The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 34    Average: 3.8/5]
70 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 11374
Rating: 3.8
Category:
Date: 02/07/12 11:30 AM

70 Responses to Cali Court Rules Prop 8 Is Unconstitutional [Pic+]

  1. Profile photo of fancylad
    fancylad Male 30-39
    18833 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 11:27 am
    Link: Cali Court Rules Prop 8 Is Unconstitutional - A fed appeals court ended CA`s ban on same-sex marriage, clearing way for the Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage.
  2. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 11:36 am
    clicky-clicky no work!
  3. Profile photo of panth753
    panth753 Female 18-29
    9237 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 11:36 am
    Yay!
  4. Profile photo of Hellsh
    Hellsh Male 30-39
    86 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 11:39 am
    About time. See you before the supreme court, haters!
  5. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 11:42 am
    wow, you guys still don`t have gay marriage? damn
  6. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 11:44 am
    As long as there are advantages for hetero couples for being married (tax breaks, etc.), any limitation of gay marriage is unconstitutional. Period. If a church wants to not marry someone, fine. If they want to limit membership based on their own rules, fine. They`re a private institution. They can. (Although we could certainly argue that their tax-exempt status should be looked at, but, that`s a whole other issue). But the government can`t choose who gets breaks and who doesn`t based on discrimination of that type (race, religion, sexual orientation). Doing so is, by its very nature, unconstitutional. And I don`t care if 99% of the voting population approves of such discrimination. That still doesn`t make it right. Or constitutional.
  7. Profile photo of Norris
    Norris Male 18-29
    1011 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 11:45 am
    only a matter of time before its legal.

    next thing to make legal? Hmmm Weed?
  8. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36665 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 11:53 am

    "Unconstitutional" could just mean Mitt Gingrich needs to pass a constitutional ammendment banning it. Problem solved for closeted republitards everywhere.
  9. Profile photo of coffeekoneko
    coffeekoneko Female 18-29
    1008 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 11:56 am
    Yessssss!
  10. Profile photo of TheShgn2
    TheShgn2 Male 13-17
    626 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 12:20 pm
    Why is there still even a debate over this? It`s not like you can pray the gays away. The conservatives need to just let this one slide and focus on hating Islam or something equally ridiculous.
  11. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 12:24 pm
    This NEVER would`ve been an issue if marriage was just a PRIVATE matter. But oh no, they had issue certificates and ban polygamy as well.
  12. Profile photo of xiquiripat
    xiquiripat Male 18-29
    2422 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 12:36 pm
    How about this: we make it so only churches can get people married and the government can`t. But the flip is that all the rights and privileges of being a married couple be transferred to Civil Unions which the government CAN give irrespective of sexual orientation. That way if you religious types want to be married you can, but it will only have legitimacy in the eyes of God and you won`t have any legal standing unless you also get a Civil Union.
  13. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 12:55 pm
    xiquiripat, I think that`s almost the perfect solution. The rights/privileges under civil unions would have to be protected by civil rights laws (like, no discrimination based on sexual orientation, etc.), but that`s an easy fix, comparatively. I say "almost" because, why should only churches have the right to marry. What if Joe Smith wants to "marry" people, and what if they want Joe Smith to "marry" them. Since it`s only a ceremony, and has nothing to do with government, that should absolutely be allowed! If I want Luke Skywalker to officiate at my "wedding", why not? But, regardless, as you say, that ceremony would not carry any weight with the government.

    The government shouldn`t be in the business of "marriage".
  14. Profile photo of korahn
    korahn Male 30-39
    1300 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 1:11 pm
    What? WBC didn`t travel to California to protest?
  15. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6169 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 1:14 pm
    SmagBoy1-"As long as there are advantages for hetero couples for being married (tax breaks, etc.), any limitation of gay marriage is unconstitutional. Period."

    Those tax laws apply to everyone. Nothing unconstitutional about them.

    SmagBoy1-"But the government can`t choose who gets breaks and who doesn`t based on discrimination of that type (race, religion, sexual orientation)"

    Hmmm, married people get breaks but singles don`t. Why discriminate between the two? (Oh, so you`re OKAY with the government choosing THAT...)
  16. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6169 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 1:15 pm
    korahn-"What? WBC didn`t travel to California to protest?"

