundation of our legal system? You`d be so much happier in Uganda.

    StphnHrrll - In the U.S., the majority does not rule. The Constitution rules. You may leave for another country with a different Constitution at any time, no one will miss you.
  259. Profile photo of Heureux
    Heureux Male 40-49
    1054 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 9:39 pm
    " What I care about is hearing the "civil rights this and that" comparing yourselves to the same fights African American`s had to go through. That to me is offensive and I`m WHITE! "

    GLBTQ people are human beings, so it is a human rights issue, it is the same as fight as African Americans are, and have been going through. The fact that you are white and offended is irrelevant, neither your whiteness nor your heterosexuality makes you superior to anyone.
  260. Profile photo of Dolomyte
    Dolomyte Male 18-29
    102 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 9:43 pm
    Minority rule? Majority rule? I like that CrakrJak brought up the study of civics. Sorry CrakrJak but the study of civics has been altered, edited, and then completely dropped within the last 60 years of United States public education. I just recently understood this study by studying common law.
    Who rules brings the question of to where does the sovereignty lie.
    If the sovereignty is in one person, a ruler, then it is a monarchy. If the sovereignty is in an elite group of people, an aristocracy, then it is an oligarchy. If the sovereignty is in a government of elected officials, congress, then it is a democracy. If the sovereignty is in each individual then it is a republic.
    "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves....". CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.
  261. Profile photo of Heureux
    Heureux Male 40-49
    1054 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 9:45 pm
    Satkela

    " for one am quite tired of people trying to make it seem as though being gay is a ethnicity. Being gay is a choice. "

    No, Satkela, sexual orienation is not chosen. Heterosexuals do not chose to be heterosexual, homosexuals do not chose to be homosexual, bisexuals do not chose to be bisexual.

    However, in this age of instant access to information, your level of ignorance is chosen.

    Being a liar is also chosen, and your accusation about homosexuals "but don`t try to force everyone else to conform to the Ideal " is a lie, the fact is that homophobes like you try, through laws like Prop 8, to force your sexual ideals on homosexuals.

    As for you imaginary gay friend - there are millions of real GLBTQ people who need and demand civil equality.

    Comparing our relationships to beastiality and pedophilia proves that you are absolutely a bigot, and you`d be more at home in Uganda than in any civilized country.
  262. Profile photo of Dolomyte
    Dolomyte Male 18-29
    102 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 9:48 pm
    More proof of where the sovereignty lies.
    "The very meaning of `sovereignty` is that the decree of the sovereign makes law." American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.

    "The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls 8. "....This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people." California Constitution, Article 1, Declaration Of Rights Sec. 24.

    "It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people`s business....The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." California Government Code, Sec
  263. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 9:48 pm
    uhh Dolomyte you got it the other way around.

    The former is the Republic, and the latter is a Democracy.
  264. Profile photo of Dolomyte
    Dolomyte Male 18-29
    102 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 9:50 pm
    "In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people`s business....The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." California Government Code Section 54950.

    "The state cannot diminish rights of the people." Hurtado v. People of the State of California, 110 U.S. 516.

    "Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627." Black`s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626.
  265. Profile photo of Dolomyte
    Dolomyte Male 18-29
    102 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 9:51 pm
    It is all in the citations.
  266. Profile photo of Heureux
    Heureux Male 40-49
    1054 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 9:53 pm
    CrakrJack

    " No one born in the 1920s would`ve ever believed America would ever allow this, Just as you don`t believe, Right now, The unintended consequences to come."

    Thanks for exposing your inherent racism. The major societal change you are indirectly complaining about is the erosion of racism in the U.S., the recognition that race was not a barrier to equality, which led to recognition that sexual orientation is not a barrier to equality. Of course, both spring from even earlier conclusions about equality and class, gender and wealth.

    The unintended consequence of creating a democratic republic was the eradication of slavery and establishing voting rights for women and ending child labor practices, eradicating segregation, guaranteeing basic rights and protections for workers, and now, recognizing the civil rights of GLBTQ people.

    You don`t get to draw the line at your rights and exclude others. Go to Uganda if you hate GLBTQ people t
  267. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 10:00 pm
    I don`t think the eradication of slavery was an unintended consequence. In fact I think it was the opposite, they planted seed in the original constitution in order to eradicate slavery. The rest I don`t think anyone could prove either.
  268. Profile photo of Dolomyte
    Dolomyte Male 18-29
    102 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 10:15 pm
    You are right about slavery Cajun247.
    Abolition of Slavery
  269. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 6, 2010 at 10:45 pm
    Uganda`s "Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009".

    Wow now THAT`S pure fascism.
  270. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    August 7, 2010 at 1:17 am
    Heureux: You reached so far on that supposition, I`m surprised it didn`t break your back.

    We have restricted peoples rights in this country. For instance, It`s not your right to kill someone. It`s not a 17 year old`s right to vote, It is not your right to possess scheduled narcotics.

    These lines are much older than our country. I didn`t draw them. You don`t get to the right to cross them just because of your lifestyle choice. It is nothing like a persons race, color, or creed. This is not about `civil rights` this is about a new special right. There never was a `right` to same-sex marriage, Just as there was no `right` to have an abortion. In fact, The constitution doesn`t mention marriage or abortion anywhere in it`s text. That means it`s a power to be left up to the states to govern. NOT for activists judges to decide!
  271. Profile photo of Dolomyte
    Dolomyte Male 18-29
    102 posts
    August 7, 2010 at 9:42 am
    The concept of sovereignty is lost with you CrakrJak. All rights are reserved to the people. Restrictions are placed on the authority of the powers of government. Murder is unlawful not because the people do not have the right to kill but that those that are killed have had their right to life infringed. It is the right of the people to have property and possessions on their person and also to be secure in their property and possessions, this includes narcotics as it is narcotics are not specifically abolished by an amendment. Where abortion is conflicting is on the basis of when does a child, infant, fetus, or embryo have the sovereign right of life and when that right should be protected. Suffrage of those 18 or older is not a restriction of rights but a restriction of responsibility. Rights and the responsible exercise thereof is directly correlated.
  272. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    August 8, 2010 at 6:56 pm
    "INTHE OPINION of one judge it`s unconstitutional. IN THE OPINION of SEVEN MILLION VOTERS it`s OK."

    Seven million voters have no authority to decide whether or not a law is unconstitutional- they can only decide if they want it or not. Voters can pass a law that you have to wear red socks on wednesdays under penalty of death- that doesn`t make it constitutional, and it will be swiftly shot down by the courts.

Leave a Reply