    Please, let`s not bring those idiots into it.
  17. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 1:19 pm
    Those tax laws apply to everyone. Nothing unconstitutional about them.

    It is an unrealistic objective to ask people to marry someone they can`t love, thus unconstitutional.
  18. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 1:20 pm
    If this goes to SCOTUS then Olsen and Boies better write it out like a love letter to Tony Kennedy (no relation to the prez. of the same name). Which I see they already have, with all the invocations of Romer v. Evans. Nice work fellas! :-)
  19. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 1:20 pm
    Hmmm, married people get breaks but singles don`t.

    That is a merit like age, NOT class like ethnicity.
  20. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6169 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 1:24 pm
    Cajun247-"It is an unrealistic objective to ask people to marry someone they can`t love, thus unconstitutional."

    No one`s asking anyone to do anything.

    Hetero couples who live together but are not married don`t get it, either.

    The tax laws apply to everyone, equally. Please provide proof otherwise.
  21. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 1:29 pm
    No one`s asking anyone to do anything.

    It is irrelevant whether anyone is mandated to do so. If it is required that someone do something extraordinary in order to get benefits then there`s a problem.
  22. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 1:31 pm
    Hetero couples who live together but are not married don`t get it, either.

    Homo couples don`t get either way. They`re faced with extraordinary prerequisites (a la form hetero relations) to get benefits.
  23. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 1:32 pm
    Just like blacks and minorities were faced with extraordinary prerequisites (poll taxes, literacy tests et cetera) to vote (and people typically weren`t even required to vote).
  24. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6169 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 1:39 pm
    Cajun247-"If it is required that someone do something extraordinary in order to get benefits then there`s a problem."

    It`s not requiring anyone to do anything extraordinary. The laws apply the same to anyone. If you`re married, you get one benefit. If you aren`t you don`t. That applies to everyone.

    The point in discussion is the definition of marriage.
    Currently marriage is defined as hetero, so a homosexual couple does not qualify for marriage, thus the tax-break. Also not qualified as married are:
    -Single-member marriages.
    -Marriages between more than two members.
    -Marriages between a human and a member of a different non-human species.
    -Marriages between a human and a non-animate object.

    What you`re trying to do is re-define marriage. Fine. More power to you. But the tax laws apply to everyone equally.
  25. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 1:47 pm
    Grendel, from the ruling:

    "We do not mean to minimize the harm that this change in the law caused to same sex couples and their families. To the contrary, we emphasize the extraordinary significance of the official designation of Marriage. That designation is important because Marriage is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but to the couple desiring to enter into a committed lifelong relationship, a marriage by the name of "registered domestic partnership"(or "Civil Union" for that matter,) does not."
  26. Profile photo of defendors87
    defendors87 Male 18-29
    570 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 1:48 pm
    ..... so the supreme court couldn`t rule on prop 8 before this? i don`t get it...
  27. Profile photo of Solvent
    Solvent Male 18-29
    2842 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 1:49 pm
    It`s about time California did something useful.
  28. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 1:52 pm
    so a homosexual couple does not qualify for marriage

    I`m afraid we just disagree, being required to form a relationship with another person whereas others don`t have to for the sake of benefits is extraordinary.

    What you`re trying to do is re-define marriage

    That`s rhetorical nonsense put forth by the far right. It`s definition has never been set in stone.

    Single-member marriages Your point?
    Marriages between more than two members. Being married is a merit not a class, irrelevant.
    Marriages between a human and a member of a different non-human species Not going to happen anyways because non-homo sapiens do not understand the concept of a contract.
    Marriages between a human and a non-animate object. Same as non-homo sapiens.
  29. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 1:54 pm
    And another thing- where exactly is Marriage universally defined as exclusively heterosexual? Not in my state bucko, and we`re perfectly fine with that.

    I get really tired of the put on cons use of hyperventilating over the "definition" of Marriage. When we`re all *quite aware* that cons don`t just get upset and freak out over poor little Merriam Webster over there...
  30. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:00 pm
    SmagBoy1, I have a refinement to the idea that I think would address your objections: split it into *three* seperate things into three seperate things with three different names, not two.

    So:

    Civil union (partnership, whatever, the name doesn`t matter) - controlled by the legal system and tax office because it has legal status and affects taxation. Or drop the tax thing entirely - why should people who don`t get married be penalised by higher taxes? That`s essentially a fine for not marrying.

    Wedding - personal ceremony for the people marrying, which is what the word originally meant anyway (it`s Old English, weddian, and means "to vow"). This would cover the personal aspect and you could have Joe Smith or Luke Skywalker officiating if you wanted to.

    Blessing - religious ceremony granting religious approval of the union, in accordance with whatever the rules of that religion are.

    They are seperate things, so it makes sense to n
  31. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:08 pm
    "Marriages between more than two members."
    Being married is a merit not a class, irrelevant.

    You`ve just countered your own argument - if being married is a merit not a class then it can be restricted in any way people with enough power want it to be. You want to it to be restricted to forbid polyamorous marriages. Some other people want it to be restricted to forbid homosexual marriages.

    Since you`ve argued against your own moral position, what you`re left with is a straightforward power play - which group has the most power? Does yours have enough power to impose your favoured restrictions on marriage while denying them the imposition of theirs? Which of you can most effectively abuse politics and propaganda to falsely claim a moral high ground you`re both equally unentitled to?
  32. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6169 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:13 pm
    QueenZira-"Grendel, from the ruling: "

    Actually I haven`t given my stance on gay marriage.

    I`m just stating that Cajun247`s attempt at logic concerning the tax laws was a fallacy. They apply, accross the board, the same to everyone.

    QueenZira-"where exactly is Marriage universally defined as exclusively heterosexual?"

    For the most part, it`s been written by historical precedence, or culture if you will(as have pretty much all of our norms). It`s a difficult and laborious process to change the law..and even more so the attitudes.

    Solvent-"so the supreme court couldn`t rule on prop 8 before this?"

    Nope, there`s a long, drawn-out process it has to go through. The Lawyers HAVE to be able to make as much money as possible out of it. If it went straight to the US Supreme Court, those lawyers would see their fees cut by 90%.
  33. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:21 pm
    They apply, accross the board, the same to everyone.

    Of course everyone has to follow the law, they don`t affect everyone the same way though.

    For the most part, it`s been written by historical precedence, or culture if you will(as have pretty much all of our norms). It`s a difficult and laborious process to change the law..and even more so the attitudes.

    Polygamy was standard practice in Medieval Europe, and marriage certificates in America weren`t issued until late-19th century. Even Ancient Rome and regions of China certified marriage between two members of the same sex.
  34. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:31 pm
    @Angillion

    How so? Being married is a merit because it is a choice you make, having African ancestry isn`t a merit because it`s not a choice.
    I understand aging isn`t a choice either but is still a merit as it was and is well understood since ancient times that children do not understand the world like adults do. Same reasoning applies to the mentally impaired.
    Mainly the state can make laws based on choices people make.
  35. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6169 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:32 pm
    Cajun247-"Of course everyone has to follow the law, they don`t affect everyone the same way though. "

    Nor did anyone ever claim they could, or should. Laws concerning registration of sex offenders apply to everone, but reality affect only convicted sex offenders. Would you like is some other way?

    Cajun247-"Polygamy was standard practice in Medieval Europe"

    And here, it`s not. Our culture is not that of Medieval Europe. Your point?

    Cajun247-" and marriage certificates in America weren`t issued until late-19th century."

    And now, they are. They have become part of our cutlure. Your point?

    Cajun247-"Even Ancient Rome and regions of China certified marriage between two members of the same sex."

    And here, and now, we don`t (but soon may). We are not in the culture of Ancient Rome and regions of China. Your point?
  36. Profile photo of TruTenrMan
    TruTenrMan Male 30-39
    2553 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:32 pm
    I just find it funny how the court system (whose sole purpose is to uphold the constitution) overruled a state law concerning a state-granted document voted on by the state`s citizens. There is no amendment to the constitution granting marriage. That was left up to the states to govern. The state governed and it was squashed. It should be the end of the story until someone at the state level tries to overturn it with another vote later on.
  37. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:34 pm
    Grendel lemme try and divine it mmkay? Conservative=opposition, and your posts say as much.

    Angilion- I`m gonna let Jon take it from here and that`s the end of it.
  38. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:35 pm
    Your point?

    The definition has never been set in stone, the only agreement is that it is between two people.

    Laws concerning registration of sex offenders apply to everone, but reality affect only convicted sex offenders

    Yes because they chose to violate that child`s liberty. Your point?
  39. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:37 pm
    Tnrman the state law has been argued to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Constitution. Plus, it is no majority`s right to vote away unilaterally the rights of a minority. That`s the very definition of Unconstitutional.
  40. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:41 pm
    Even Ancient Rome and regions of China certified marriage between two members of the same sex.

    The only example I`m aware of from ancient Rome involved Nero, castration and a whole slew of nastiness.

    There are some references to homosexual relationships in ancient Rome, but not *marriages*. If you`re going to honestly use ancient Rome as an example, you`ll have to switch sides.

    Then there`s ancient Greece, which is generally avoided as an example because a lot of the homosexual relationships in it would be classed as paedophilia nowadays (and usually ended when the younger person reached 17).

    History isn`t big on examples of homosexual *marriage*. Homosexual sex, yes. Homosexual relationships, yes. Homosexual marriage, no.
  41. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:42 pm
    Great ideas, Angilion! I like the three designations! They make good sense and are quite logical. And they don`t step on any toes. :-)

    MeGrendel, actually, I`m *not* okay with singles not getting tax breaks that married couples do. I don`t believe that government should have anything to do with how we live our personal lives. The original idea, I assume, was to try to give breaks to those starting families, but, there are now all sorts of tax breaks regarding children and healthcare, so, no, actually I`m *not* okay with discriminating between singles and marrieds.
  42. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:43 pm
    @Angillion

    Fine maybe I am exaggerating.
  43. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:44 pm
    @Angillion

    How so? Being married is a merit because it is a choice you make, having African ancestry isn`t a merit because it`s not a choice.
    I understand aging isn`t a choice either but is still a merit as it was and is well understood since ancient times that children do not understand the world like adults do. Same reasoning applies to the mentally impaired.
    Mainly the state can make laws based on choices people make.

    I see you have carefully avoided the example I actually gave and instead substituted some other ones and passed them off as mine.

    Was that deliberate or did you just not bother reading my post before replying to it, instead relying on your own assumptions about anyone who doesn`t wholly agree with you?
  44. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:45 pm
    TruTenrMan, majority does not mean Constitutional or legal. Up all the way through the 1940s or 50s, I`d bet some states could have passed laws allowing for slavery. That doesn`t make it right. Or Constitutional.
  45. Profile photo of Tetragramma
    Tetragramma Male 18-29
    65 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:50 pm
    Angillion-

    You don`t think that the lack of any homosexual marriages was because that men actually OWNED women?
    Up until the last few hundred years, society was entirely dominated by men and the definition of marriage was one of ownership. Dowries were payment for property. Now in most parts of the world, it doesn`t work that way.
  46. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:50 pm
    QueenZira:

    You appear to be trying to portray me as being opposed to homosexual marriage. Why else would you "answer" me by linking to a video in favour of it?

    If you have no counter-argument for the things I`ve actually written, you could try digging deep into yourself and searching to try to find enough scraps of honesty and integrity to remain silent. Or you could make stuff up and pretend it`s mine, to smear me. It all depends on what kind of person you are.
  47. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:51 pm
    @Angillion

    You`ve convinced me, marriage in the US should just back to the way it was before marriage certificates were issued: a private contract. Fortunately that arrangement would make DOMA and other Federal Laws as they would go beyond regulating interstate commerce.

    Satisfied?
  48. Profile photo of bompa1997
    bompa1997 Male 60-69
    92 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:51 pm
    MY opinion is that something that has been passed by the vote of the people TWICE doesn`t have any place in the court system at all. What good is our proposition process if everything gets overturned by somebody???????

    I think I will start a proposition which states that any proposition passed by the people goes into effect immediately and there is ABSOLUTELY NO way to overturn it in court.
  49. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:55 pm
    You don`t think that the lack of any homosexual marriages was because that men actually OWNED women?

    No, because that wasn`t the case in ancient Rome (the culture used as an example). It wasn`t the case in most times and places, except in cases of slavery (obviously) which was not sex-specific and had no relevance to marriage (only free people could marry, unsurprisingly).

    Feminist hyperbole and propaganda is not reality and I`m not a follower of that collection of irrational prejudices, so of course I`m not going to use it in lieu of thinking.
  50. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:56 pm
    I`m going to go think about my stance on the issue.

    I think I will start a proposition which states that any proposition passed by the people goes into effect immediately and there is ABSOLUTELY NO way to overturn it in court.

    So you propose to turn our REPUBLIC into a DEMOCRACY? Where by the way the constituency can voluntary shrink itself? Sorry bub, bad idea.
  51. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:57 pm
    No I`m not angilion, I`ve merely offered a rebuttal to your predictable run on a tangential issue.

    Which you would know, if you actually viewed it.

    The acronym for sexual minorities stands as thus GLBT. G. L. B. T. Note the conspicuous lack of a P in that formulation. Until the day science affirms P to be in that same category of minority sexual orientations/ gender identities in need of protection, I will only back those designations.

    And that`s all I`m gonna say on that matter herein.
  52. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:58 pm
    You`ve convinced me, marriage in the US should just back to the way it was before marriage certificates were issued: a private contract. Fortunately that arrangement would make DOMA and other Federal Laws as they would go beyond regulating interstate commerce.

    Satisfied?

    Would make DOMA and other Federal laws...what?

    Since I didn`t say that marriage should be a private contract, you can`t possibly have been convinced that it should be by my posts (which, to belabour the point) didn`t say it should be.

    Next time you argue with yourself for rhetorical reasons, please don`t put my name in it.
  53. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 2:58 pm
    And again Angilion, if you *refuse* to see female subordination quite plain throughout history...Well there are none more blind than those who refuse to see.
  54. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 3:00 pm
    Would make DOMA and other Federal laws...what?

    It would make them unconstitutional.
  55. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 3:04 pm
    MY opinion is that something that has been passed by the vote of the people TWICE doesn`t have any place in the court system at all. What good is our proposition process if everything gets overturned by somebody???????

    I think I will start a proposition which states that any proposition passed by the people goes into effect immediately and there is ABSOLUTELY NO way to overturn it in court.

    Whoa! You`d utterly negate the entire constitution of the USA? That`s rather radical.
  56. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 3:08 pm
    And again Angilion, if you *refuse* to see female subordination quite plain throughout history...Well there are none more blind than those who refuse to see.

    That applies extremely well to people who can see only their own prejudices. Like feminists.

    The statement was not that women were subordinate to men in many times and places in history.

    The statement was made without qualifiers (i.e. referring to ALL women and ALL men in ALL times and ALL places) that women were SLAVES of men.

    You are making an utterly untrue statement in order to misrepresent reality and people who disagree with you. Which is par for the course for a feminist (or a follower of any other biopolitical ideology - they`re all inherently nasty and prejudiced).
  57. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 3:13 pm
    It just seems to me that the ruling has overturned Prop 8 for the wrong reasons.
  58. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 3:18 pm
    And that`s all I`m gonna say on that matter herein.

    I doubt it.

    You oppose a form of consensual marriage between adults because you don`t like it.

    Just like the people who oppose homosexual marriage.

    You make a false appeal to authority to "support" your position.

    Just like the people who oppose homosexual marriage.

    Sure, you use "science" and they use their god, but that`s just a matter of names because you`re just using "science" as an authorative name to assign to your own opinions, i.e. just like they`re using their god.

    You say that your favoured group excludes the group of people you don`t like.

    Just like the people who oppose homosexual marriage.

    You`re just like them.
  59. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 3:21 pm
    bompa1997, majority rule does not equal just or fair or free of discrimination. If it did, we`d likely still have slavery, or at least Jim Crow laws, in the South. Just because a majority believe something doesn`t make it right.
  60. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3359 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 3:24 pm
    "And now, they are. They have become part of our cutlure."

    As have same-sex marriages. Your point?
  61. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6169 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 3:45 pm
    QueenZira-"Conservative = opposition,"

    Bad Logic. I know quite a few homosexual conservatives.

    QueenZira-"and your posts say as much"

    My post say what they say. What you `devine` from them are your own biases.

    If marriage gets redefined to include homosexual couples, it`s not going to affect me or my wife in any way. It WILL affect a few friends, but only in the positive sense.

    My posts SAY that Cajun`s logic was flawed. Nothing more.

    Cajun24-"Your point?"

    An example of a law that only affects a few people. Most do.

    jtrebowski-"As have same-sex marriages. Your point?"

    I see you didn`t care to post my part that said about gay marriage: "And here, and now, we don`t (but soon may).".

    Same sex marriages have not, as yet, become part of the culture. It may (probably will) become allowable by the culture, but will take longer to become inbeded into
  62. Profile photo of LillianDulci
    LillianDulci Female 18-29
    2674 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 4:17 pm
    "MY opinion is that something that has been passed by the vote of the people TWICE doesn`t have any place in the court system at all. What good is our proposition process if everything gets overturned by somebody???????"

    So majority rule 100% of the time? Say 51% of voters in a certain state decided black people cannot marry anyone who isn`t black. They can marry other black people, but no caucasians, no asians, no hispanics, etc. You actually think, because 51% (or even 99.9%) of the people voted for it, it should become law and be unable to be challenged except by asking the same exact people to vote opposite of what they already voted? That`s not how our country works, and that most definitely should not be how our country works. It allows the majority to easily stomp on the rights of the minority.
  63. Profile photo of LillianDulci
    LillianDulci Female 18-29
    2674 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 4:26 pm
    As for the issue of allowing marriages between more than 2 people. Well, it`s partially solved by allowing homosexual marriage (as long as there`s an even number of people in the multi relationship, they could technically have a ceremony with all members and all of them become legally bounded with 1 of the people in the relationship).

    But as for allowing it in general, I support it as long as it doesn`t give them /extra/ benefits over 2 people marriages. I`ve never been married so I`m having a hard time coming up with an example, so I`ll use a really petty example so hopefully people will understand what I mean. Some membership cards will give a 2nd card free or reduced price to a spouse. If it`s a multiple marriage, it should still only apply to 1 spouse and not to every spouse. That sort of thing.
  64. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14621 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 7:06 pm
    People who oppose same sex marriage today are so going to look like someone who`d kick a black woman off a bus with a couple of decades hindsight.

    So even if you don`t feel comfortable with it, it`d be best not to post evidence of your opposition on-line where your kids or grand kids will be able to retrieve and look it up later.

    "Grandad, look what I found on i-am-bored. It makes you look like a hater. You suck".
  65. Profile photo of Altaru
    Altaru Male 18-29
    3483 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 8:45 pm
    Why in the hell did the government have to stick their fingers into private matters like relationships in the first place?

    There should be no benefits or negatives across the board concerning marriage. PERIOD.

    Granting benefits for doing something, then telling certain people (who are capable of making their own decisions) that they can`t choose to do it because they`re different is discrimination, and the government is not allowed to discriminate between it`s citizens.

    Which means the government has two options:

    Open the door for all forms of relationships (between consenting adults, mind you. The ones capable of making their own decisions),

    OR

    get out of marriage all-together.
  66. Profile photo of Viking864
    Viking864 Male 40-49
    1444 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 8:49 pm
    This is ridiculous, it`s not like the Greeks ever achieved anything throughout history
  67. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32810 posts
    February 7, 2012 at 9:25 pm
    Hey! I don`t comment on EVERY "homosexuality thread" on IAB! So there!
    Oh wait... heck!
  68. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25420 posts
    February 8, 2012 at 12:38 pm
    k then
  69. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6950 posts
    February 8, 2012 at 1:21 pm
    Draculya

    Very well put, sir.
  70. Profile photo of Zeegrr60
    Zeegrr60 Male 40-49
    2106 posts
    February 8, 2012 at 11:46 pm
    It`s always fun to look at the faces of the morons when they figure out what they did was illegal. Here`s hoping we see those faces more and more...`cause they funny!

Leave a Reply